A) CALL TO ORDER.

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

Members absent: Hodgson, and Campbell, and Whitney.

Staff present: Harsh and Manore.

B) INQUIRY INTO POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.

None noted.

C) APPROVAL OF AGENDA.

The agenda was approved as printed.

D) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF June 9, 2003.

Moved by Bennett, supported by Flanders, to approve the minutes of the previous meetings, as printed. Motion carried.

E) PUBLIC HEARINGS.

1) Continued Public Hearing continuation to consider amending Sec. 5.200 Building Heights, and Sec. 5.5 definition of "Adjacent".

Planner Harsh went over the proposed changes to this section, stating that it is meant to allow buildings to be built to a height in line with those on either side, to avoid a building looking out of place between two much taller buildings. He showed on the chalkboard how the buildings would be measured at the peak, rather that at the midpoint between eave and peak as now done.

In discussion, Flanders stated he felt this is allowing higher flat roofs if someone chooses to put one up, and feels we are attempting to change the ordinance for one property that has been proposed.

Harsh stated that a building with a flat roof would actually be limited to a lower height.

Flanders asked if we could put in wording to control the pitch of a roof, to prevent the building from going higher than they can now go.

Harsh stated we could put in that type of wording.

Dobulis asked if the project being referred to could be built with the current zoning ordinance language.

Harsh stated he did not know, and would have to check it against what is currently allowed.

Flanders felt an ordinance should be written, and then builders should have to conform to those regulations, rather than writing regulations to fit a developers project.

Dobulis stated he felt that putting in a pitch requirement on the roof height, would take care of this concern.

Harsh stated he can put in the wording that it must have a required pitch, and will work on this wording and bring it back at the next meeting.

There was a consensus that the definition of "adjacent" is reasonable.

F) NEW BUSINESS.

1) Set a Public Hearing to amend 5.214 (7) of the zoning ordinance.

Planner Harsh stated this is a housekeeping matter, as he failed to address this in the previous amendment that was processed, concerning mapped areas in the CBD.

Bennett moved, supported by Fels, to set a public hearing on the proposed amendment to Section 5.214 (7) of the zoning ordinance. Motion carried.

2) Public Hearing for Case #03-19DP - Bager & Rutter - 224 Bridge.

Zoning Administrator Diane Manore, asked the commission to cross out the words "The adjacent parcels are zoned R-2, with CBD across State and Antrim Streets." as this was a typing error.

Mr. Malewicz addressed the Commission, showing them a site plan of the project. It is located at the present Apple Tree location, and will replace the building with a larger one, encompassing residences and commercial uses. The building will be an average height of the buildings on both sides.

The entrance to the residences will be set back from the street, with the commercial being zero lot line on the front, in keeping with other commercial along the street. There will be a stairway going to the top, with access to the roof, and a common elevator in the center.

Sitzma asked if there are firewalls between this building and those on both sides, and was told there are, as well as the building being fully sprinkled, as required.

A member of the audience asked if the front of the existing Apple Tree could be retained as a part of the new project, but was told that in this case, that would be very difficult.

Planner Harsh stated the project meets all the requirements of the ordinance.

Bennett moved, supported by Flanders, to approve #03-19DP- Zager & Rutter - 224 Bridge, as presented. Motion carried.


G) OLD BUSINESS.

1) Discussion regarding elderly housing Sec. 5.32 (6) (g), 5.67, 5.214 (1) (c)

Dobulis asked if the census figures are telling how many people will be in a unit, such as if there will be a couple in a one bedroom, etc.

One of the applicants stated that they have very few couples, and there are a lot more women, than men, in their experience.

Flanders stated he would like to see wording that would make it clear we are not limiting how large the rooms, or units, can be, but a minimum of the size they can be to comply.

Dobulis stated that discussion was held at a previous meeting about what would happen in the project was not successful. He stated he is also concerned with the fact there is more acreage available, so that this one could expand, or someone else could start one in the same area. He feels we need a maximum size, as well as a restriction on how many can be constructed in a certain area, such as a neighborhood. To have more than one would certainly change the character of the neighborhood. Also, Dobulis stated there should be a restriction that in the R-1 and R-2 districts, the project should be restricted to a single story.

It was agreed that the project should be large enough to be financially feasible, but not large enough to destroy the neighborhood.

Becky Doan, in the audience, spoke that the density being proposed is greater than that allowed in R-4. Because of this, she asked why Harsh is calling this medium density. She feels it is high density. She also stated she has a concern with the fact that when government money is used to build one of these projects, after a few years, the age limit is no longer used.

Dobulis stated that will not be true in this case, if we put the age limit in the requirements for the special use permit.

Marilyn Joy, in the audience, stated that because only a portion of the available land is being proposed for this project, that they will come back and ask for more space. She believes we should stay with the look of our neighborhood.

Ralph Doan, in the audience, asked if the Commission is representing the residents, and was told that it is.

The question was asked from the audience, why we have R-1, R-2, etc. , if anything can go into the district.

Dobulis, stated he feels we cannot have the same requirements for the special use permit for this use, to be the same in R-1, R-2, or R-4. Each district needs their own requirements. He stated you have to be more restrictive in the R-1 and R-2. There needs to be more space between them in R-1 and R-2, to protect the neighborhood.

Sitzma stated she likes the idea of Special Use Permit, so that you can control the affect it will have on neighbors. She stated the Planner has done a good job in putting the wording together, and she feels a project such as this one, is like cluster building. She feels the neighbors will like this better than a lot of small individual houses.

Fels agreed with Dobulis that there needs to be strict requirements in place, to protect the feel of the neighborhood. She agrees the buildings must be limited to single story, to better fit in with the neighborhood, and there should be a limit as to how many of these can be in one neighborhood, and there should be different requirements between the districts as to setbacks, etc.

Dobulis reiterated that we want to have a maximum of acres and a maximum number of units to be allowed, as well as a limit to how close another facility could be built to this one, perhaps not within one mile.

Bennett stated he likes the Special Use Permit, and we should look at the legality of limiting the space, size, etc.

Flanders asked the applicants if they would be considering two stories, and was told they were not. They stated one story works better for this type of use.

Fels stated she agreed that one story is best, because it is easier on the residents, as they sometimes get confused where something is located in a building, and it is easier to get around on one floor.

Kusina stated he agrees with the discussion by the other members, and would like the Planner to put wording together as was discussed by the members at this meeting. He entertained a motion to set this for public hearing.

Motion was made by Bennett, supported by Dobulis, to set a public hearing on Sec. 5.32 (6) (q) 5.67, 5..214 (1) (c), for elderly housing.

2. Discussion regarding parking of recreational vehicles in front yards, Section 5.212 (7), 5.199 and 5.214.

Mr. Harsh stated that currently parking for Recreational Vehicles and
Automobiles are regulated in two places. The amendment will put them together, making it less confusing.

Sitzma asked about a R.V. parked in her neighborhood that makes it difficult to see oncoming traffic, and what could be done about it.

The Zoning Administrator told her she was aware of the problem. Manore stated the problem is that the R.V. is parked correctly, except it is much to long for where it is parked.

Fels asked what would happen to those residents who actually don't have any other place to park their vehicles, either because there is no space, or no access to the rear of the property.

Harsh stated because of the "grandfather clause', those people who have been parking on their front lawns for a long time, could continue to do so.

Sitzma stated she felt that there should be an end to grandfathering when a property changes hand, so that it doesn't go on and on. Harsh stated that we couldn't really do anything about the grandfather clause, because it is legal.

Dobulis stated he feels there is not a big enough problem to make changes to the ordinance.

Fels agrees with Dobulis, as she feels property owners have rights, and there are enough rules already. She asked the Zoning Administrator if it is a big problem. Manore replied that it is when one of these comes up.

Fels stated she is against the further restrictions because she knows there are a lot of small lots that would not have any choice but to use the front of their parking, especially in the winter months. She said however, if the rest of the commission wants to hold a public hearing on it, she would not object.

Dobulis stated he feels the same way.

Bennett moved, supported by Flanders, to set a public hearing on parking of recreational vehicles in front yards, Section 5.212 (7), 5.199 and 5.214. Motion carried.

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

None.

I) ADJOURNMENT.

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

Respectfully Submitted,


Barbara A. Fels
Secretary