|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minutes 9/27/04
|
|
Friendship Township Planning Commission Minutes
September 27, 2004
Donahey T Franklin J Gelb Kurburski Nettleman D Simon B Trufant
Present x x x x x x x
Absent
Call to order at 7:00 p.m.
Roll call and recognition of visitors, declaration of taping devices. Present: Norm Mottl, Wally Smith, Eleanor Smith, Allyn Shepard, Hans Milobinski, Jutta Milobinski, Mary Lee Sprague, Merlin Sprague, Caroline Kurburski, Thomas Scott (Clinton Twp. MI) Sarah Cohen, Don Cohen, Roy York, Ronna York, Dorothy Heslip, Edward (Buzz) Jelinek, Jr., Larry & Catherine Kepner, Sandra Lauer (West Traverse), Eva Lauer (West Traverse), Gary Abent, Edna Abent, Michele Herron, Mary Whitmore, James Neff, Janell Van Divner, Maud Sterly (all Friendship Township unless noted) Some people came after the notepad was passed and never signed in or identified themselves.
Minutes of 8/23/04 were approved as written
New Business:
Public Hearing / Town Meeting for discussion of RR-2 and FF-2 zoning areas; whether request should be made for RR-2 east of M119 to be changed to FF-2. W. Kurburski gave a short history: the change to RR2 from FF2 some years ago (1985). The results of the Master Plan surveys and meetings. The fact that many people in the area affected were opposed to it at the time, but it was changed anyway to act as the county has put it “as a buffer zone” between the SR-2 and FF-2. Donahey reviewed a map of where the proposed changes would be and gave a run down of the differences and similarities of the RR-2 and FF-2 districts.
Questions were taken about the issue and what we were discussing. The change would not directly cause taxes to change. Commercial farms are allowed in both districts. The minimum lot size in RR-2 is 0.5 acre compared to 2 acres in FF-2. Were there any lots that are under 2 acres currently in existence? (Surfwood, and a few other lots was the answer given by Janell Van Divner, Assessor). How would these be treated? If it is a lot of record at the change to FF-2, they could not be prohibited from building. How does this connect with having our own zoning? Simon gave a quick synopsis of the investigation into local zoning and stated that whether we went forward with that or not, this proposed change in county zoning was something that had been identified early-on in the Master Plan process and we wanted to keep it moving to completion one way or the other.
Jelineck, H. Milobinski, D. Cohen, Mottl, Neff, E. Lauer, Tom Scott, Sterly, M. L. Sprague, C. Kurburski, Heslip all spoke and felt that lower density was a good thing. (same expressed in letter from Sandra Bartlett) Several of these folks also noted that they had opposed the original change to RR-2.
There were concerns about various uses in FF-2 (commercial farms and possibly fee lots, hotels/motels, mobile homes). Commercial farms are also allowed in RR-2. Van Divner spoke in favor of mobile homes being allowed esp. as people build their own homes. Some favored having some restrictions placed on the current FF-2 rules. Others felt that the FF-2 was a good fit. Question asked if some outside business or organization was promoting this. No. Maybe what we really need is some hybrid that does not yet exist in the zoning scheme (Neff). H. Milobinski felt that RR-2 was working don’t need to change it at this time.
Public discussion closed.
Discussion by Commission: lower density was desirable. In line with the residents’ preferences expressed in surveys and town meetings held when Master Plan was being formulated—“keep the rural character.” Can see no rational for RR-2 change in the first place, esp. since it is even higher density then SR-2. Would support variances for those with existing lots of record that would become non-conforming. Making any other changes/conditions to the FF-2 at this time would have to cover the whole township. Not any good rational for doing that at this time.
W. Kurburski moved that we recommend to the township board changing the RR-2 district east of M119 back to FF-2. Trufant second. Passed unanimously.
Virtually all public in attendance left.
Case # 50-04 FR Forest Recreation District proposed by the county and sent to us for comment was discussed. The wording is unclear as to what land it is really going to cover. These points were agreed on for forwarding to the twp board and county.
1. Should state that it is all public lands that are covered: state land (forests, etc.), twp land (parks, forests, etc.), county and city lands (same)
2. Any land covered besides public land is strictly voluntary
3. Would like to see the minimum lot width larger (300 feet seems too narrow)
4. Frontage requirements on roads don’t make sense as many of these parcels are land locked.
In concept we felt this was a very good idea.
With information from Trufant, Gelb and Nettleman, the Commission worked out a rough draft budget. Some more specific numbers / information needed. Various members agreed to gather same.
Adjourn at 10:30 p.m. Next meeting: October 25, 7:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cynthia Donahey
|
|
|
|
