Battle Creek planning supervisor outlines how zoning, PUDs and brownfield tools shape sustainability and redevelopment

Darcy Schmidt, planning supervisor in the City of Battle Creek planning and zoning division, told the City of Battle Creek Sustainability Committee that “Planning and zoning is really has everything and anything to do with land use, having to do with, natural resources, transportation, commerce, utilities, industry, housing, infrastructure, and recreation.” The briefing explained how zoning processes, planned-unit developments (PUDs), brownfield authorities and stormwater tools interact with the city’s sustainability goals.

Schmidt said the planning division (five employees) coordinates with the Department of Public Works, the clerk’s office and assessing office on long-range plans — including the city master plan, parks and recreation plan, non-motorized plan and capital improvement plan — and on short-term processes such as administrative site plan review, special-use permits and rezonings. She described the planning commission’s advisory role to the city commission and said the commission may postpone recommendations when submissions lack information.

On development standards Schmidt noted that PUD approvals in the city require an open-space component and said current code generally requires 20% of a PUD site to be set aside as open space. She told the committee that the approvals “run with the land,” meaning a change of ownership does not by itself remove site approvals, but a later change in underlying zoning or land-use approval could allow different development if the zoning were formally changed.

Schmidt and committee members discussed conservation and parkland protections. She said parkland acquired with state or federal grant money commonly contains legal restrictions or reversion clauses that prevent sale; donor stipulations can likewise be legally enforceable and, if sale is permitted, proceeds are typically required to be used for other parkland. The planning supervisor said the city can also adopt local preservation easements or ordinances (for example, tree‑protection or tree‑replacement requirements), but without local ordinance tools property owners can lawfully clear trees subject to property‑rights limits.

The discussion moved to brownfield redevelopment. Schmidt described the Brownfield Redevelopment Authority model: properties must lie within an authority boundary and projects require an authority to oversee tax‑increment financing and compliance with state requirements. She said brownfield financing and grants can help cover contamination cleanup and infrastructure so projects that would otherwise be economically infeasible can proceed. Chris Martin, urban planner at Battle Creek Unlimited, added that state (EGLE) and federal (EPA) funding mechanisms and the Calhoun County Land Bank can play key roles; he noted the land bank holds a large inventory of parcels the county is managing for redevelopment and cited use of EPA/EGLE technical and assessment grants to support river and cleanup projects.

On technical steps, staff and consultants explained that baseline site assessments and phased environmental work (Phase I/Phase II assessments) are typically required for grant eligibility and tax‑capture arrangements. The committee discussed practical guidance the city plans to publish: Schmidt said staff are assembling guidance for novice developers and nonprofit housing partners, and she plans to pursue a Michigan State University planning practicum to help draft a Brownfield/TIF guidance document.

Schmidt proposed several stormwater and sustainability tools that could be encouraged or, in some cases, required: rain gardens, bioretention in parking lots, green roofs and different landscaping standards that favor low‑maintenance, resilient plantings. She said cities such as Grand Rapids and East Lansing have required or incentivized sustainable stormwater elements and suggested the city study their approaches before advancing local code changes.

Committee members raised questions about wetlands and species protections. Schmidt said EGLE review is required for wetlands of certain size (for example, developments touching wetlands of two acres or more trigger state review) and that local ordinances can protect smaller wetlands; protections for particular species (bats, birds, etc.) depend on the species and timing of discovery during review or permitting.

On water supply, staff said the city previously assessed capacity when large withdrawals were proposed (for example, the Blue Oval project) and that the city and Department of Public Works coordinate on infrastructure design and storage. Schmidt and other staff noted that long‑term groundwater withdrawal capacity is informed by EGLE groundwater models and that the city must design distribution and storage to serve large users.

The committee and staff agreed to coordinate planning and DPW staff as the sustainability plan’s land-use chapter is updated. Patty Hoke Meliusz, environmental and storm service manager for the City of Battle Creek, said staff will circulate next steps and the committee’s next meeting date. At the start of the session the committee approved the Aug. 25 minutes by voice vote (motion by Kiona Ackley; second by Chris Martin).