A) CALL TO ORDER.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Kusina, at 6:00 p.m.
Members present: Hodgson, Campbell, Bennett, Barrett, Dobulis,
Whitney, Kusina, and Flanders.
Fels arrived shortly after meeting was called to order.
Members absent: None.
Staff present: Harsh and Manore.
B) INQUIRY INTO POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
None noted.
C) APPROVAL OF AGENDA.
The agenda was changed to add discussion on an amendment to the
zoning ordinance concerning building height in the CBD District
where adjacent existing buildings exceed the allowed height. This
is to be added under New Business.
Agenda was approved as amended.
D) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF 2/10/03 and 3/10/03.
John Campbell discussed the cost for a parking space, and the
use of the money that is put in the parking fund, as this was
discussed at the last meeting. He stated it now costs over $5,000
for a parking space.
Moved by Campbell, supported by Whitney, to approve the minutes
of the previous meetings, as printed. Motion carried.
E) PUBLIC HEARINGS.
1) Public Hearing for Sections 5.270 and 5.271 (a) of Chapter
52 of Title V - Fees.
Planner Harsh stated that currently, fees for permits are set
out in the Zoning Ordinance, which would require an amendment
to change them. The recommendation is to make basically housekeeping
changes. This would allow the adoption of fees to take place at
the City Council budget ordinance approval. It would also allow
the City to exceed the standard fee by 20%, to cover the out-of-pocket
costs above the fee stated.
There were no public comments on this item.
Motion made by Barrett, supported by Dobulis, to recommend approval
of the amendments to Section 5.270 and 5.271 (a), of Chapter 52
of Title V - Fees. Motion carried.
F) NEW BUSINESS.
1) Discussion regarding Elderly housing provisions.
Kusina reminded the Commission members that this is not a meeting
to discuss a particular project, but to discuss how we want to
address providing ordinance regulations for elderly housing.
Chairman Kusina invited public comment.
Mr. Harsh has provided a memo outlining options the Planning Commission
could review. (See attached memo of April 9, 2003). Hodgson asked
if you can craft some requirements, or if it must be set up in
the ordinance.
Mr. Harsh stated both could be done. In that way you can add restrictions
to make it more consistent with the neighborhood, as in overall
size or setbacks.
Mr. Harsh stated he would get the ideas of the Planning Commission
members, and then come back to us at a future meeting with wording
for the commission to consider.
Ralph Doan, adjacent property owner, stated he wanted to make
the Planning Commission aware of the fact the neighborhood has
been down this road before. He stated that although 90% of the
adjacent property owners were against changing the R-1 designation,
the City went to R-2 to allow more houses for a previously proposed
project. He is against changing zoning to fit a proposed project.
He feels this is inappropriate. He stated the neighbors were told
two years ago, that there was a need for additional housing, when
the change allowed more houses. Now the neighbors are being asked
to change it again, for still higher numbers of residences. He
feels that is not compatible with this neighborhood.
John Hess, 326 Meech Street, stated he is surprised this is coming
up again. He stated he and his neighbors were told that when it
went to R-2, the neighbors should be happy. He stated the residents
are not happy. He asked the Planning Commission to look at PUD,
so that if the project does not go through, the property would
revert back. He also had asked the Commission previously to put
together some wording on site condos, but nothing has been done
at that either.
Becky Doan, a neighbor, stated she is against any change in zoning
on this property. She asked the Commission why they are considering
rezoning this property again.
Lionel Thomas, is from the construction company that is working
for the proposed housing, and stated he feels there is a need
in Charlevoix for assisted living units, and the subject property
is one that will accommodate the proposed project. He stated they
would have less traffic than single home use. He presented an
elevation showing what the project would look like. He stated
they reduced the number of parking spaces and felt they are keeping
it reasonable.
Whitney asked if the property had been purchased, and was told
it has not been. Mr. Thomas said the applicants have an option
to buy.
Kusina again reiterated that tonightÆs meeting is not to
consider a particular proposal, but to decide how to deal with
this type of housing unit.
Dobulis stated that R-1 or R-2 does not guarantee it will all
be residential. A charter school, or a church, could go in under
the present zoning. He felt that R-4 zoning, as a special use,
would be best for this use. Whether it should be in R-1 or R-2
is up for debate.
Campbell agrees that R-1 or R-2 could work with a special use
permit. He stated then some things could be done to make it fit
better in a neighborhood. He feels there is definitely a need
for this type of housing.
Kusina reminded the Commission that we are not looking at a particular
project or parcel of land, only how to address the issue when
it is proposed.
Barrett felt there might be a difference in some of the uses,
such as adult day care and foster care, as opposed to the others.
Whitney stated she feels R-4 with a Special Use Permit would be
best, as she feels the final say should sit with the Council.
Mr. Harsh stated that presently, the Planning Commission approves
special use permits in R-4.
Kusina stated he is getting the feeling that the Commission wants
to look at two different categories, as to how they should be
addressed.
Mr. Harsh stated that currently foster care and adult day care
could have 5 or 6 residents, without our approval. He did say
that he has a clear picture of what the Planning Commission is
looking for, will work on some wording and get back to us with
it at a future meeting.
Dobulis asked Harsh to give us some information on what other
areas are doing, and any problems they may be having.
2) Set a Public Hearing for 03-08RZ - Preferred Acquisitions.
This is a proposal for property at Antrim, State and Newman. Part
of the property is in the CBD, and the owner wishes to put the
rest of it in CBD, so that he can make improvements in the property.
Campbell moved, supported by Fels to set a public hearing on this
item. Motion carried.
3) Set a Public Hearing to amend Section 5.92 (25) to include
Fitness Centerö use.
Mr. Harsh stated there is not currently a provision in the ordinance
to address Fitness Centers, and an amendment is needed to Section
5.92 (25) to accommodate them.
Bennett moved to set a public hearing. Motion supported by Hodgson,
Motion carried to set Public Hearing for an amendment to Section
5.92 (25), as presented.
4), 5), 6) Set a Public Hearing to amend Section 5.214 (3) (g),
Section 5.212 (8), and delete Section 5.212 (12) and Attachment
A of the Zoning Ordinance.
These proposed changes concern parking in the Central Business
District, related to Fitness Centers in the CBD and other parking
related issues.
Hodgson moved, supported by Bennett, to set a public hearing on
the proposed amendments to Section 5.214 (3) (g), and Section
5.212 (8) of the zoning ordinance; to delete Section 5.212 (12)
and Attachment A of the Zoning Ordinance. Motion carried.
Chairman Kusina explained some rules on length of public comments
by each person at a public hearing, and stated he wants the 3-minute
rule enforced, as we have such a big agenda.
7) Discussion regarding parking in yards - Section 5.214 (6) (B).
Council has asked the Planning Commission to look at this issue.
There have been complaints about Recreational Vehicles, boats
and trailers, etc., being parked in yard areas and driveways.
Some feel they should not be allowed to do this.
Discussion took place on motor vehicles being parked on the street,
interfering with traffic, and was told it is hard to police these
types of things.
Some of the members of the Planning Commission disagreed that
it is difficult, and stated they feel it should be addressed.
Dobulis stated he agreed that these types of things are not attractive
in the front yard, but feel that those parked in the side and
rear yards should be left alone. He said it is sometimes difficult
for some people to get their recreation vehicles all into the
back yard.
Fels stated she agreed they should not be allowed on the front
yard, but that parking them in the rear or on the side should
not be changed, as this is a recreation area and residents should
not be discouraged from having them. We should be able to keep
a few freedoms as property owners.
John Campbell stated he wants the Planning Commission to recommend
Council take action on vehicle code violations.
Whitney thinks recreation vehicles parked in the side and rear
is also unattractive, and there should be a limit on how many
a resident can keep on his property.
There was no agreement with her on this point, and the Commission
agreed they want to leave side yard and rear yards alone. We only
want to consider requirements for the front yard.
June Cross, in the audience, stated it was never the Planning
CommissionÆs idea to allow recreation vehicles on the front
yard.
Mr. Harsh stated that Ordinance 608 a few years ago, removed any
restriction of recreation vehicle parking in front yards.
Circular driveways were also discussed as being used for parking
these items.
Shirley Gibson, in the audience, stated that anyone with a circular
driveway could afford off site storage. She feels if you own an
RV, you should factor in the cost of storage. She stated she feels
recreation vehicles on the front laws look awful, especially in
R-2, where the lots are so small. She feels the City should write
clear language on parking and storage of autos and recreation
vehicles, to prevent more than one interpretation of the regulations.
Campbell moved, supported by Hodgson, to set public hearing on
parking in front yards only. Motion carried.
8) Proposed amendment to Building Height in the CBD, to allow
buildings to have a height, which is the average height of buildings
on the adjacent lots.
In discussion Whitney asked if the Planner felt this was fair
to owners who do not have taller buildings on each side, and if
he felt it is legal.
Harsh stated it is legal, and is the same as currently is allowed
for buildings on a street allowed to be in line with those on
each side, by averaging the setback of those on either side.
Hodgson moved, supported by Campbell, to set a public hearing
on the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance requirements
for building height in the CBD. Motion carried.
G) OLD BUSINESS.
1) Scheduling a joint meeting with DDA - To be discussed by Gerry
Harsh.
Mr. Harsh stated he has spoken with Mr. Wiesner about this topic.
Mr. Wiesner feels it would be more appropriate to meet and discuss
our concerns, once the middle school study by the library, and
the study on the conference center are complete. In this way the
Planning Commission will have the results of those studies to
review in our discussions.
H) PUBLIC INPUT, NOT RELATED TO OTHER AGENDA ITEMS.
Cathy Doan, from the audience, asked why the Planning Commission
is looking at this issue right now.
Kusina told her we are looking at a place for elderly housing,
because we currently have nothing in the zoning ordinance to address
it, and an applicant has a proposal that we need to look at. We
are simply deciding how we will review the project when it is
actually on the agenda.
I) ADJOURNMENT.
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully Submitted,
Barbara A. Fels
Secretary