A) CALL TO ORDER.

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY CHAIRMAN KUSINA, AT 6:00 P.M.

MEMBERS PRESENT: FELS, KUSINA, DOBULIS, FLANDERS, HODGSON, BENNETT, AND CAMPBELL.

MEMBERS ABSENT: GINA WHITNEY (EXCUSED) AND PATTY SITZEMA (EXCUSED).

STAFF PRESENT: PLANNER HARSH.

B) INQUIRY INTO POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.

NONE.

C) APPROVAL OF AGENDA.

FELS MOVED, SUPPORTED BY DOBULIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA, AS PRINTED.

D) APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 10, 2003 MINUTES.

In discussion of the minutes, a correction was made on page one, third paragraph under E) 1), in which, the setback for Charlevoix Manufacturing, should have read ten (10) feet, instead of yards, as was stated in the minutes.

On Page two (2), a correction was made to change item two under Old Business, to read: Assisted Living Zoning Ordinance Amendment - FYI.

Motion by Fels, supported by Flanders, to approve the minutes of November 10, as corrected. Motion carried.

A correction was made to page one (1) under Members present, to show that Gina Whitney was present.

Chairman Kusina asked the secretary to read the first paragraph at the top of page three (3). He stated he wanted to make sure that everyone understood what the paragraph stated, and that it was what was said by the City Attorney.

He then asked the secretary to read the next two paragraphs showing the action taken on the request for a public hearing for the Country Day, Inc. application. The secretary read it, and the Chairman asked if the commission members agreed it was what took place. It was unanimous that the action stated in the minutes took place.

A correction was made to page 2, in which the proposed complex was stated as being a 15 unit facility, but should have read forty nine (49) units.

As there were no other changes to the minutes of December 8, 2003, the Chairman called for a vote.

MOTION BY FLANDERS, SUPPORTED BY HODGSON, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2003, AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED.

E) PUBLIC HEARINGS.

NONE.

F) NEW BUSINESS.

NONE.

G) OLD BUSINESS.

NONE.

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

NONE.

The floor was open for public input.

Dobulis stated he had read the City Council’s rules of order, their charter, and the planning commission’s rules, and found nothing in any of them to allow the Mayor to do what he did, in stating he was firing some of the Planning Commission members.

Dobulis also referred to the Memo from Attorney Young, that outlined what had to be done by the Mayor, before he could take this type of action. He stated there are specific steps that have to be taken, prior to the removal of a member. He stated no procedure was followed, and there is no legality in what he did.

Campbell agrees that the mayor was the one who acted incorrectly, not the Commission.

John Hess, in the audience, stated we could wrangle over this matter for two months. But he stated he felt the better idea would be for the Council to sit down and discuss this in a closed door session with the Planning Commission.

Kusina stated that when a Mayor makes accusations, slandering someone, it bothers him, and he is looking into that matter.

Mr. Engstrom, attorney for Country Day, Inc., stated that he was upset when he heard some of the planning commission members were fired for doing their job. He stated certain issues are getting distorted. The question is whether there is a need for this type of facility in the City of Charlevoix, and he feels there is, and feels there should be a public hearing on the matter.

Becky Doan, in the audience, stated one policy that needs to be taken is to allow public talk at these meetings.

Engstrom stated that the place for the public to be allowed to speak on these matters is at a Public Hearing, not a the meeting where one is being set.

It was stated that the frustration is with the proposed location of this facility.

Hodgson stated that the Planning Commission has spent months on this proposed ordinance, and have taken recommendation from Council, changed it several times, and then Council doesn’t want to have a public hearing. He stated he felt this was not the correct thing to do, it is like throwing out the baby with the bath water. The proposed amendment included having Council have the final say.

Dobulis stated it is the assumption that if the Planning Commission sets a hearing they are in favor of the proposal. This is not necessarily true, but it is the right of the applicant to have a public hearing.. As it is now, if the Zoning Board of Appeals says the zoning is correct for this type of facility, the case will be right back here. He stated he does agree that the rhetoric should be toned down on this issue.

Bill Joy, in the audience, stated he feels that when the City rezoned this property from R-1 to R-2, the owners never intended to put residences on it, but wanted this as a stepping stone to what is now proposed. He stated this project is only for profit.

Sherm Chamberlain, in the audience, stated when the property was rezoned from R-1 to R-2, he was working on the project, and there was a definite plan to build. Things didn’t work out with the owners, so the land just sat there. There was no attempt to rezone it for something else at that time.

Becky Doan stated she would suggest that if an amendment is up for consideration, that a site plan that is not being considered, is not shown at the same time. She stated there was one on the wall, and it is confusing, she said.

Campbell stated that if one would go back to past minutes, they would see that the Planning Commission had discussed the need for assisted living housing long before this particular site plan came up.

Chamberlain stated that the problem with assisted living, is that it has to be all on one floor for the safety and convenience of its residents, and therefore needs a larger area of land.

Attorney Engstrom states because it is kept to one floor, it does blend in with the neighborhood.

Chamberlain stated public buildings can be in R-1 and R-2, so if the public was constructing this facility, it would only have to comply with side yard setbacks.

John Hess, a neighbor of the property, stated when he bought the property, it was because it was strictly an R-1 neighborhood, where this type of use was not allowed.

Hodgson stated that the facility has not been approved for this location. It is not a definite that it will go in this location. He stated this is the reason for holding public hearings.

I) AJOURNMENT.