A) CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chairman Hodgson called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM at City Hall- 2nd floor.
Members present: Hodgson, Staley, Gully, Flanders and Dobulis
Members Excused: Kusina
Staff Present: Harsch and Manore
B) WORK SESSION
The Commission continued to review and address the issues set forth in the visioning statements.
Visioning Statement #2: Its beauty is defined by its geography, its man-made development, its community facilities and services creating a unique community.
Issue #1: What elements of the City’s cultural development contributes to its beauty?
1. The waterfront parks and band shell
2. Earl Young architecture
3. The Belvedere and Chicago Clubs
4. Open space of the Golf Club
5. Preservation of Petoskey Avenue from commercial development
6. Sub-station landscaping
7. Airport landscaping
8. The lighthouse
9. Round Lake architecture
10. Hoffman Park
11. Michigan, Ferry and Depot Beaches
12. Walkways
13. Street trees
14. Lighting along Bridge Street
Issue #2: How do the City’s services contribute to making the community unique?
1. Regular trash pick-up
2. Ski hill, marina, baseball park, skate park, boat ramps
3. The airport
4. Petunia bed preparation by the City of Charlevoix
Issue #3: What additional services could the City provide that will enhance its uniqueness?
1. Remote parking areas
2. Transportation
3. Shuttle service (City transit)
Issue #4: What cultural activities could be enhanced in the City?
1. Broader advertisement of events
2. Activities that will take advantage of the high school, the Castle and Depot beach.
3. Winterfest
4. Springfest
5. Winter activities in East Park
Issue #5: What new cultural activities and facilities would enhance the City?
1. Enhanced use of the Beaver Island Ferry
2. Carriage Rides
3. Bike rentals
4. Allow for historic renovation and provide funding
Issue #6: How do we maintain our existing services and facilities?
1. Citizen involvement in addressing our needs and what it costs to maintain them.
2. Enhance property values
3. User fees for services (where appropriate)
Visioning Statement #3: The scale of the community is defined by its Victorian architecture and its church steeples which rise above the other structures.
Issue #1: What limits should be set on development to maintain
the City’s scale.
1. Maintain what we are currently doing (setbacks/height requirements).
2. Limits on big box development
3. Expand Bridge Street setbacks
Issue #2: What architecture is appropriate to the City?
1. Theme architecture is inappropriate
2. Southwestern architecture is not appropriate
3. Architecture that reflects the character of the City
4. Residential/cottage architecture for C-1 zoning districts
5. No ultra- modern architecture
6. No Frank Lloyd Right architecture
Issue #3: What type of architecture should be encouraged?
1. Use the same list as before
2. Architecture that blends into the surrounding area
Issue #4: How do we identify different types of architecture?
1. Create a “pattern” book that identifies period houses and their elevations.
2. Bring in an expert to classify structures.
Issue #5: What should be the maximum “scale” of the buildings?
Delete this issue (duplication)
Issue #6: For what reasons might the volume and mass of a building depend on the type of use and zoning district?
1. If it serves the economic development of the community
2. To maintain the character of our neighborhoods
3. Maintain scale of the neighborhood
Issue #7: How do we prevent one structure from being perceived as being the primary focus of the area?
1. Conceptual view of the overall sizes
Issue #8: How do we encourage new development that is within the scale and character of the community?
1. Identify what the size and scale of the community is, and should be.
2. Establish our regulatory mechanisms to handle this
3. Require impact studies if case is outside of the scale guidelines.
C) ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:00 P.M.