The Kalamazoo City Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny a request to rezone 4301 Stadium Drive from RM‑15/RS‑5 residential districts to Community Commercial (CC), after a multi‑hour public hearing during which dozens of residents, neighborhood associations and environmental groups urged the commission to protect the adjacent Asylum Lake Preserve.

Planning staff told commissioners the rezoning request, filed by Stadium Drive 1 LLC and pursued by contract purchaser David Rapp, is consistent with the city’s 2025 future land use map and could be implemented while retaining the city’s Natural Features Protection overlay. "The proposed rezoning request is consistent with the master plan and strategic vision of the city of Kalamazoo," staff said in a formal report to the commission. Staff also described the parcel’s transition‑zone character — high‑volume Stadium Drive frontage on the north and an ecologically sensitive preserve to the south.

That staff analysis did not persuade the commission after extensive public comment. More than 50 people addressed the commission in the hearing room and by phone, representing neighbors, the Asylum Lake Policy and Management Council, the Asylum Lake Preservation Association, the Woods Lake Association and other community groups. Speakers raised similar concerns: the risk of increased runoff, pollution and salt loading into the Asylum Lake watershed; loss of woodland habitat and mature trees; the potential for light and noise pollution; and the safety and traffic impacts at the already congested Stadium/Drake intersection.

"A high intensity commercial development at Stadium Drive parcel would threaten to overwhelm those various systems," Tiffany Schreiber of the Asylum Lake Policy and Management Council told the commission, citing recent stormwater treatment projects and grant‑funded research in the watershed. The Asylum Lake Preservation Association and neighborhood groups warned repeated rezoning attempts have already strained community trust; their statements emphasized the preserve’s regional ecological and recreational value.

Representing the applicant, Emily Palacious said the owner had marketed the land for years and that "the existing zoning pattern is unworkable." Contract purchaser David Rapp told the commission he needed the rezoning to justify the expense of detailed site design, describing the property as "complicated" because of topography, the overlay, and access challenges. Rapp did not present a finalized site plan at the hearing, and both applicant and staff emphasized that any future development would require an administrative site plan review and Natural Features Protection committee review before construction.

Attorney Baer reminded commissioners that in rezoning deliberations they act as a quasi‑judicial body applying the ordinance’s stated factors: consistency with the comprehensive plan, changed conditions, community need, compatibility with surrounding uses, and logical and orderly development. Several commissioners said the question of compatibility with the NFP overlay and the preserve was determinative, and that the CC district carries uses and intensities that are difficult to reconcile with protection of steep slopes, woodlands and wetlands on and near this parcel.

After discussion, a motion to approve the rezoning was made and seconded. On roll call the commission voted: Wilson — No; Curtis — No; Chair Patelco — No; Tolbert — No; Audette Baumann — No; Castreba — No; Bissonnette — No. The motion failed 0–7.

What happens next: denial by the planning commission does not itself change the zoning; it is a recommendation body that forwards its recommendation to the City Commission. The commission’s action — and the record created at the public hearing — will be included in materials the City Commission considers if the applicant pursues the matter further. Planning staff emphasized that site plan review, NFP committee review and any administrative approvals would be separate processes that only occur if zoning changes are approved in the future.

The meeting underscored a continuing tension in Kalamazoo planning between future‑land‑use mapping that shows this parcel as commercial and persistent, organized neighborhood resistance centered on protecting urban green space. Many speakers urged the city and property owner to pursue an alternative, long‑term conservation solution; several community members also proposed forming a fundraising effort to buy and conserve the tract rather than see it rezoned.

The commission took no other formal vote on the recorded site plan matters at tonight’s meeting and adjourned after general public comment and administrative items.