Kalamazoo City staff detail expansion of Natural Features Protection overlay and new predevelopment checklist

Kalamazoo City staff updated the Natural Features Protection (NFP) advisory board on the expanded overlay map, changes to the development review process, and next steps to improve permitting and enforcement.

The presentation showed the overlay grew from an initial 376 parcels to “close to 1,500,” and staff said the city has linked NFP parcels to its assessing and permitting database so property owners and permit reviewers can see NFP status online. Nolan, a city staff member who oversees NFP reviews, said the city added a public GIS layer that allows residents to click a property and see primary NFP features. “So we went from 376 to close to 1500,” Nolan said, describing the map expansion and public web map tool.

The city also described a restructured development process intended to reduce late-stage conflicts that delay projects. Under the new flow, an applicant first meets with a single predevelopment contact — Paul Thuringer, a city staff member drawn from economic development — who will route questions to technical reviewers. After that comes a checklist meeting (formerly pre-site-plan) that provides applicants with a written checklist of applicable codes and focal areas, then site plan review, followed by permits and occupancy. Nolan said the NFP overlay primarily affects the predevelopment and site plan stages.

Why it matters: staff said earlier identification of natural features and clearer up-front guidance should reduce the number of revisions and late-stage design changes that can force projects to seek variances or rework stormwater and utility plans. Board members raised enforcement concerns about whether plantings installed after approval actually match the approved plans and whether the city has the technical capacity to verify planting lists and native species over time.

Data and trends Staff showed a multi-year permitting summary for properties identified as NFP since 2019. Nolan reported that, for NFP properties from 2019 onward, the city has recorded 2,844 permits across 786 properties. He said the city’s Planning, Zoning and Enforcement (PZE) tracking contained 151 PZE processes covering 69 NFP properties. Nolan also said 57% of PZE activity since 2019 has been on parcels added in phase 2 of the mapping effort.

Nolan highlighted permit categories and trends: interior building trades (mechanical, electrical, plumbing) and residential and commercial building permits were the top categories. He called out soil erosion control permits as the category that most often interacts with NFP requirements and noted those permits appeared only in the city’s NFP reporting in 2022 and 2024 because NFP parcels were not fully integrated into the assessing system earlier.

Enforcement, verification and technical capacity Board members pressed staff on how the city verifies that approved landscaping and native plant lists are installed and maintained. Nolan said the zoning administrator conducts site visits for landscaping checks and will consult Nolan when NFP questions arise; he cited a 500 Golden Drive project as an example where staff compared approved plans to field conditions. Nolan also acknowledged the city does not employ ecologists or wetland scientists and is reliant on outside consultants for specialized work.

Board members suggested spot checks, rotating board participation in site visits, or contracting third-party reviewers for projects requiring specialized verification. Nolan said the city is exploring models including a certified vendor list or directory (similar to other municipal vendor lists) and would raise legal limits with the city attorney. He also suggested the guide the city is preparing could include a vendor-finding process and a calendar to help applicants sequence state and local permit steps.

Permits that commonly require outside review, Nolan said, include rare species reviews (which staff advise applicants to begin with MSU Extension early), woodland assessments or arborist/woodland management plans, and topographic surveys. He noted wetland delineations and Part 303 EGLE permits must follow state rules and recommended starting those processes early because state reviews can take longer.

Process timing and staffing Staff described timing roughly as: an NFP meeting and Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) cycle that can take about eight weeks to complete before an applicant can enter full site plan review, and site plan review that may take another month if materials are complete. Nolan and board members said the total time from variance triggers through site plan and permits can be measured in months; staff told board members that if applicants prepare materials promptly and avoid unexpected hurdles the overall process could be in the multi-month range.

To increase capacity and speed review, staff said the city hopes to hire a civil engineer focused on site plan review and to have Paul Thuringer serve as the single predevelopment point of contact. Nolan said staff will refine the checklist meeting materials, include code references in the deliverable sent to applicants, and add a calendar example to the online development materials.

Next steps and follow-up Nolan told the board he will return with additional data and suggested improvements to the NFP guide at the next meeting. He said staff anticipate one action item on the February agenda and invited board members to help recruit candidates for upcoming board vacancies. Nolan also said the city will investigate how to reconcile notice requirements between NFP and ZBA meetings to avoid duplicated or mistimed mailings.

Board members stressed a balance between education and code enforcement — recommending city support for applicants who are trying to comply while targeting enforcement at clear noncompliance. Staff and board members agreed to explore pilot spot checks of recently completed landscaping on projects that received variances or large landscape commitments.

The board did not take formal votes on ordinance changes at the session; staff characterized the meeting as an update and work session and said they will return with a draft guide and more detailed data for future action.