A)                 CALL TO ORDER.

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Kusina, at 6:00 p.m. Members present: Fels, Campbell, Bennett, Barrett, Dobulis, Whitney, Flanders, and Kusina.

Members absent:  Hodgson.

Staff present:  Harsh and Manore.

B)                 INQUIRY INTO POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.

None noted.

C)               APPROVAL OF AGENDA.

Motion by Fels, supported by Whitney, to approve the agenda, as printed. Motion carried.

D)        APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING.

Staff asked that a correction be made in the minutes on page 5, showing the discussion on parking in front yards was referred back to staff for further information, rather than being set for a public hearing.

Campbell moved, supported by Fels to approve the minutes of 4-14-03, as amended.  Motion carried.

E)           PUBLIC HEARINGS.

1.            Public Hearing for 03-08RZ – Preferred Acquisitions.

Planner Harsh explained that the subject property is already surrounded by CBD on the north, east, and south.  In the CBD, you are allowed to build to property lines, and this will bring the entire property into the CBD.

No comments were made from the audience.

Campbell moved, supported by Barrett, to recommend approval of the rezone, as requested.  Motion carried.

2.            Public Hearing to amend Section 5.92 (25) to include “Fitness Center”, as a use.

Planner Harsh explained that this amendment is to assure that uses stipulated for a district includes those that are already there. No public comment was offered.

Barrett moved, supported by Whitney, to recommend approval of the amendment to Section 5.214 (3) of the zoning ordinance.  Motion carried.

3.            Public Hearing to amend Section 5.214 (3) of the
Zoning Ordinance – Recreational Facility Parking.

Mr. Harsh stated that this amendment is to include requirements for Fitness Centers in the CBD, and gives them a break on parking because of the public parking that is provided.

No public comment was presented.

Fels moved, supported by Flanders to recommend approval of the amendment.  Motion carried to amend Section 5.214 (3), as requested. 

4.            Public Hearing to amend Section 5.212 (8) of the Zoning Ordinance – CBD Parking Map.

Harsh stated the amendment will remove the words “within that area mapped in Section 5.212 (12)”, to include all property in the CBD.

No comments from the public were offered.

Campbell moved, supported by Dobulis, to recommend approval of the amendment to 5.212 (12), as requested.  Motion carried.

5.            Public Hearing to amend Section 5.212 (12) and Attachment A of the Zoning Ordinance.

Harsh explained this amendment would remove the CBD Map and references to it.

No comments from the public were offered.

Motion by Barrett, supported by Bennett, to recommend approval of Section 5.212 (12), as presented.  Motion carried.

 6.         Public Hearing to amend Section 5.200 to allow building height averaging in the CBD.

Mr. Harsh explained this amendment is intended to allow existing buildings in the CBD to be higher that the allowed height, providing buildings on either side are higher.  It will allow for greater flexibility by averaging the height of the buildings.

No public comment offered.

Following a brief discussion, the following motion was made.

Campbell moved, supported by Whitney, to recommend approval of the amendment to Section 5.200, to allow building height averaging in the CBD.  Motion carried.

F)     NEW BUSINESS.

1.            Discussion of the Elderly housing draft.

Mr. Harsh explained his memo on proposed amendments to address Senior Housing.  He stated that it was written to allow them in R-4 Districts, with a Special Use Permit.

Kusina asked if the setback requirements would be the same for this use as for a school or church.

Mr. Harsh stated the school or church would require 50’, and the reason for greater setbacks is because of the traffic and activity for those uses would be more intense.

Whitney asked for clarification as to the numbers of residents allowed for each type of elderly housing, and which ones we are not able to control.

Harsh explained that fewer than 6, we cannot regulate.  He stated the maximum for Adult Foster Care is 20, but there could be two next to each other with 20 each.

A lady in the audience stated that some towns have a R-5 District.

Mr. Harsh stated the Planning Commission had discussed this and determined they wanted to look at R-4.

An audience member asked if we are looking at R-1, or R-2.  Mr. Harsh stated not at this time.

Dobulis asked why we were only looking at R-4.

Fels stated it is because that was the direction the Commission gave staff at the last meeting.

Campbell felt this is a great opportunity to bring the community together, because a community is made up of different types and ages of people.  Allowing this home for elderly people in all districts will be good for the community as a whole.  He stated we need input from the community to see the feelings of the residents as to where they would like to see this type of housing.

Campbell asked if this type of housing could have option for different parking surfaces to lessen the amount of hard surfaces in a project such as this.

Harsh stated that it could be.

Dobulis stated that we can’t look at profit in approving projects, but feels City should look at the property values of existing residents first, to see how a project would affect them.  He stated that depending on the facility, the question has to be asked if it affects the neighbor’s enjoyment of his or her own property.

Discussion was held on whether it would be better to allow this type of housing in other districts with a Special Use Permit, rather than rezoning property for it.

Campbell stated we need affordable housing in Charlevoix, for all types of people.

Whitney stated she felt 50’ setback would not be too much for this type of housing, because they operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week.  There will be delivery trucks, garbage pickup, etc., at differing times of the day or night.  These might be a problem for adjacent residents.

Dobulis feels the Planning Commission needs more community comments prior to deciding where these units should be allowed.  He stated we might need different setbacks if they are allowed in R-1 or R-2.

Campbell stated we should look at the number of people needed to run a facility of this type, before deciding on requirements for setbacks, parking, etc.

The Commission decided to set a public hearing for the next meeting to continue discussion on this item and get input from the community before making a decision.

Dobulis stated he has not made up his mind on what district elderly housing should be allowed as a use in which district, but would like reasons why they should or should not be allowed in the R-1 or R-2.

2.                  Discussion of averaging building heights for established neighborhoods.

Mr. Harsh explained that this goes along with the averaging heights discussed for the CBD.  In older neighborhoods, a lot of the houses are higher than that allowed by current zoning ordinance requirements.  This would allow buildings to be built to the average of adjacent building heights.

Discussion took place with one architect in the audience on how this would relate to a client she has.  The client wants to replace the existing building with a higher one, to fit in with the surrounding homes, and this amendment would allow that.

Campbell moved, supported by Fels, to set a public hearing on an amendment to residential building height in established neighborhoods.

3.                  Review of Temporary Restrooms in East Park.

Mr. Campbell showed the Commission some drawings and plans for the temporary restrooms he is going to put in behind the bandstand. He stated it is a trailer, which will have the wheels removed and be placed on site, with hookups to the City sewer and water lines.  It can be removed when no longer needed and used again when it is needed in another area, or sold when no longer needed.  It will have men’s bathrooms, women’s bathrooms, and will have handicapped access facilities.

The Commission members agreed it looks like a great project.  Our review is required by the Master Plan.

Bennett moved, supported by Whitney, to recommend approval of the temporary restrooms for East Park, as presented by Mr. Campbell.  Motion carried with Mr. Campbell abstaining.

G)       OLD BUSINESS.

1.         Amendment regarding parking of recreational vehicles on front yards – Section 5.214 (6) (B).

Mr. Harsh stated he had discussed the issue with Attorneys Young and Graham, and they had informed him that regulation of parking on private property must be done by a zoning ordinance.  Parking on public right of way can be handled by a police ordinance.  They concurred with Harsh that grandfather of RV parking would be a nightmare.

Flanders asked for some history on allowing parking in the front yard.

Mr. Harsh stated that it had at one time been regulated, but then somewhere around 1994 – 1996, changes were made removing the regulations.

Discussion took place on how one would decide which property would be grand fathered.

Flanders stated those residents that are grand fathered in because they have stored the items in their yard for years would eventually die, removing the recreation vehicles from being grandfathered in.

Campbell stated that the Chamber dealt with a noise issue from trucks recently, and by speaking directly with the parties causing the problem, it has been significantly reduced.  He feels that speaking to a neighbor who is creating a nuisance will clear up a lot of these problems.

Mayor Gabe Campbell reported he had seen a camper on Antrim Street that was creating a traffic problem, and he reported it to the police.  The camper was moved by noon of the same day.  He stated he does not agree that the violators cannot be policed.

Discussion took place on how it could be policed, and Dobulis suggested maybe changing the allowed time to park on the street to 72 hours might help.

Kusina stated there are a lot of small lots in this town, with no garages, and no room to put RV’s anywhere but on the front lawn.

Barrett suggested maybe we could put wording in the ordinance to allow parking on the front yards only during the months you cannot park on the street due to snow removal.

Shirley Gibson stated that Harbor Springs, and other cities, do not allow parking in front yards, and we could do the same.

Discussion took place on how the provisions would affect properties with two or three sides, such as some of the ones on Aull Street.

Fels asked the zoning administrator how many calls of complaints she has had on parking RV’s in the front yard.

Ms. Manore stated about 5 or so.

Fels stated she didn’t feel that was enough complaints to justify a change.  She stated this is a family oriented town and people like to enjoy outdoor sports with their kids.  Not all of them can afford a different place to put their recreation vehicles, and this is just another way of taking more of our freedoms away.

Harsh discussed what he called “intent to abandon”, and how this would affect policing the RV parking. He feels the majority of the people would be cooperative, but not sure we could control the grand fathering issue.

Dobulis stated that during the Trout Festival he kept his boat in the front yard, because it was difficult and time consuming to put it in the back every night.  This would be in violation if the proposed wording were to be adopted.

Campbell stated that Fels had touched on the freedom issue, and he felt that community mediation groups could address issues such as these, between neighbors.  It has worked on other issues, and could be used in this case.  Just speaking with a neighbor about a concern would work in most cases.

Gibson stated she felt that with some people, you just could not mediate.

Dobulis stated that the boat shown in one of Ms. Gibson’s photos has no other place to park.

Gibson stated it has been moved to the side already.

Flanders stated he felt RV’s should not be in front yards, and this wording might prevent more from storing them there.

Campbell stated he needs a definition of grandfathering, and feels the basis of the draft is good, but we need more information.

Flanders agreed he needed to understand grandfathering.

Barrett stated he did not want to see parking RV’s in the front yards, and need to deal with grandfathering.

Bennett feels we need something, even though it may be difficult to enforce.  Most people will respect it if the rules are reasonable.

Dobulis feels that with the small lots we have in town, not everyone has a choice of where to park their Recreational Vehicles, and we don’t need to make more laws.

Fels agreed with Dobulis and feels we don’t need more rules.

Kusina feels most people are reasonable and feels we don’t need more laws on the books.

Chairman Kusina stated the Commission members stated their views and four feel we need more control over the parking of recreational vehicles, and three did not.  Therefore, it was decided the Planning Commission should set a public hearing, and hopefully get a lot more public input, as it will affect a lot of people.

Harsh referred to his memo to Jim Young of May 7, 2003, and asked the Commission to consider 6 (b) as a compromise.

Kusina and Campbell stated they would both contact the Courier reporter, to try and get the word out to residents about the upcoming public hearing, so we can get a feel how a majority of the residents feel about the need for more rules.

H)                      PUBLIC INPUT, NOT RELATED TO OTHER AGENDA ITEMS.

None.

I)   FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS.

Continuation of issues discussed at this meeting.

J)                        ADJOURNMENT.

There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned.

Respectfully Submitted,

Barbara A. Fels

Secretary