A) CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Hess called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM at City Hall- 2nd floor.
Members present: Hess, Staley, Cross, Hodgson, Gully, Whitney & Kusina
Members Excused Dobulis and Flanders
Staff Present: Harsch, Manore and Wisner
Others Present: Mayor Carlson, Golski
B) INQUIRY INTO POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
None
C) APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The Agenda was amended to review the Capital Budget as the first item.
D) APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. The Minutes of February 14, 2004 were approved as submitted.
1. Review of the Capital Budget
Mr. Staley pointed out that the Commission’s involvement is limited to land uses and buildings. Mr. Hess took a straw pole of each Commissioner.
Mrs. Cross stated she would like to see the park plan go to a vote of the people. Mrs. Whitney agreed.
Mayor Carlson explained that legally we cannot do that by statute. City Council has been entrusted with making decisions for the people. If the plan passes, it can go to a vote of the people by referendum. A specific number of voter signatures would be needed to place it on the ballot. If the City Council turns down the plan, the people can have it put on the ballot through a process called initiative action. This is where the people would say what they want to happen. The Mayor indicated that the City has received letters in favor and in opposition to the proposed plan. The Mayor showed the Commission the proposed plan.
The Commission discussed the existing and proposed location of the submariner’s memorial. The new location would be approximately 100’-120’ from the current location. It would also be located closer to the water, in a very viewable area. It will not be located in Veterans Park.
Mrs. Cross pointed out that there is too much stuff packed into the plan. She expressed concern that the plan shows too many picnic tables, grills, etc. There is no guarantee that once the plan is approved that all those objects won’t be placed in the park.
Mr. Wiesner stated that the proposed plan was to encourage public use of the park.
Ms. Gully, Mr. Hess and Mr. Hodgson expressed concerns with the proposed ice rink and the costs of operation. He asked if there has been consideration regarding operating costs for the new airport building.
Mr. Wiesner explained that utility costs are estimated to be $9,000 per year. The local share for the building is 2 ½ percent.
Mrs. Cross asked why the building has to be so large. Mr. Wiesner stated the size was based on FAA standards, and that it would be a very durable building.
Mr. Hodgson suggested that the City could use any extra space for other things. Mr. Staley stated that the FAA does check.
Mr. Hodgson stated that over developing the park would take away from the site.
Mrs. Cross stated the City should be doing something to get the new ship docked at Charlevoix. Mr. Wiesner and Mayor Carlson stated they are working on that.
Mr. Staley agreed, stated that would be crucial to the future use of the park.
Motion by Kusina Supported by Hodgson
To approve the Capital Budget as submitted
Ayes: Staley, Hodgson, Kusina, Gully and Hess
Nays: Cross and Whitney
Motion Carried
E) CORRESPONDENCE
None
F) PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Public Hearing to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Section 5.82(23) – Special Uses in the C-1 district
Mr. Harsch explained that the language has been amended as presented and that a copy was sent to Mr. Golski for his client’s review.
Mr. Golski thanked Staff for addressing the concerns of his client. He expressed his approval of the proposed amendment.
The Commission agreed that a city the size of Charlevoix probably does not need such an amendment, but that it does not hurt to have this language in place.
Mr. Kusina stated that economics would take care of any large development coning into Charlevoix, and that we do not need this amendment.
Motion by Cross Supported by Gully
To approve the proposed ordinance amendment to Section 5.82(23)
Ayes: Hodgson, Cross, Gully, Hess, Staley and Whitney
Nays: Kusina
Motion Carried
G) OLD BUSINESS
1. Continued discussion of amendments to address “Site
Condominiums”
Mr. Hess stated that this amendment would give the Planning Commission the right to review plans for site condos. He pointed out that site condos can also include commercial and industrial uses as part of the development. This amendment seems to meet the Commissions needs. The Planner and Attorney costs would be reflected in the fee schedule.
Motion by Cross Supported by Hodgson
To set a public hearing for the April 11, 2005 for Section 5.172 Site Condominiums.
Ayes: Kusina, Hodgson, Cross, Gully, Hess, Staley and Whitney
Nays: None
Motion Carried
2. Continued discussion of Assisted Living amendment
The Commission discussed Mr. Harsch’s memo to Jim Young of 11/03/05 and Mr. Young’s e-mail responses of January 26 and 27th.
Mr. Young’s e-mail states that a senior housing project which was constructed pursuant to a zoning ordinance amendment and them becomes vacant would be a non-conforming structure for other uses.
It also means a nonconforming structure used for a purpose allowed in the district which is not a senior housing project. However, if the zoning district excludes any use that allows the structure to have some reasonable economic value, then it could mean a “taking” situation.
Mr. Hess stated that if the courts looked at it, the question could become one of a vested interest. He stated that he was in favor of the language that the Planning Commission worked on in the past.
Mr. Hodgson pointed out that based on the age of our community, there is no way this facility would fail. He stated that he would like to continue to work on the amendment.
3. Continued discussion – Comprehensive Plan revisions
Mr. Harsch stated that the staff report includes the next phase in the review of the master plan. He requested that the Commission complete the vision/issues exercise using a five (5) point rating system.
The Commission agreed that the exercise should also be sent to City Council, the DDA and the Chamber of Commerce, for their input.
4. Review of the Capital Budget – (see above)
5. City and Village Zoning Act Review (Sec. 125.583c-125.584a)
Mr. Hess reminded the Commissioners to review the above cited sections, noting that the next staff packet with contain three (3) additional pages.
H) NEW BUSINESS
1. Eveline Township Comprehensive Plan
Mr. Hess expressed high praise for Eveline Township and their
excellent comprehensive plan. He requested that Staff prepare
a letter commending their plan, with a few suggestions:
1. That “light industrial” be defined
2. That they include a capital plan and improvements
3. That Ironton schools are part of Charlevoix school system
4. That their Agricultural and rural zones be defined with guidelines.
2. Discussion regarding amending the By-Laws
Mr. Hess suggested that the rule of conduct for public meetings
should be part of the Planning Commission By-Laws.
Mrs. Cross referred to the Michigan State University Extension
“Citizen Planner” handouts. She pointed out their recommendations for the minimum number of classes new and current Commissioners should attend. The recommendations also included Staff. She requested that these guidelines be included in the next staff packet for discussion and review.
I) FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
None
J) ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 7:05 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Dianne Manore, Recording Secretary