CITY OF CHARLEVOIX
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JUNE 9, 2003
A)
CALL TO ORDER.
Chairman Kusina called the meeting
to order at 6:00 PM at the Coast Guard Training Room
Members present: Kusina, Bennett, Dobulis, Hodgson,
Campbell, Whitney and Flanders
Members Absent: Fels
Staff Present: Manore
Chairman Kusina presented Staff with
a letter of resignation from Mr. Erv Barrett.
B)
INQUIRY INTO POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
None
C)
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved as
presented.
D)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by: Dobulis Supported by: Flanders
The minutes of May 12,2003 were
approved as presented by a unanimous voice vote.
E) PUBLIC
HEARINGS
1. Public Hearing for Section
5.200 - Residential building height
Chairman Kusina called the
case.
Jodie Lyons referred to the old
established neighborhoods such as Park Avenue or Michigan Avenue. She stated there is a three story house on
Park Avenue that is rotting and needs to be rebuilt. With the current 26' height requirement, it cannot be rebuilt.
She suggested that if the Ordinance
is amended that an Aestablished
neighborhood@ should consist of 8-10 houses,
instead of just adjacent buildings. She
presented the Commission with a diagram of how the height could be averaged.
(See attached)
The Commission reviewed her
proposals. She suggested that a
definition of an Aestablished
neighborhood@ should be included in the proposed
language.
Jane Nelson, suggested that the
houses should be viewed from the street to determine what is the minimum and
maximum height.
John Campbell, demonstrated how
adjacent heights would be determined.
He asked Staff to read the proposed language.
Staff read the
proposed language, as follows:
*@Building height
shall be the maximum allowed for the District provided, if existing buildings
on adjacent lots are constructed to a greater height than allowed, buildings
hereafter erected may have a height which is the average height of buildings on
the adjacent lots. In the event only
one (1) adjacent building is greater than the allowed district height, the
allowed height shall be the average of the height allowed and the height of the
existing nonconforming structure.@
Mr. Campbell suggested that this
amendment be re-written to allow the measurements for averaging be taken from
peak to peak.
Staff explained that the proposed
language is the same that was proposed for the building heights in the
CBD.
Ms. Lyons asked where the
measurements would be taken from. Staff
stated that the current Ordinance measures height from the lowest finished
grade to the mid-point of the roof.
The Board discussed the definition
of Agrade@.
Mr. Dobulis asked if this proposal
is the absolute grade between two adjacent houses.
Ms. Lyons discussed a specific
parcel and house that she is considering rebuilding.
Mr. Campbell stated the grade has
nothing to do with this amendment, but that the measurement will deal with the
elevation and the vertical line between the roof of each adjacent house,
regardless of whether it is level or on a slope.
The Board requested that this matter
be sent back to Mr. Harsch for revisions.
The Board agreed that the measurements only be taken from adjacent homes
and not the entire neighborhood.
F) NEW BUSINESS
1. Public Meeting to discuss
elderly housing
Chairman Kusina opened the
discussion to the public. He explained
that the Planning Commission will be discussing the zoning districts where
elderly housing can be allowed within the City of Charlevoix. Currently, there is no criteria for the
development of elderly housing.
Staff read the proposed language
regarding elderly housing as proposed for the R-4 zoning district.
Mr. Dobulis stated that at the last
meeting, the Commission requested that language be adopted for special uses in
all the residential zoning districts.
Ms. Rebecca Down, 309 Meech stated
that the elderly housing should only be allowed in the R-4 zoning district due
to the density. She stated that this is
not called out in the Master Plan. She
also expressed concern regarding lighting and parking.
This development appears to be like
a dormitory, which are non-profit. This
proposed development is a business which would be run for profit.
Mr. Ralph Doan, 308 Meech, stated
that the purpose of the current R-1 and R-2 zoning is to provide a stable low
density type of development. Commercial
aspects should not be considered. He
stated that special uses are rarely used in residential districts.
Mr. Bill Joy, 13601 Petoskey, asked
why the Planning Commission is addressing assisted living in the City since
there is a plan for one on the north side of town. This area has been this way for 30+ years. The role of the Planning Commission and
Zoning Board of Appeals is to protect the existing residents.
Ms. Andrea Lane, 307 Meech, asked
what would prevent a future SU permit being issued for something else that
would not be as desirable as this proposal.
She stated that the whole neighborhood would be changed with this type
of development.
Chairman Kusina pointed out that
each special use permit stands on its own merits and facts.
Ms. Lane stated that the arguments
used on the first special use permit would then become void arguments regarding
future applications.
Diane Gillette, 2000 E. Mitchell (
Sunny Brook) stated that they are a profit making organization. No State funding will be requested, since
there is no State funding available.
This project would be one (1) story apartment buildings for elderly
residents for people who want to stay in their community. These are not people brought in from the
outside, but are your neighbors and relatives.
There would be very little traffic.
In Petoskey, there is an in-house laundry, food is delivered once a week
and trash is picked up twice a week.
The midnight shift consists of 1-2 staff members that work from (:o00
P.M. to 7:00 A.M. There are two (2)
cooks and two (2) housekeepers that start work at 7:00 A.M. There is not a lot of daily traffic.
Ms. Gillette stated that home health
care is available if needed. We provide
housekeeping and meals. Our survey in
Petoskey for one (1) year showed that one (1) ambulance every two(2) weeks.
Mr. Thomas, Builder stated that the
elevations show that the units will be built with wings and will not look like
one large massive building. He stated
there will be less traffic that a single family subdivision. It would be beneficial to allow this
development in the R-1 and R-2 since the parcel would not have to be rezoned to
R-4.
Resident, 08196 Carson Avenue,
stated that when Pine River was built it was to be only for the elderly and
older people. Then people came from
other states and younger people were allowed.
There is a lot of traffic and cars at the Petoskey facility. She pointed out that the facility is very
well run.
The Commission was asked if the
facility could only be limited to local people.
Ms. Doan stated that the 1990-2000
Census indicated that there were under 18% of elderly people between the ages
of 65-74 years of age. There has only
been an increase of 18 elderly people in the past ten (10) years. What is happening to all our elderly people
in Charlevoix? If these figures are
correct, it does not appear to be rapid growth in this age group, so why do we
need this facility?
Jean Loper, 450 Loper Lane, stated
that the Lutheran Church is building a senior house project on the north side
of town. We do not have enough elderly
citizens to fill both facilities. It=s
not that we don=t
want elderly housing, it is that it will change the character of this
neighborhood.
Ms. Lane stated that if this
facility fails, we would have a rundown empty building in a residential
neighborhood.
Mr. Dobulis pointed out that the
discussion is getting away from the subject of this meeting. The discussion should not be elements
relating to this specific project.
Ms. Gina Whitney stated the only
reason we are discussing this matter is because of this project.
Mr. Hodgson asked what district this
project should be built in.
Mr. Joy stated that this parcel was
originally rezoned to R-2 from R-1 to allow for the construction of more
houses. He is now suspicious because
they want to change it to something else again.
Due to the constraints of the tape
recorder, a number of comments were not picked up on the tape.
A resident read portions of an
article that was published in the Charlevoix Courier.
Ms. Patty Sitzma, 102 St. Mary=s asked how many homes could fit on
this property and what is the size of the parcel. How many units will be allowed per acre. The Commission pointed out that no site plan
has been presented at this time. She
pointed to the Cherry Street development.
Staff stated that the houses on
Cherry and Elm were built in full compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Flanders pointed out that the developer
requested that the eight (8) fifty (50) foot lots be combined into six larger
lots. The neighbors did not think that
was a good idea. However, Council denied this request, so the developer built
these houses in full compliance.
Mr. Doan again pointed out that this
is a commercial business and the Master Plan says this is a residential area.
Mr. Hodgson stated the Master Plan
does not address assisted living. Just
because there is a Master Plan is not a reason to deny such a project.
Mr. Collander, 314 Meech, agreed
that this is a business and that all business changes. In ten (10) years this could change to
something very different.
Mrs. Loper stated they were told
this land was to build homes for young people, now it is proposed for assisted
living for the elderly.
Ms. Lane asked why it should be
considered for the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts. It would be more logical to put it in the R-4 district.
Mayor Campbell pointed out that the
apartments at Meech and Dixon are fine.
The reason for the R-4 special use gives the City more control.
Gina Whitney expressed concerns that
if something happened to this development we could be left with an empty
building.
Mrs. Joy, 13601 Division questioned
whether the entire City knows that the Commission is considering putting a
commercial business on this property.
John Campbell requested that staff
provide the Commission with definitions of setbacks and allowed densities. Mr. Hodgson asked how many units per acre
would be allowed and would it be one or two stories. Mr. Campbell stated there would be more site control in a special
use situation.
Mr. Hodgson pointed out that a
church could be built on this property and what would happen if the church
decided to put in an elderly housing development.
The Commission discussed the pros
and cons of allowing this type of project in the R-1, R-2 and R-4 zoning
districts, regulated with a special use permit.
Ms. Gillett, stated they have 44
units in the Petoskey, with 47 residents.
There are only two (2) cars owned by the current residents. There is a
difference between independent living and assisted living.
It was pointed out that people are
worried about change and that if this project is going through, the neighbors
would like to be contacted. The
benefits of a special use permit were questioned.
Mr. Dobulis stated that elderly
housing is not address in the ordinance and that is why the Planning Commission
is discussing these options.
The residents asked for information
as to how this type of development will effect property values. They continued to discuss their concerns
about density, traffic and what will happen to the site if the commercial
venture fails.
Mr. Hodgson requested that staff
supply information regarding the density per acre. He questioned why we do not have more elderly residents in the
City of Charlevoix, especially since their percentages are growing everywhere
else. He requested additional
information before determining whether this development should go in an R-1,
R-2 or R-4 zoning district.
Mr. Dobulis stated he did not have a
problem with this project conceptually.
However, it should be done with a special use permit so there is more
control. He agreed that we seem to be
running our elderly out of town.
Mr. Flanders expressed concern with
density. We need to address which
zoning district this should be put into.
If this business fails, the special use permit would be void.
Mr. Campbell requested a definition
of Aelderly housing@ and densities as they relate to the
different zoning districts, number of units per acre.
The residents discussed affordable
housing and elderly housing.
Ms. Whitney again expressed concern
if this project failed and what would replace it. We should not allow something that would be inappropriate for
this site. She stated a preference for
a special use permit in the R-4 zoning district.
Mr. Bennett agreed that density is a
major issue and that a special use permit procedure would give us more control.
Mr. Flanders thanked the residents
for coming and their input. We are here
to represent the citizens. We are not
trying to railroad anything through the system.
It was pointed out that there is no
plan before the Commission at this time.
Any plan for elderly housing would be site specific.
Chairman Kusina polled the
Commission for their comments and direction.
Mr. Dobulis stated that the matter
of density should be address, especially on one acre. He questioned how this commercial business would fit into a
residential district. He pointed out
that there is no place to house our elderly citizens and that the numbers in
the census data concerns him. The City
of Charlevoix needs to take care of their own citizens.
Mr. Hodgson expressed concern with
the concept of this type of development.
Mr. Flanders asked what would happen
if a project was approved with a special use permit and then it failed, what
would happen to the permit. Staff
stated that once the business terminated, the special use permit would
end. He expressed concern as to the
procedure involved in this type of project.
Mr. Campbell stated he would like to
see a definition of elderly housing and unit sizes.
Mrs. Whitney stated she would like to
see this type of development in the R-4 zoning district. She expressed concern that what could go on
this site in the future.
Mr. Bennett agreed that the special
use permit process should be used.
2. Public Meeting to discuss
parking of vehicles in front yards
Mayor Campbell stated this City has
a problem with enforcement. East
Jordan, Boyne City and other area communities do not allow boats and
recreational vehicles to be parked on their front lawns. The Police Chief states he cannot enforce
this rule. People put a lot of money
into their properties and they are doing a great job.
The Mayor discussed the existing
language in the City Code. He stated that we should not be removing language
that is enforceable with language that is not.
He addressed parking in the street and his discussion with Chief
Halverson regarding enforcement. He stated something should be done about
parking on the street.
This is American for everyone and we
should be thinking about the parking boats and recreational vehicles in front
yards and the impact it has on the people who live here all the time.
Mayor Campbell thanked Staff and the
Commission for the work they do.
Mr. Dobulis pointed out that cars
parked in the street is a motor vehicle code matter. He also stated that grand
fathering may come into play with the enforcement of front lawn parking.
The Board discussed the issue of
grand-fathering. It was pointed out by Mr. Flanders that the longer we wait to
enforce parking on the front lawn, the more grand-fathering we will be creating
in the future.
Ms. Sitzma stated that there was an
18 wheeler parked on State Street for 5-6 days. She called the City and County Police, but heard nothing from
them. On Saturday morning an ambulance
tried to get into the next door driveway but was blocked by the semi. This type of situation effects the quality
of life and represents a danger. Ms.
Sitzma stated that illegal parking in the street right-of-way is not being
enforced.
John Campbell stated it was a
directive of the City Council that the police must respond if there is a call
regarding illegal street parking.
Shirley Gibson stated that we have a
good ordinance on the books which should be enforced. The problem is enforcement.
She stated that Section 5.214(6) of the ordinance states that:
A Parking in Residential Areas shall
not be on yard areas (front, side, rear), provided that where driveways or
garage entrances are part of a yard area, parking shall be allowed.@ Staff was asked why this is not
being enforced.
Staff indicated that the City
Manager and Planning Director disagreed with my interpretation of Section
5.214(6), as far as what could be enforced.
Staff pointed out that there is a legal opinion defining Aparking@ versus Astorage@.
Shirley Gibson stated that the
burden of proof regarding grand-fathering should be on the people parking on
their front lawns.
Ms. Stizma stated something should
be added to the ordinance now so that this problem will not create future
grand-fathering situations.
Motion by Whitney Supported by Bennett
That the Planning Commission pursue
Mr. Young=s and Mr. Harsch=s recommendations to limit vehicles
in the front yard.
Ayes: Flanders, Bennett, Whitney and
Campbell
Nays: Dobulis, Hodgson and Kusina
Motion Carried
Mayor Campbell requested that the
Commission look into language that would address the re-building of houses
without having to leave a portion of a wall in place.
G)
OLD BUSINESS
None
H) PUBLIC INPUT, NOT RELATED TO
OTHER AGENDA ITEMS
None
I) FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
None
J)
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the
Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Dianne Manore,
Acting for the Secretary