Township Information, Forms & Ordinances
Homestead and Inland Townships
Joint Planning Committee Special Meeting
Homestead Township Hall
11508 Honor Highway
Honor, MI 49640
April 9, 2008 at 7:00P.M.
Absent: Jessica Wooten.
Others Present: Stan Kounerkavich, Ted Curran, Todd Wanon, Glenn Puit, Jim Lively, Craig Seger, Anne Damm, Dave Nieger, Kathy Ralston.
Chairman Hubbell called the meeting to order at 7:01pm.
Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Agenda: Stands as is.
New Business: Review of the land use map. Christy presented a new copy of the land use map showing where the campground is and where she moved the line on the map so that it shows that the campground does not touch the river and over by the fish hatchery she pulled it back so that it does not touch the river. Those were the only changes that were made to the map. Cathy indicated that this is not a registered copy of the map. Everyone accepted the map changes as made.
Questions and comments on revised new language for the master plan: Bill Sholton had a question on Chapter 8 goals and objectives on page 39 on transportation. He stated that at the last meeting it was discussed and decided on that the Master Plan would include public transportation but not recognize specific transportation and asked to strike out “such as Benzie Bus.”
Christy Andersen made the motion to accept the corrections as revised. Bill Sholton seconded the motion. 7 ayes, 1 opposed, motion carried.
Zoning administrator resumes: 13 resumes were accepted, including a resume from Roger Williams. Members were asked to state their choices for interviews.
- Christy Andersen: James Williams, Heather Yanchus, and Roger Williams.
- Bill Sholton: Passed.
- Dan Moore: James Williams, Pat McDonald, Peter Chapman, Kurt Johannsen, and Roger Williams.
- Fred Poyner: Passed.
- Mary Miller: Chuck Stewart, Mark Ritter, Pat McDonald, and Roger Williams.
- Zelda Gray: James Williams, Roger Williams, and Kurt Johannsen.
- Bruce Andersen: Roger Williams, James Williams, and Kurt Johannsen.
- Roger Hubbell: Roger Williams.
Review Committee to consist of Mary Miller, Zelda Gray, Fred Poyner and Roger Hubbell.
Dan Moore will send letters to the four chosen for an interview.
Training on new Planning and Zoning acts: There will be a training seminar in Traverse City on May 28, 2008 at the Hagerty Center at NMC, 715 E Front St. beginning at 5:30pm and ending at 9:30pm. Christy Andersen asked how many should go. Roger Hubbell stated that he felt all members should go. It is a 1 (one) day seminar. All members agree that all should attend the seminar. Roger Hubbell said that he would check with Jessica Wooten about going.
Recess to hear Rod Cortright presentation sponsored by MLUI. Roger Hubbell motions to recess, Zelda gray seconded the motion.
Mr. Rod Cortright is retired from MSU with degrees in Crop Science and Soil Science. He has served seven to eight years on Evangiline Township Planning commission with a three year break and has been Chair of the Evangeline Township planning commission for the past five years. In his presentation Mr. Cortright spoke about:
- Traditional Zoning Ordinances: The solution to the problem is spatial, spread everything out. Strict separation of land uses, minimum lot size requirements. The emphasis on traditional zoning is that they spend a lot of time talking about land use, special land uses, administration (all the things that go into dealing with appeals, zoning amendments.) This does not really want to get you where you want to go. This only works well because of relatively cheap cost of personal transportation. Land use patterns do not allow for easy pedestrian transportation.
- Residential: This was for residential only.
- Business or commercial: Allowed for both business and residential.
- Industrial: Which allowed all three in the same area.
- Foreign based zoning: Under this philosophy we don’t spend time looking at use as much as we look at design and how it will all fit together. Design is an important factor. The main issue is form. The zoning ordinance is a graphic text. This is a more compatible form of zoning where residential and commercial can be mixed and make a much wider use of the land, mixed use. This is used mainly in the cities but it works equally as well in rural areas.
- Conservation design: This is a development technique where a majority of the natural, scenic, and culture resources are conserved by citing new development around rather than on these features. Conservation design has no minimum lot size. It is density and revenue neutral. You get the same level of development as you could under the old ordinance; you just change the pattern of the development. The revenue neutral end of it come with well designed conservation development will net you as much as or more than the conventional “cookie cutter” design. With this design you have small parcels of land intermingled with larger parcels of land. It tries to conserve land that may become farmland, woodland, and scenic land. (Sent out visual preference survey to get input.) The best way to make this work is a multiple option approach. In the zoning ordinance list a series of different development options for any given parcel of land, then the Land owner/developer gets to chose which one of the options they want to use.
- Low Density Option: One may take a 50-acre parcel of land and split it into halves if they so choose but it cannot be split again and cannot be split again. It must remain that way for both the current and future landowners.
- Sliding Scale Option: Used primarily in agricultural land. Here rather than have a minimum lot size, there is a maximum lot size. If a parcel is 50 acres in size, there can be three, three-acre splits. If there is a larger parcel of land left over then there has to be split into larger parcels, making small lots interspersed with large parcels of land. This does not allow for uniformed “cookie cutter” designs.
- Conservation Design Option: Only a certain amount of the developable land may be developed and the density of development is based on whatever number zoning so chooses. The key to this option is that there is deciding criteria, permanently protected open space, and undeveloped land must remain that way, there would have to be a conservation easement so that later it cannot be developed twenty, thirty, even fifty years from now. With this option design becomes very much more important. It does not matter who owns the conservation land.
- Family Property Action: This is basically the sliding scale option. Depending on the amount of acreage of the master parcel you can have some smaller parcels.
- Commercial Development: We typically zone commercial along highways and busy roads in strip developments with residential land usually behind the commercial land. The conservation design option would allow for the same number of businesses, but rather than have the minimum lot size and set back, you turn it around, preferably locating businesses at cross roads. Rather than the building set back somewhere behind the parking lot the building is now front and center you have the parking to the side or to the rear. You have common parking area if there are multiple businesses in the area. You can have mixed use. If you have a single story retail on the bottom you could have residential on the upper floor, or professional. Most Townships of Inland Homestead size only need 30-40 acres of land if done like this for retail/service industry.
Open Public Discussion: Roger Hubbell read the guidelines for open public.
Jim Lively, Empire, MLUI: I would like to thank you all for inviting Rod down here. I have heard his presentation a few times and have always thought they were very nice. I wanted to mainly comment on the last part of Rod’s presentation on the commercial development and I am hoping you all received the letter from Glenn Puit a month or so ago with our comment on the direct future land use plan. What I wanted to do tonight is we had commented that we are concerned with the commercial, the amount of commercial that is drafted in the future land use plan. It really speaks to what Rod was just talking about. The concern is with such a long area, in one case there was a couple miles of 31 is planned to be commercial and it can develop into something that looks a lot like Chum’s Corners if it is developed the way it typically develops. What I brought for you tonight is an example; in fact it happens to be my Township, Empire Township in Lelanau County, where they have recently in ’05 completed a Master Plan looking at their corridor there along M-72 which is a similar state highway in this case. They addressed the issue of clustering in nodes in a different manner than following the long rectangular shape of 31 like you see here on the future land use map. They use the language and a depiction of the map here in the hand out I gave you. I would just encourage you to take a look at this as another option, I think it is good to cluster and use nodes. If you just look at the map on the fourth page here you can see their future land use map and I would like to point out that they had about two, two mile long rectangular very similar to what you have indicated in your future land use map and they wanted to go with clustering and if you look at that area at the gateway corridor they condensed it to about a mile and quarter and they depicted where nodes, these sort of circular shapes intentionally do not follow the entire parcel because we knew that they wanted to encourage that clustering and the language that you see in the accompanying text speaks to some of the design aspects like Rod was talking about, how you might encourage that type of design within this area. I leave this with you because I think it will help you think differently about how you can continue to add your development along the corridor but do it in a different manner.
Glenn Puit: I just wanted to say thank you for hearing Mr. Cortright it is greatly appreciated.
Anne Damm: I thought it was a very interesting presentation. One thing I would like to add on that last thing he was talking about parking behind the retail, do you have any examples, graphic examples of that that we could take a look at, or that you could lean us to? I would like to see the building in the front. I have always seen the concrete in the front and I have always thought that it was unattractive. I have not seen that many examples and I really would like to see some.
Kathy Ralston: I would like to chip in another thank you. I am kind of wondering about and one concern is, maybe, advertising for the businesses behind. I guess there are ways you could do that. You could put signs out front.
Todd Warren: I just wanted to say thank you for allowing Mr. Cortright to come.
Dave Nieger: This is the third time I have heard Mr. Cortright’s presentation and like the idea on commercial development and nodes. I think you should take a look at it now, or closely following up on it the future with the changes. Mr. Cortight has a copy that he could send to the secretary or something.
Craig Seger: I would like to thank you the chairman and the board here for listening to the presentation. It really helps, and I am going to make a request that this group consider looking at a different date for the enabling act education seminar because that is the day that they have set for the grand vision work shop in Benzie county. The location has not been determined yet, probably at one of the schools or Crystal Mountain they are going to figure it out tomorrow. I am just asking, there is a Manistee class and a Gaylord class. But the truth of the grand vision and what you can bring to the workshop can be extremely valuable because of what we are going through as far as educating yourselves and getting the township all lined up, well that is what the grand vision is all about. Because of what you’re saying you want to see the whole county like that not just Inland and Homestead Township. So if you can consider looking at one of those other dates so that you can attend the workshop, I would personally be grateful and I am sure all the grand vision people would be grateful. Thank You. It will be 6:30 to 9:30.
Stanley Koucnerkavich: I live in Elmwood Township, Lelanau County. I am a graduate of the school of Urban planning and landscape architecture 1971. I have been a cherry farmer, realtor, developer, and township official. Currently in my township we are undergoing what essentially is a foreign-based zoning ordinance and it is presenting a dilemma in our rural area especially. It is a win-lose situation where they have requirements to cluster housing section. Where you have to avoid hilltops, where it can be seen from a road, public road, or a water body. Now that negates a lot of real estate. Pushes a lot of real estate off the table. Or meets and bounds and if you have no trees you are at the well. I think Mr. Cortright is correct. The ordinance is the nuts and bolts of what you have to administer. Foreign based zoning is subjected it is not objective in my opinion. The old way of doing things with uses was objective; where you had set backs, size requirements for different uses. Foreign-based zoning is subjective especially when you get to the commercial areas. You have mixed uses, you have some people who sit on boards and are volunteers and don’t have the background yet that Mr. Cartright and myself have. It can be done well or it can be handled very badly. I think what Mr. Cortright presented about the commercial district; I think there are some good things about nodes for areas such as the crossroads. I would like to remind you that this is US 31 federal highway. There should be help for you to design this from the Federal government with standards rather than forcing someone to park behind a structure. If you want to clean up the appearance of commercial development I recommend using vegetative buffers. Then they could keep the parking in the front, but if it were framed with some nice buffers it may present an attractive alternative to parking right up to the curb, but as a substitute I would recommend vegetative buffers as an alternative to parking in the back of the building where it may not be possible or realistic to do that. Thank you.
Dave Nieger: If you look at the village of Honor something is going to need to be done in the near future with the on street parking and there is more and more traffic that comes through there at some point there will be a need to move the parking off the street. Where do you put the parking so you may need to look at controlling the traffic and slowing it down? The point is if you are there to speak for the village of Honor and yourselves you may want to have a study and have it prioritized somewhere.
End of public hearing.
Board Go Round:
- Christy Andersen: Nothing .
- Bill Sholton: Nothing.
- Dan Moore: Nothing.
- Fred Poyner: Nothing.
- Roger Hubbell: Nothing.
- Mary Miller: Thank you to Mr. Cortright. Job well done.
- Zelda Gray: Nothing.
- Bruce Andersen: He’s got something on the ball. We are going to have to look more into him.
Next Meeting will be on 15 Apr 2008 at 7:00pm. JPC will review/approve Master Plan and review Zoning Plan.
Meeting adjourned at 8:43pm.
Submitted by
Sharon Peregoy
JPC Recording Secretary
Approved By
Dan Moore
JPC Secretary
Return To Joint Planning Commission Minutes