Planning Commission Delegates Site-Plan Review to Staff Committee and Unveils Revised Policy

The City of Kalamazoo Planning Commission voted to delegate site‑plan review authority to the city’s staff Site Plan Review Committee for another year and heard a staff briefing on a revised site-plan policy and process intended to make project review more predictable and easier to navigate for applicants.

Planning staff described a three-phase development workflow — predevelopment intake, site-plan review and permitting/inspections — and said the policy rewrite focuses on clearer checklists for full reviews, an explicit pre‑site-plan checklist meeting and better public-facing materials. Staff said the revised approach aims to reduce avoidable revisions by making code references and required items explicit and by providing a single point of contact for applicants during predevelopment.

Staff identified key personnel and functions: PJ Thuringer, development administrator, as the primary point for predevelopment inquiries; Emily Shymanski, planner and site‑plan coordinator, as the person who administers and schedules site-plan reviews; and Roger Iveson as the building official handling permit and inspection stages. Staff said the city also authorized an additional civil‑engineer position focused on site‑plan review to improve capacity and reduce delays when other infrastructure issues require immediate attention.

The revised process includes a mandatory checklist meeting (to walk applicants through a code-referenced list of required items) followed by a full site-plan review. Staff said many of the city’s technical standards (water, sanitary, stormwater, fire, traffic, environmental) remain required, but the checklist makes clear which code sections apply and links to reference documents. Staff described turnaround targets and tracking measures: predevelopment inquiries are triaged and the department aims to schedule an initial site-plan review within three business days of a complete submittal; staff said the predevelopment form establishes a 48‑hour response target for initial intake.

Commissioners voted to delegate site-plan review to the Site Plan Review Committee by motion and voice vote; the motion carried. In discussion, commissioners asked how much time the changes would save; staff said the department is tracking timelines and will report results once sufficient data are collected but indicated some reviews now list 3–5 week review windows for larger projects. Staff also described new outreach including virtual and in‑person developer meetings and an updated web landing page organized into the top three steps: predevelopment, site plan and building permits.

Public comment on site-plan procedure came from Richard Stewart, a Portage Street property owner, who said the current site-plan process has discouraged small-business reuse of existing properties and cited past interactions with city staff. Stewart said developers walked away from potential projects after pre-application exchanges. Staff acknowledged concerns and said the policy and new coordinator role are intended to improve applicant experience.

The commission made the annual delegation by motion, the motion was seconded and passed by voice vote; the Site Plan Review Committee will continue to exercise delegated authority under the updated policy. Staff said project postings and site-plan documents will remain online while under review and that applicants may use the preconstruction meeting option offered by the building division to reduce later surprises during plan review and inspection.