A) CALL TO ORDER.
The meeting was called to order, by Chairman Kusina, at 6:00 p.m.
Members present: Fels, Flanders, Kusina, Dobulis, Campbell, Hodgson, and Bennett.
Member absent: Patty Sitzema.
Staff present: Manore, Harsh, and City Attorney, JimYoung.
B) INQUIRY INTO POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
NONE.
C) APPROVAL OF AGENDA.
FELS MOVED, SUPPORTED BY DOBULIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA, AS PRINTED. MOTION CARRIED.
D) APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
NO MINUTES TO BE APPROVED AT THIS MEETING.
E) PUBLIC HEARINGS.
NONE.
F) NEW BUSINESS.
1.Consideration of a Zoning Ordinance amendment to allow reconstruction of deteriorating nonconforming residences.
Mayor Campbell was present to explain why he felt this amendment is needed. He stated that there are houses in the City that are owned by people who would like to tear them down and rebuild. Because of the ordinance regulations, this cannot be done, unless the owner stays within the existing footprint of the building. He feels this costs homeowners and builders more money.
It was stated that if they removed the deteriorating building, the owner would have to move the building footprint back to conform to the setbacks.
Mayor Campbell stated he knew the language would be difficult, but felt it should be looked at.
Dobulis stated the problem is that the zoning ordinance was set up for the best use of property, with setbacks, etc., to protect adjacent properties. If these buildings were grand fathered in as nonconforming, and were destroyed, they need to be built to code. Otherwise, you would be allowing different zoning to old structures, and zoning would only apply to new construction. He stated he is opposed to that.
Planner Harsh stated that staff could look at the proposal, look into some background material on these requirements, and work on some wording for the Planning Commission to review.
Flanders made a motion that staff do some research on this and get back to the planning commission. Motion supported by Campbell. Motion carried.
2. For your information and discussion - Special Use Permit application for 615 and 620 Petoskey Avenue. - Country Day, Inc., Profit sharing Plan U/T/A May 7, 1998.
Attorney Edward Engstrom was present to represent the applicants. He stated the Planning Commission has what they need to set this case for a Public Hearing in January, and feels the Commission has that authority. He went over Sections in the Ordinance, supporting his belief that the application will fit with a Special Use Permit. He stated that Assisted Living includes a professional administrative office, and he stated there is a need for this type of facility in Charlevoix. He agreed he still needs to provide signage information, and will do so prior to the public hearing. He stated that Zoning Administrator Manore wanted more information on the canopy, loading and unloading areas, and barrier free design, which he had delivered to her. He reiterated that he feels the City has enough information to set the public hearing.
Dobulis stated he agrees there is a need for this type of facility in the City, but feels this is not the correct approach to do it. He discussed the fact that the square footage does not meet the requirements in the ordinance for this zone district. He stated he felt the applicants are trying to pick and choose from different districts, to make this project fit. He stated it cannot be a concern if the project is not financially feasible due to required floor space, etc.
Mr. Engstrom states the City Zoning Ordinance is quiet on square footage for this type of use, and if the ordinance is ambiguous, the public hearing would be the place to address it.
Dobulis discussed licensing requirements, and Mr. Engstrom stated this facility is not required to be licensed by the State.
Flanders asked if the applicants are requesting the Planning Commission to consider setting a Public Hearing, and if he is, wouldn't the Commission have the authority to decide on space, setbacks, etc.
Mr. Engstrom stated that is true, but felt that this is going to be a 15 unit complex, with library, and other meeting rooms for the residents to enjoy, so would not need the same size unit, as might be required in other types of buildings.
Whitney stated she is concerned that staff was hand delivered materials at 4:30 p.m. today.
Mr. Engstrom stated he had provided most of the information to Ms. Manore last week, and furnished more that she felt she needed today. He stated he has been working very hard to get all of the material the zoning administrator wanted to her, in time for this meeting.
Dobulis referred to a letter from the attorney, dated December 5th, stating he felt the Commission has enough material to set a public hearing. Dobulis stated that the attorney has research people to put material together and the City Planning Commission only have Ms. Manore and Planner Harsh. It takes time for them to get everything researched and ready for us. He suggested the Commission refer this back to staff and when they have everything ready; we will look at it again and decide on the public hearing.
DOBULIS MOVED TO REFER THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING ISSUE BACK TO STAFF, FOR FURTHER REVIEW, AND TO BRING IT BACK TO THIS COMMISSION TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING, WHEN THE APPLICATION IS COMPLETE, AND REVIEWED. WHITNEY SUPPORTED THE MOTION. ON A ROLL CALL VOTE: WHITNEY, FELS AND DOBULIS VOTED YES. FLANDERS, KUSINA, CAMPBELL, HODGSON, AND BENNETT VOTING NO. MOTION FAILED.
CAMPBELL MOVED TO HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING IN JANUARY 2004. FLANDERS SUPPORTED THE MOTION.
In discussion, Attorney Jim Young stated he wants the Commission to realize what they are doing, prior to voting on it. He stated there are two ways to proceed. The Planning Commission can go ahead and have the public hearing, and then if needed; the project can go to the ZBA for interpretation. He stated another way is for the Commission to send the application back to staff to complete, and at the same time, ask for an interpretation from the ZBA, while the staff is reviewing it for completeness. Following this review, the Planning Commission can then set a public hearing on the case. He feels this is the best approach, but it is up to this Commission to decide which approach to take.
Mr. Engstrom stated the applicants are asking for a public hearing at this time.
On a roll call vote: Fels, Dobulis, and Whitney voting no; Campbell, Kusina, Bennett, Flanders, and Hodgson voting yes. MOTION CARRIED TO SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR COUNTRY DAY, INC. IN JANUARY 2004.
3. Planning Commission Meeting Schedule for 2004.
FLANDERS MOVED, SUPPORTED BY FELS, TO APPROVE THE 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULE, AS PRINTED. MOTION CARRIED.
G) OLD BUSINESS.
1. Discussion of City Council's action regarding the "assisted living ordinance amendment".
Dobulis stated he was terribly disappointed in the action by Council, because it was sent back to this commission several times, at which time we had special meetings, to change parts of it. He feels they knew they were not going to have a public hearing anyway, and that was totally unfair to this Commission.
Dobulis stated he feels we need to bring the proposed amendment back to this group, change the part about Council having the final decision, review it for any other minor changes, and have it put on the ballot at the next election. This will let the residents decide whether there is a need for this type of facility in the City.
Mayor Campbell stated that the makeup of the Council changed while this amendment process was occurring. He stated originally they were going to have a public hearing, but it was obvious that there were not the votes on Council to support it. He stated public comments were strongly against it, and the Council decided not to go ahead, after they had heard a lot of comments from people on both sides of the issue. He feels Council made the right decision, and has heard from a great number of residents thanking him for the decision. He stated he would love the idea of putting it on the ballot, so that residents can decide the issue. He stated he realizes the Commission spent a great deal of time on the proposal and thanked them for it.
Following a brief discussion of the process that took place on the amendment,
DOBULIS MADE A MOTION TO HAVE THE ASSISTED LIVING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RETURNED TO THIS COMMISSION FOR OUR REVIEW, AND TO MAKE ANY CHANGES DEEMED NECESSARY, AND THEN TO RETURN IT TO COUNCIL, ASKING THAT IT BE PUT ON THE BALLOT AT THE NEXT ELECTION. MOTION WAS SUPPORTED BY WHITNEY. MOTION CARRIED, WITH ALL MEMBERS VOTING YES.
H) PUBLIC INPUT, NOT RELATED TO OTHER AGENDA ITEMS.
John Hess stated he has asked this Commission several times to look at Site Condos, and develop ordinance language to cover them. He stated he does not know why it has not been done, as most of the other entities in the area have addressed them. Again, he urged the Commission to begin work on this.
One member of the audience asked if it is legal for the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing when the application is not complete.
Chair Kusina stated it is his belief that we can, as long as the application is complete when the public hearing is held.
I) ADJOURNMENT.
As there was no further business to conduct, Fels moved, supported by Flanders, to adjourn. Motion carried.
Respectfully Submitted,
Barbara A. Fels
Secretary