Planning Commission

CITY OF BATTLE CREEK PLANNING COMMISSION 10 North Division, Battle Creek, MI 49014 Minutes for May 28, 2025 MEETING CALLED TO ORDER: By Commissioner Hughes at 4:00 p.m. ATTENDANCE: Roll call was taken. Comm. Hughes, present Comm. Denison, absent Comm. Godfrey III, present Comm. Moton, absent Comm, O’Donnell, absent Comm. White, absent Comm, Gray, present Mayor Behnke, present Comm. Morris, present Staff Present: Melody Carlsen, Administrative Assistant, Travis Sullivan, City Planner, Marcel Stoetzel, Deputy City Attorney. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 23, 2025. MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER GODFREY TO APPROVE THE APRIL 23, 2025 MEETING MINUTES. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MORRIS. ROLL VOTE: Commissioner Hughes asked everyone in favor to signify by saying “aye”. ALL IN FAVOR, NONE OPPOSED, MOTION APPROVED. CORRESPONDENCE: Yes, two letters from residents were presented to the body. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS: None. PUBLIC HEARINGS/DELIBERATIONS: A. Rezoning Request #R01-25- Petition from the City of Battle Creek to rezone the unaddressed property located along W Columbia Ave., Parcel #0619-41-700-0 currently zoned R-1A, Single- Family Residential District to I-2 Heavy Industrial District, due to the existing character and the immediately adjacent I-2 zoning and commercial use to the southwest, pursuant to Section 1281.01 of the zoning code. Legal description of the property proposed for rezoning is as follows: NEWTOWN ADD LOTS 13 THRU 20 & NORTH 15 FEET OF LOTS 45 THRU 48. Staff Presentation: Travis Sullivan Questions from Commissioners: Commissioner Godfrey inquired to the property line after the property was split and if it could be equal to the property line on either side of this property other than having it indented. 1 Travis Sullivan responded: the slit indent of the property line was to accommodate a setback for the garage on the North side of the property and to try and ensure this residential property does become legally non-conforming. Mayor Behnke asked if there were any other parcels in this area who’s zoning needs to be changed due to the zoning change the City did a few years ago. Travis Sullivan responded: staff is not currently aware of any at this time and no one has reached out to staff after that change was made. This may be an area that we look at as the Master Planning process continues through the remainder of this year and into next year, due to the nature of the uses in this area and it location. Commissioner Hughes asked if the proposed industrial zone allows for outdoor bulk storage of materials and heavy equipment and if so is it permitted by right or will it need a special use permit, are hours of operation covered under uses and if these concerns were a separate matter, now that the parcel is split is there any implications with the setbacks, parking, storage with this change. Travis Sullivan responded: regardless of whether which zoning district, I-2 or R1A, the existing use is still considered legal non-conforming use. Nuisance ordinance can be looked at for noise, dust, fumes, hours of operation or other nuisance type issues and can be addressed as another matter as they do not pertain to the Zoning of this property. Setbacks in an I-2 district would apply to any new construction, to include side, rear and parking. Any future development of the parcel does not include any portion of along Newton, that portion are strictly for residential uses that are permitted in the R1A district. Public Comment: Cheryl Daoust of 251 Newton Ave was present to speak. Diana Staib of 266 Newton Ave was present to speak. Bill Gibson of the parcel in question was present to speak. Comments by Commissioners: Commissioner Morris expressed concerns regarding environmental issues and if this item should be tabled so there is time to address these concerns. Commissioner Gray asked if environmental is addressed and part of the application process or if State approval is needed for anything environmental around that property. Inquired to the current use of the property and day to day operations, do we have any record or feedback on noise complaints regarding this property. Travis Sullivan responded: regarding the existing use of the property, because it was existing prior to when the current zoning was inactive, this portion of the property did not go through site plan review or the process that would bring those items into play, such as investigations or reports that the owner would have to provide. We can look at the use itself but it’s the use, it’s the existing use that is separate than the zoning piece of the property and did not go through site plan review. Regardless of what the property is zoned, it is considered existing legal non-conforming use. Currently nothing triggers a site plan review. Stated he is not familiar with the property owner’s specific use of the property as far as hours of operation or items like that. If something is happen at the property that is in violation of the nuisance ordinance, it can be dealt with regardless of the zoning. Commissioner Hughes clarified the item before the body was regarding the designated use or classification of the property not the existing use or owner. Clarified zoning regarding neighboring properties. Asked about permitted use during previous zoning designations. That Master Plan has this area listed as production and employment centered use. Travis Sullivan explained prior to the 2022/2023 rezoning of the area to single family, it was all entirely zoned I-2, Heavy Industrial. Commissioner Godfrey asked if the current property owner utilizing the land in the manner to which it is currently zoned. Commented on nuisance ordinance after dark and the City looking into that. 2 Travis Sullivan responded: not in the manner it is currently zoned. We may need to look at the noise ordinance language is written in a way that it can be implacable. The noise ordinance applies to all districts within the City regardless of current use or zoning. Commissioner Hughes addressed a comment about when the use began. Was the use, when it started was it permitted by it’s zoning at that time. Travis Sullivan responded: we would have to look at the old zoning ordinance to see what the list of permitted uses was at that time. If having to go back before 2016, we are not certain that information is available. Commissioner Gray asked if we have any record or feedback on noise complains in regards to this property. Travis Sullivan responded: This is the first that we were made aware of complaints regarding this. Prior to these comments we have not received any complaints. Commissioner Hughes stated that he lives close by and there are certainly some noise concerns. MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER GODFREY TO APPROVE ITEM #R01-25. SECONDED BY MAYOR BEHNKE. Commissioner Gray expressed she would like to see the owner work through some of the concerns brought forward to day, in good faith with their neighbors, asked if the owner was aware and had an opportunity to address the concerns prior to the meeting today, are we able to ask in good faith working with residents toward resolve and to be able to hear by the time this comes before City Commission to what result has come from those conversations. Commissioner Hughes asked the City Attorney what actions could be taken to help address some of the concerns with this property. Clarified with staff that the existing owner and its use is going to be legally non-conforming if we rezone or not rezone today, if this item is postponed what is the action of staff during that time, what can be done. Attorney Stoetzel responed explained how the process could move forward if the item is postponed or voted on now and moves City Commission. Commissioner Morris express his concern with addressing the noise complaints and if this item should be postponed until those concerns are addressed. Would like to see things worked out with the neighborhood so everyone is happy. Commissioner Gray asked if the owner is aware of all of these concerns and given the opportunity to come here today and address the concerns. Were they aware of the concerns before and had the opportunity to address them before coming here today. Travis Sullivan responded: No, to be clear the application was presented from the City due to the rezoning of the entire area and the application is not from the owner. All feedback was recently provided and not given to the owner but was included in the meeting packet. The owner has not had the opportunity to respond directly to the concerns. Commissioner Gray address the City attorney and asked if we were able to ask for that in good faith working with resident toward resolve to be able to hear by the time it comes to the City Commission of what result has come from those conversations. Attorney Stoetzel responded: I believe you can make that request. The application is from the City and it is my understanding that this is the first the owner may have been brought aware of the noise issue. The City is going to look at if the noise ordinance covers this type of activity at the property. Again, this is a separate issue, entirely separate issue than zoning. Commissioner Hughes asked that the existing owner and its use is going to be legally non-conforming if we rezone or not rezone today, correct? Travis Sullivan responded: Correct. 3  Commissioner Godfrey feels the issue he is hearing today by the homeowners is that the issue is not the zoning but it is how the land is being utilized by the current owner and are not concerned with the zoning. Feels the body should pass the motion and let the item move onto the City Commission. ROLL VOTE: ALL IN FAVOR, NONE OPPOSED, MOTION APPROVED. #R01-25 will move forward to the June 17th City Commission meeting. OLD BUSINESS: None. NEW BUSINESS: A. 2024 Annual Report Staff Presentation: Travis Sullivan COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: Cheryl Daoust of 251 Newton Ave spoke. COMMENTS FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS AND STAFF: None. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Hughes adjourned the meeting at 4:54 pm. Submitted by: Melody Carlsen, Administrative Assistant, Planning & Zoning. 4