A) CALL TO ORDER.

Meeting was called to order by Chairman Kusina, at 7:00 p.m. Members present:
Kusina, Fels, Flanders, Dobulis, Lenhart, Whitney, Campbell, and Bennett.

Member absent: Hodgson.

B) INQUIRY INTO POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

None.

C) APPROVAL OF AGENDA.

Agenda approved as printed.

D) APPROVAL OF MINUTES.

Motion by Campbell, supported by Bennett, to approve the minutes, as printed. Motion carried.

E) PUBLIC HEARINGS.

1) Development Plan Review - Case #02-06DP - 801 Bridge - Schnelz.

Jodi Lyons, representing the applicants, stated she had previously brought this project to us, but the owner is now changing his plans and will have his residence on the second floor. Because of these, they will not need all of the parking they had planned to provide, and will take some of it as they will be reducing the use of the building.

Campbell stated there are two entrances to access the project, and wondered if the one on Bridge Street could be eliminated. Jodi said they could not do that, as they are trying to screen the property from the residential properties next door.

Campbell said he was afraid one of the parking spaces would require backing out onto Bridge Street. He suggested that parking space # 3 could be used as a turn around space, and Ms. Lyons agreed that they would do this.

Flanders asked if there wasn’t an issue with loading space.

Ms. Lyons stated there is no issue with that now.

Chairman Kusina went through the findings on Page 5, and it was decided by the Commission that the request met the findings, with one change, being designating parking space # 3, as a turn around only.

Motion by Campbell, supported by Whitney, to recommend approval of the request, contingent upon parking space # 3 being designated as a turn around only.

MOTION CARRIED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW - CASE #02-06DP - 801 BRIDGE STREET, CONTINGENT UPON PARKING SPACE #3 BEING DESIGNATED AS A TURN AROUND ONLY.

2. Sign Variances - Case #02-10SV - Shapiro.

Six businesses within the City are asking for a sign variance to allow for “open signs” at 704 Bridge, 1207 Bridge, 802 Bridge, 604 Bridge, 710 Bridge, and 103 Park Avenue.

Ms. Shapiro presented the request on behalf of the others, as well as for herself. She said the City should be more supportive, as these businesses need an open sign that can be seen from the highway. She stated she had had a really good first year, and did not want to have to close up because the city would not help them.

The Zoning Administrator showed the Commission photos of what it would look like with the freestanding open signs they are requesting.

Dobulis stated that he felt the type of sign they are requesting would look awful, because every business in the area could ask for one. He stated he would like more signage for his business, but he complies with the sign ordinance. He asked the applicants if they could hang an open sign on the bottom of their existing sign. He asked what was on the small sign on Ms. Shapiro’s main sign.

Ms. Shapiro stated it was an open sign, but you can’t read it because it is too small.

Dobulis asked if we could allow a slightly larger open sign, so that they could be seen.

Ms. Shapiro stated she had spent a lot of money on an artistic sign, and did not want to waste that, or make it less artistic. She felt that if the open signs were allowed, the applicants could get some one to do them all, so they would be similar.

Campbell asked if the applicant could move her existing sign closer to the road so it could be seen from someone coming up from downtown, and put an open sign on the bottom of it.

Fels agreed that the open sign could be a little larger, and be put on the artistic sign.

The lady from Sister’s Closet says her sign is too high, and she will be changing it. She wouldn’t be able to take an open sign down every night.

Fels stated she did not think that people who come to shop in Charlevoix just shop on Bridge Street. She has lived here a long time and sees people all the time going up and down the side streets, as well as Bridge Street. She felt it was unreasonable to expect to be allowed a sign large enough to be seen from Bridge Street, no matter how far off the main street a business is located.

Chris Way stated that she has recently consolidated two stores and needs an open sign. She stated one customer in her previous store stated he did not know there were businesses open in the last block before the Bridge. She stated the building across the street has small signs all over it.

Dobulis asked Harsh why couldn’t this applicant have the same signs as the other business has?

Harsh said he would have to check and see what signs the other business has.

Harsh stated he doubted the applicant has maxed out her signage.

Ms. Shapiro stated she has spent a lot of money on her sign and will continue to push to save her business.

The Zoning Administrator states a lot of her working hours are taken up taking down illegal signs.

Campbell went over some history of the times, through good times and not so good, and he stated he felt it is up to the Commission to find an answer to these problems the businesses are having.

Dobulis disagreed with Campbell, and stated he feels we have found a compromise. He stated he would love to have balloons on all the antennas in his business, but he complies with the ordinance. He stated when you go into Charlevoix Township, you see a lot of businesses that look like dumps, but when you get to the City of Charlevoix limits, the ordinance has treated everyone fairly, and the businesses look a lot better. When the foot doctor built a new building, we did not allow him an open sign out front, and he stated he could not see the Planning Commission going backward. People know what the sign ordinance requires, and they should comply.

The definition of accessory sign was discussed, and Dobulis stated they are in the ordinance.

Lenhart felt that the Commission is in favor of helping these businesses out, but we need some common ground. He stated he is against the portable signs, but other options are available.

Flanders stated that he could not support the portable signs, and that properties differ, with some off the beaten track really doing well.

Fels stated she was against the portable signs, and agreed with Dobulis and Flanders that a compromise could be found.

Whitney stated she felt we need to be very sensitive to the fact we are losing businesses. She stated we need to support all of the businesses in town, but also disagrees with the portable signs. She stated she could put her daily specials on a portable sign, but what she thinks looks nice, might not be what someone else thinks is nice.

Bennett asked if portable signs are allowed on sidewalks, would the City be liable for accidents.

Kusina stated the owner of the sign would be responsible.

Bennett asked if we were not also opening up a Pandora box for every business in town to ask for a portable sign. He stated he shares the problem of being out of the downtown, but feels we can find an answer without allowing portable signs.

Campbell stated he agreed with Dobulis and Lenhart on attaching a larger open sign under the main sign.

The owner of Treasure Chest asked for clarification of what is a non-accessory sign, and was told it is a directional sign.

Dobulis asked if variances were granted, would it be legal if we change the ordinance.

Harsh stated the sign ordinance is a police ordinance, not a zoning ordinance.
He stated the planning commission cannot change the ordinance. The City can put anything in the ordinance, provided it is fair to everyone.

Lenhart asked how long would it take to amend the ordinance allowing portable open signs. It was said it would probably take a minimum of 45 days.

Dobulis asked if we could grant a variance allowing the larger open sign.

Harsh stated the planning commission can grant the variances, providing it can determine the request meets the three conditions listed in the ordinance.

Fels asked Ms. Shapiro if she hadn’t said that she had had a very good first year. If so, then she had done well without a portable sign.

Ms. Shapiro stated she had a good first year because of all of her friends. She felt she needed the sign to stay in business.

Going through the findings, it was determined by the Commission that with the variance allowing a larger open sign, it would meet all of the required conditions.

Campbell made a motion, supported by Lenhart, to approve a variance for the applicants who have an accessory sign that meets the existing standards, to have up to a maximum of 2 square feet additional signage only for an open sign, which will be attached to the existing compliant sign.

MOTION CARRIED FOR APPROVING VARIANCES FOR THE APPLICANTS LISTED ON THE APPLICATION, PROVIDING THEY HAVE AN EXISTING COMPLIANT SIGN, WHICH WILL ALLOW ONE OPEN SIGN UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 2 SQUARE FEET, TO BE ATTACHED TO THE EXISTING COMPLIANT SIGN.

The owner of Shop of All Crafters, at 604 Bridge, stated he needed an arrow sign to guide customers to the back door of the business. He was told this type of sign is allowed by the ordinance, and to contact the zoning administrator in the morning. He said that if it were not for businesses such as those here tonight, there would be a lot less people coming to Charlevoix.

F) NEW BUSINESS.

1. Discussion of Comprehensive Plan Update.

Harsh went over some history of the Comprehensive Plan, and stated there is very little land open for development in the City, but some is available for redevelopment.

Harsh went over his memo and the different parts of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that hopefully staff could put the Plan together and update it every year, as things are completed. He asked the Commission members to review the map for any problems they find.

Flanders mentioned there are two identical legends on the map. Harsh stated there should be only one for public lands, and that will be corrected.

Campbell asked if there are any thoughts on providing local citizenry a way to buy a house in Charlevoix.

Harsh stated the limited supply of land forces prices to go up. He stated he doesn’t know if there is anything the City can do, but they have had discussions on the city finding land outside the city for more affordable housing.

Campbell stated larger lots are using up a lot of land, leaving no space for more affordable housing. He stated the City does own some property outside the city, so maybe we could look at that.

Harsh stated we need to get into some viable discussion with the surrounding townships. We will be discussing this in the population/housing portion of the Comprehensive Plan.

2. Discussion of Zoning Ordinance update.

Campbell stated he feels it is time to bring both the zoning ordinance and the sign ordinance up to date. They are both in need of revision, and when we don’t have anything on the agenda, we could work on them. He feels we need to do this fairly soon.

Harsh stated that staff has been looking at lot sizes throughout the city, with a lot of variances. He is trying to get a new map with all dimensions on the lots, and then address the issue.

There has been much discussion on mixed uses on Bridge Street, and it needs to be addressed, to avoid strip parking in front.

Kusina asked what type of time line we are looking at, and was told Mr. Harsh will have material on this soon.

1. Presentation of alternate ideas for Round Lake Marina - John Campbell.

Mr. Campbell gave a presentation showing a possible alternative for the existing proposal for docks. It showed triangles that could be put in various areas of the City’s riparian areas of Round Lake. He stated the advantage of this type of arrangement is that when not needed, off season, the triangles could be moved to other areas, such as depot beach, or other areas in Lake Charlevoix, so residents would not have to look at them all year. It is also less expensive than what is being proposed.

Dobulis stated he liked this much better than a long row of boats, and this proposal looks good.

Mr. Campbell stated he will be giving this presentation around town, and is looking for any input and support.

G) OLD BUSINESS.

None.

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

NONE.

I) FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS.

UPDATING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ZONING ORDINANCE, AND THE SIGN ORDINANCE.

J) ADJOURNMENT.

There being no further business to discuss, Fels moved, supported by Bennett, to adjourn. Motion carried.

Respectfully Submitted,

Barbara A. Fels
Secretary