| | | | | | | | | 
| Ordinance | NO. 03-2017 |
| | | |
| | | | | | | | | A proposed ordinance to rezone Parcel 0625-38-258-0, vacant property at Riverside and I-94, from the R-1B Single Family Residential district to the C-6 Major Highway Interchange Business district. | | | |
| | | | | | | | | BATTLE CREEK, MICHIGAN - 1/3/2017 | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
The City of Battle Creek Ordains:
Section 1. An ordinance to rezone Parcel 0625-38-258-0, vacant property at Riverside and I-94, from the R-1B Single Family Residential district to the C-6 Major Highway Interchange Business district. The subject property legally described as:
PART OF SE ¼ OF SW ¼ OF SEC 25 T2S R8W: COMM NE COR OF SE ¼ OF SW ¼ OF SD SEC 25 – S 00° 52’ W ALG SD N & S ¼ LI DIST OF 176.9 FT TO TRUE POB – N 88° 57’ W 662.28 FT – S 00° 42’ W ALG ELY LI OF LOT 20 OF PLAT OF OAKSIDE PARK DIST OF 169.98 FT TO SE COR OF LOT 19 OF SD PLAT – N 88° 59’ W 661.63 FT TO W LI OF SE ¼ OF SW ¼ OF SD SEC & SW COR OF LOT 18 OF SD PLAT – S 00° 32’ W 415.70 FT TO NLY LI OF I-94 ROW – ALG SD NLY LI AS FOLLOWS: ALG ARC TO LT 193.77 FT (RAD 5539.65 FT; CHORD BRG N 81° 33’ 53” E 193.77 FT) – S 09° 24’ 55” E 65 FT – ALG SD NLY DIST OF 1165.85 FT (RAD 5604.65 FT; CHORD BRG N 74° 45’ 20” E 1163.75) – NLY ALG N & S ¼ LI DIST OF 290 FT M/L TO POB, CONT 12.27 AC, SUBJ TO HWY EASE OVER ELY 55 FT FOR RIVERSIDE DR
Section 2. Should any section, clause or phrase of this Ordinance be declared to be invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any part thereof, other than the part so declared to be invalid.
Section 3. All ordinances or parts of ordinance in conflict with any of the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed, saving any prosecution, criminal or administrative appeal pending on, or violation cited on or before the effective date of this ordinance, which shall remain subject to the ordinance provision existing at the time of the alleged violation.
Section 4. Except as otherwise provided by law, this Ordinance shall take effect seven (7) days from the date of its publication, in accordance with the provisions of Section 401 of the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act.
Nays: BEHNKE, FARIS, FLORES, GRAY, HELMBOLDT, SHERZER
Absent: BALDWIN, WALTERS, OWENS
MOTION FAILED
DEFEATED | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Battle Creek City Commission
1/3/2017
Action Summary | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Staff Member: | Christine M. Zuzga, AICP, Planning Mgr | | Department: | Planning |
| | | |
| | | | | | | | | SUMMARY
| A proposed ordinance to rezone Parcel 0625-38-258-0, vacant property at Riverside and I-94, from the R-1B Single Family Residential district to the C-6 Major Highway Interchange Business district.
| BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS
| | There are no City funds, infrastructure, or services requested with this application. |
HISTORY, BACKGROUND and DISCUSSION
| The petitioner of the request is this 11.88 acre parcel is the property owner, Mr. Michael Eyde, who has owned the property since the late 1980’s/early 1990’s. He is seeking approval of a zoning reclassification to C-6 Major Highway Interchange General Business district. At this time, Mr. Eyde has stated the intentions are to construct a hotel and potentially a restaurant, however no plans have been submitted at this time.
Even though the petitioner has provided this additional information, the request for a rezoning solely deals with the zoning of the property and subsequently the uses that would be permitted on the property. Because this is a straight rezoning request, as opposed to a conditional rezoning request, the planning enabling legislation does not allow for conditions to be placed on an approval; therefore, discussion regarding use should relate to any potential use that would be allowed by the new zoning district if it were approved.
The attached staff report outlines the uses that would be permitted if the request were approved, as well as detailed site information and analysis.
| DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUE
|
| POSITIONS
| The petitioner attended the December 7, 2016 meeting of NPC 11, and the NPC voted to deny the request of a rezoning.
The notice of the December 14, 2016 public hearing at the Planning Commission meeting was published and mailed pursuant to state law. City staff has received a few letters in opposition to the request, they are attached to the staff report and application. Staff has also received a few phone calls in support of the request. A group of residents who live north of the property, Francis and Larry O’Neil, Joan Grieger, and Cheri Branch, have put together a binder to the Planning and City Commissions outlining their concerns; this was presented to the City Commission at their December 20, 2016 meeting. They also submitted a petition encouraging the Planning Commission to deny the request; this is attached to this summary.
A public hearing was held at the December 14, 2016 Planning Commission meeting with multiple public comments encouraging denial of the request. With an 7-1 vote, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the request, citing the findings of the staff report and the following concerns:
While the vision and goals/objectives of the City make very clear that growth and development should occur and the future land use shows only the western portion as office/commercial, the master plan is very clear that development needs to be thoughtfully integrated and designed to complement existing land features, physical and visual integrity, and with provide appropriate buffers when adjacent to residential neighborhoods. The Planning Commission reviewed a draft site layout submitted the day of the Planning Commission meeting by the applicant (attached) but felt that it did not contain enough information to ensure careful, low impact development that wouldn't negatively impact the neighbors. Further concerns regarding traffic impact and water supply were discussed. |
| | | |
|