CITY OF CHARLEVOIX

PLANNING COMMISSION

MINUTES

September 13, 2004

 

A)  CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Kusina called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM at the Coast Guard Training Room

Members present:    Kusina, Dobulis, Hess, Staley, Gully and Hodgson

Members Absent:     Flanders, Cross and Whitney

Staff Present:      Harsch and Manore

 

B)  INQUIRY INTO POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

None

 

C)  APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Motion by Hodgson                          Supported by Hess

To approve the Agenda as presented

Approved by unanimous voice vote.

                                               

 

D)  APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Motion by Dobulis                          Supported by Hess

To approve the minutes of August 9, 2004 as submitted.

Approved by unanimous voice vote.

 

E) CORRESPONDENCE

None

 

F)  PUBLIC HEARINGS

None

 

G) OLD BUSINESS

1. Ordinance amendment relating to “assisted living”

Mr. Dobulis stated that the original ordinance draft was a good one, but that there needs to be some changes.  He pointed out that “lighting” should be part of a “lighting ordinance” that would apply to all zoning districts.

Mr. Dobulis referred to page 2 of the proposed ordinance. He stated that Section 4 (g), the last phrase: “and provided further, that special use approval shall be by the Charlevoix City Council, after review and recommendations by the Planning Commission, rather than the Planning Commission as authorized by Article VIII.”, should be eliminated.

He questioned whether assisted living should only be in the R-4 district, or should it be in the R-1/R-2 zoning district.  The question is what happens if the facility fails and would we then have an apartment complex in it’s place, with undersized rooms.  He expressed concern with placing this use in the R-4 district.

He stated that a special use should be required for assisted living.  Once the building has been constructed, can the Planning

Commission restrict that building to only assisted living and nothing else.

Mr. Hess stated that once the building has been constructed, the owner is then vested and the courts would probably be reluctant to require that the structure be removed.

Mr. Hodgson also pointed out it would also be very difficult to get financing under that type of restriction.

Mr. Kusina pointed out that before anything is decided on this proposed ordinance, a public hearing will have to be scheduled.  In addition, he requested that Staff pose this question to the City Attorney.

If the proposed ordinance is not changed, can it be sent forward to City Council, without a public hearing.

Mr. Hess stated that the required 30% lot coverage should include parking areas and all impervious surfaces.  He pointed out that the plan submitted showed the dumpster encroaching into the 50’ setback.  It was pointed out that the Planner stated the dumpster could go at the proposed location.

The Commission discussed whether the use of a building could be regulated through the zoning ordinance.

Staff agreed to contact the City Attorney regarding the issued raised by the Commission.

Mr. Hess expressed concerns with the proposed unit sizes in the amendment.  Other similar developments should be reviewed to determine what is typical, as far as parking needs and requirements.

He suggested that where parking is concerned, a “set aside areas” should be considered. He also suggested that “minimum” requirements should be reviewed, since that is what the developer will meet.

Mayor Campbell asked what the time line will be on this proposed amendment.  The Commission pointed out that it will probably take at least 120 days.  

Mr. Hodgson stated he would not object to having the assisted living next to his residence.  However, he is concerned with what would happen if the use did not succeed.

Mr. Hess suggested that the “college dorm” should be eliminated as an allowable use in the R-1/R-2 zoning district.  Transient housing should also be eliminated.

2. Visioning Exercise for the Master Plan

Mr. Harsch presented the vision statement questionnaire and asked that the Planning Commissioner’s identify and formulate additional “issues” for each of the five statements.

1). What kind of growth will adversely effect the small town

    character and beauty of Charlevoix?

   What building attributes need to be preserved to maintain the             beauty and character of the City?

    What needs to be done to preserve our neighborhoods and                  streetscapes?

    At what point does our public lakefront properties become over           developed?

    How do we assure that our City is not overdeveloped?

    How do we guarantee that there is continuing access around               Round Lake and Lake Michigan, and retain equitable                       opportunities to use these accesses?

How do we assure that the public will have walkability along the shore of Lake Michigan? (such as easements)

2)  Are there additional services that the City could provide that           will enhance the uniqueness of the City?

    Are there other cultural activities that could be enhanced in the        City?

    Are there new cultural activities and facilities that would              enhance the City?   

    How do we maintain our existing services and facilities?

3)  What type of architecture should be encouraged?

    How can we identify different types of architecture?

    What should be the maximum “scale” of the buildings?

    What limits should be considered to maintain the City’s scale.

    Should the volume and mass of a building depend on the type of           use and zoning district?  

    How do we prevent one structure from being perceived as being the        primary focus of the area?

    How do we encourage new development that is within the scale and         character of the community?

4)  How do we encourage business and industry to stay in the area            that will create real jobs and still pay a living wage?

 

    What creative ways can we use to increase reasonably priced              housing opportunities in the City, without building apartment            complexes?  

    How can we facilitate the “redevelopment” of our existing                housing supply, without due hardship and  unaffordability?

    

5)  For the sake of our businesses, what can we do to expand our             services?  

    What type of development would it take to draw in new                    business?

    Are there additional municipal services that the City can                offer? (City transit?)

    How do we foster the resort and tourism activities without               destroying the character of our community?

    What are the things that cause the tourists to stop in                   Charlevoix?

    Does the business community want to expand into the “shoulder”           seasons?

    How do we encourage the Coast Guard to stay in Charlevoix?

6)  How do we convince the inter-governmental units that we are not          trying to govern them?

    Can Charlevoix take a leadership role in inter-                          government?

    Should Charlevoix take a leadership role in inter-government?     

    Are there benefits to surrounding communities if an inter

  

                                                           

H) NEW BUSINESS

1. Discussion to regulate development of site condominiums

Mr. Hess stated that he is reviewing one ordinance example relating to site condos and would like to continue this discussion at the next meeting.  At that time he should have additional examples to discuss with the Commission.  

 

I) FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

 

J)   ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:00 P.M.