1 24 256 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/5c0b8bb5dd50e7c5153212bde3d51c37.pdf 849c2921865eca816552d8a274b024ee PDF Text Text I . -~ . AMENDMEN,T $ APRIL , 1983 t • ~ -·) .:,, T-HE DELTA TOWNSHIP •·,COMP:REHENSIVE PLAN . ~ , 1 . - .... ...... OEL T-A :~ TO:W·N'SHIP . \ .- . . . '- P LANNING · . COMMISSION 3' �• CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF DELTA EATON COUNTY DEL TA ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 7710 WEST SAGINAW HIGHWAY LANSING, MICHIGAN 48917 Business P h o n ~ 627-4037 April 12, 1983 TO: Owners of the Delta Township Comprehensive Plan FROM: .Comprehensive Plan Review Committee, Delta Charter Township SUBJECT: - 1983 Amendments to the Delta Township Comprehensive Plan In Jul7' ·of 1982 the Delta Township Planning Commission adopted a revised version of the 1973 Comprehensive Plan. The Commission annually reviews and revises the plan as necessary in April - of each year. The purpose of this memorandum is to transmit to owners of the Plan the 1983 amendments. A pu~lic hearing was held pertaining to the amendments on April 11, 1983 which were ·· subsequently approved by the Planning Commission. -\~--i~-~ ~; :-~ Each page of the Plan which has been revised has the following phrase "This page revised April, 1983" affixed to the top of the page. In several instances it was necessary to insert additional pages, labeled "A", since the revised text exceeded that of the original. The tables and figures _ within the plan have also been revised by inserting the latest information available. The majority of the amendments to the text of the plan were necessitated by the Michigan Transportation - Commission's decision of December, 1982 to reroute Interstate 69 from •its "original" alignment through Sections 20, 29 and 30· of the Township to the U.S. 27 corridor. The "original" alignment still appears on some o.f the maps within the plan but the Generalized Future Land Use Plan (Figure LU-I) and the map delineating neighborhood units (Figure LU-II) have been revised. The map illustrating sanitary sewer service areas (Figure SS-II) has been amended to ·illustrate 1982-1983 sewer construction projects. Please follow the instructions listed below to insert and delete the pages within your Comprehensive Plan. ,-:-... 1. Remove page iii - insert page iii 2. Remove page 12 3. Remove page 54 4. Remove page 66 - insert page 66 5. Remove page 84 - insert page 84 6. Remove page 85 - insert page 85 - insert page 12 insert page 54 ' ·~..1r ~ �Page 2 7. Add page 85A 8, Remove page 94 - add page 94 _. . -·9.~ Remove page 95 . :,• add page 95 ::.;· . :rt: , ·. -~ y ~·-, , l'Q. Remove page 103 Ll-··add page\ '103 ·\,,. · 1 ,· • "-°"' - ' i} ;-, 105 ·.;,. .add 12. 'Remove page page 105 • ... / :,;· c: i fi/~51~~~,iail 11~ ,.: -,.l'. {4 . Remove !)age j , . -. • ' ~ ~- ",j ,X.J ~- \I '!.,~·•, v·,· ,,..____ add'. p'a_ge 121 ' .::· pige : ,,' ;. ' ~ 'l ~: r "' :. 1.28 ~i 7 • •R~m9v~ page . 12.8 . - add ·. ' , - ., .- ' . ' . ) ... _ ... :, t :~18 . . Remgv~ 'page · 129 · - add page · 129 ••• ' ·.•i : ! 121 '•r . ,·).···. t add pa'g ~ 120 -.. e.~ . -: -J·_.i . :\.' ~,~·-\ J:~.f ,I_·-- -~ -: - :. 120 .l ,IJ i ., ... t~-: ,;t f'" ·.~ r ,- . ·....(:1~ ~"! •j.~·- ._..~: '·:-. '1;,1~·1 ··•x Remove page 1{5 ·.- add ' page ,:.f1'5'" t ,·;. .,._., =-···:.._, ,·,·=· :- ·: .,.;?:·':~~,~;{,;; ,:.. ~ "f; ~-.-\.~~, ~~!l"J. ) • ~ •," ·t.' !4 ti~-,>-·:-.}~ .· .. . "~;. fS. t• ,.,~~-· _:..,q. ut •-; ~ l.l. Add page, 103A· · 'J ' • \ 9 • • R~m9v~ page_ 148 • • 1. - . ;w .. • ···•. ~~ J,1!" ,"' . ~Y. ," :f,. ' ; , _• .-~-Ei~ :.~-:r~ ~.. ' page 148 ·<·~.: . ,• , i: . Si~ \~ .-1_-:. .- add page 149 ,.,, -. . 21. Remove page ~50 ., •• , ~···:·,, , :';,/.~ ,. -~· ;: !':; ·,·... -:. .... •• >, , ?t,~·- _,, , {;,-:\•i:t' ~· ..; '•·' (,: -~~:fe_--:;:.··.--~:.-~ _,1.. ; ·.. ..,, c!-dd · page 150 !i1f _\'1 ' J··•r \ u/::'•; : B,~... .:.1 ·- _. '1:_ : . ·:,• ·.• ,t. , ... ": '. '\ . .:~~; ~ - i;~--✓ a~d, page 149 (.:,::-- (, ,· . ·•:~• r< ,: t..\:.·.:.)1"..-'t ~-~.' :j· \u,t-,-:,; ! _,. ..... ,. . 'f. l•,r :,~ ;l~,!'{ -t~ ¥;_:,\ • . 1.,.•· 22. Remove .page 158 - add page 158 -r· --~. .. · 23. Remove page· 161 ., J "'.)~- a.dd page 16(.; _.,(£ ' :.,·_.- ~24. ... ' ... v_ ·••;25. , Remove .,.pagie, ~i··: C _H Remove page rh3 - add page 163 , •; i ' , .~ ,: -.. ·-..-: ., , .·:··;{. . ·. l:.fx9 :,.;. .add ,page ,i69 s. r· :~ , ..:·, j' ,•, 12 6 •. Remov,e .page 170 ~ =·addf,page 170 ~\i;,t . .~ :~ ijr. ':-;-~~ "-~~ ... ' 1 .. J.· ... • .i' ,:27 .. Remove ,page 172 "" add page 1.71 1: ,... .: 2s. Remove page 174 - add, page 174 , '. 29. Remove page 176 add page 176 . r· .. .. , :.: .• .!. ., '!i .... :_~J:)· 30. Remove page 179 - add page 179 )1. Remove page 180 - add page 180 ,r •J.;~ ..... ·./~. · -~t 1 <,,, ._ ... •:,, , l:. ·. ,. ',:-~ . I ,.-- t:i ·. ·- -~:(:,· We woul'd ~adv-ise., you to update your ~plan upon;;,;-ec¢ipt gf ih~ at..t~died ' ·revisions. If you -ar:e missing a page(s) please contact the t)elta Townsh:£'{)0P.l.anning Department. Thank you for your cooperation MG/aw • �• ,. • Y' CONTENTS -J· - ·:':" .., . ·- . ®ALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES OF THE COMPREHE?i~iVE P~ I. II. II!. .., . IV. VI. V!I. VUI. LX. 'CoimnuniJ:V Goals :• • • . . . " Residential Development,.,... . . . • . . . . C.o ~er-cial Development . ~ . . . • . • . ., . . ·. . Iadustrial Devel.opment ..• • , . • • . • • :: . Community Facilities and Services. ,. •. • . • . • -~ -")i Tr.µ:isportation Facilities Developm~t {; • ·, • - ·.-- . , .. . . _O p~ Space and Recreati6n Facilitiis; ·D~velol)mei,.t ) • . . ·.. , ·.. , -~._•: . . ,. .. En.e rgy . . . . . • , • . • . ·,.. ;,· .~?·: ·nie Environmen.t. . . . . ,. ,.. . . • • . . . ' . . ?"2.1::~ - GEOGR:A:PHIC D~ERMINANTS • • I. II. 'III. IV. v. vt. V!I. VUI. IX. :,;. _·· i.;~·i;.: , "' . :--·'; 1 : -: • • ~:s ~ : " ,; · • • ' / • t_ • "' , •• I • • • of in- . ·. . .J-:: . . . . .:;.,-.. ~ ., ·., 8· ,· •g- ~ 17 .. . ..... ·-. . ,;- • · -~ ,· .•. . • • • io sq s. . _.. ':L'. ~ . -· . ·12 -~- • -6 ~ . . . . . . . . · . -~ ,,' . • ' . ' .'' ;.-.,:; 1 - _'.j \' ~ :: : 3 i+ ~1 -~'"1 .: . ., .. : : : 1" 4. <~ s. ,:o~L·:t ,, .- . '~·c..::::,/i . .. . . . . . • -:, • . . I . . 19 ·- 19 . ' '"' ' , - 24' ~ Po~ulation Growth in Delta Township. ~opulation Projections .. • • • • • -~. · ~:- ~:· -• • . 24 • .d""-.. • • ·- • · •·~---,. --·~~-:; --··r~ ..• :, .. COMMERC.IAL BASE ANALYSIS • • I. II. III. ,' . 3 ~· ; ' · • • • '·,.:- \ · : -·: · . . -) ;.rr· .-~~ . . Pbl>tlt.ATION ANALYS,IS AND PROJECTIONS. ....... II. !1 1 1 • . -~ . ( ~- . • . . . !'\ · ". •r\ ..- ·.. ·.r ~ ~ • s • ci~~r L.9 cation of Del ta , Town$hip :· ' : • Histor;ical Growth of Delta Township. c·1_1mat.t" ·\ : ~ •. ! • • • : • • • • • · Geology , and Topography . . • . . • . }.~ ~c • Soil . Conditions , in Del;a Township • . • • Ground Jil'ater • , · • • ~ : • .J~{ -. ~urfac~~- Water. . . . . . . . . . . Ws.tip.g ) Land Use fatteX'Il, . . • .• • Delta Township : .Land us f Trends (1972.:::1980) ' . = ;, .- ....•.; ..- . :, •'! · c ~~ ~ '.·-:' I. _1 ~ . r PAGE ." ~ 32 ._ ;:. Ch;a.r.a_c;-teristics of Existing Commercial Developmen-:t: .3;:. ,:~ ~~ - ....,-:- ~.: • . - 34 PT.oj.ect:i.¢!n of Future Commercial Development:. · . ·, .<· .. · • .,.. , . , •• ~36 Major ,.Findings of ,the Commercial Base An,~lysis ..s ·::•.< , ;,.•,:.·:::...a . i.\51 INDtJSTRIAL BASE ANALYSIS I. II. III. Analysis of Delta Township's Existing Industrial Base. Project~on of Future Industrial Development Potential . . • . . Conclusions • . OF'F!GE SPACE':.ANALY:SIS. ,: I. II. . , ·IX-I:. 52 55 .- 60 61 Office Types . ix?- Delta To~ship Office Deyelopmen.1; Trends. . . O~'t:erminat::~on, of ,. Del_t~. Township Office Space 61 61 __ ··Market •·; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 ii �, ·; 66 '..''• ·.'•• -, 66<: 66 72 72 74 74 . 74 . 76 '. 76 76 84 85 86~,: 88f' 90·'· 90:'· 90 ~ 95 . 98,: \ ' 101 . 1o'Jr 1-09 109 :'' 1©9'', . UL lH - . •.' SOLID WASTE ............................. 1 .......... ·• · . .'., , . · ·. 1 ~.i .,_ •-1~ ; -. 114 . '\. . .-,,J T . .;;,.r-;;:,. 1 iS 1 -FUTURE 1.AND USE j • • • • .-!., • • ·.•.- t· \,, ~;.i .,_. .. t i ~.. . s:~ - • ' . ~. . . .l' ,a,! :.:1 ~,j\::, \ ,. ·,. · _:I· It_...... th~ Relationship ~~ ., Pl~~g ' F~ Zoning .. : •••...• ,-,~·~it:!? •,l :'" ~!!sidenti~~ Development., •...•.. ~-, .. _.• ..•. .•..••.. - ~l · b,'!'!/'l.-·, :· _ · h.. · II!. R~s.idential Neighborhood Module Cqncept .•.... ,. .• ,... ..i ••• ,,-fr '.'. 123 F' :. IV.. •· ,, ·. - ' '. , . ~ 124 ,_; - ·i .. V. _•.·· -~etgh?orhood _Unit Delineation~_r.,;; ! , ~ ••_, ,:. •, • •. • •. "'M. ~cd.!!,;t~:">F' , .{so.i 9J;fice Development ... , ..... , ••........ ~ ... ._ .. !- •· l" •, •·.,-iJ ·"-r tJ. . _ 'T.• ,,,,,.-i,,;;TI .-1_ ... ~ • . \ ., 152;· v CouiuJ~rcial De':7elopment ._. ·.,.:. ·:r ••••••• • • • , • • •-Ir • t:--,r :1iJi 1 • • t•,n ,· ~ ·i:;s· · 1 7 ·• V'tI -': Industrial Development ...•.................. • . • , • . • • • • ~,·. •Ji,.,· · 1 V'III. _ Parks, Open Space and RJJ;eation . Faciliti~s , ... _' • i :-J".Wi.~;.· ,;;;: - r .. '""ne:7elopment .... i,, : ••••••• ; ••••••••• ,, •••••• : •• ; ·~: ~ ,.,,:-,:.;~J.~~nA: i~~ :·• IX. Prdposed Thoroughfare Improvements~ ............ ~ .. ~~--.- ... -. X. Co1lDID.lnity Facilities . ................................. • • 1'61 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ,; . • ·~ • • • • • • • • !. • • ! tJ:'· ",) ·•·· I . A iii , • • . • • �~I • -- --- f , ~/ f;·: - ' I This page was revised April of 1983 GEOGRAPHIC DETERMINANTS .'/:~tJ. . · Location of Del ta Township oc\',: .- . . changes. are likely to take place· within· the community'; · 'Lo·caticfo. of·- a· com-- The location of a community is an influential facto:r ."91~- ,i,P.9-i'c_a tor of what munity in relation to major transportation facilities an.d -employment _ centers will bear directly on · the- likillh6od · of-igfu~'h< ttithin::..the com.munity,-;.i:·•· ,. ~;· ,. .., :_~L:_~:~l-¼: • · ~'a_,,,.... , . ;:. .:·~ . ,.. ...... ::· ;, ., ·,;.,.. ·::..._·'\,. +~ ··;t · r·.,: . , J; _· • ~-• . ........ ·_ -~"-~~-, Situated, within the -· :r..ansirlg Tti:..{:ount~'feg'i oni"/ ' DE!-~' Tot.ip.s!:i:if"has experi,en~ed . rapid growt~ ~ince 196?·· . ·· Thisi. ~i'J#'.eit:' : .~~: ~': ~:13,\ tribuJ:ef . .to the Town;.. '·, . . . . .ship~ s . close - proximity to maJ or.-.emplayn1e11.~,;;e;:e_erttet-!§if'·'Such · a~., th.e Stat;e .Government -and . the Oldsmobile · lndustr.ffa!L ',:Cdltlplex;Uiit : ~eil ' ~f~Pelta Is stra•· t~ r:: ,tegic , loeation in relation to the ; tlicers~dt~ -:;fiigw;f:_01 i~wof;'1L \::· Major c:c 1':. .r.outes providing direct service · to•; tli~ :.T-6~sh·i p'a'fe"i:1.'f':...96, Ifft. 96" and US 27. i'- (1\' E~is~ing and pr~posed .. :reeways: ~~~e ;gi~~1\_ :f~~eit::-~; 11: ·fxpari~~~ -, ~f c·omm:~rce .wi-thin Delta's indust-rial sectOl':f . espec1Jia-l1¥" w:f:tlY~lect t:o.-maJor freight .-, . : f . .carriers, -and the warebousirtg distrtbution;,.::sec-td-r,:<· · -::_J.£. · .!...1. ... ' .. ,.. 1. • f" ( ) ( , : 88( . , ..... - ~.~~'i :· .- -'.•'\•_:·.1_·l(;.-;;o_:'-::;c~. .'i··;_f_' ,.,, !l'he ·Grand 'l'runk Western Railroad"·(GTWR:R) traverses tJie 13~.ut:h~_a s.t ern quadrant of the Township, paralleling. US 2-7-. · The GTWRR "O,jf~ra1:;e.s'...~a::r~~j;or rail switching yar.d .· in Section 25, further ccfmplerilentinf ~.iil s~rvic~s to the , Township . •"' ~ :r. .• ....r "· . · • . . • :,~ ~'\'_•,:" ev· - .' , -· - .: :_ ;.. . ,,..:>~=-fl • • . -- Capital -City ·Regfonal' Airport ·-is i!J'la·t ·~i one-b~fif ni:Ll\{:,k~~tfi~isi;, of Del ta 1'owns~~P. · Waverl-y Road and. Grand R~ve:f'"A~enu.( Et;,~v~i ~-~r~.:~t~~cess-.,,tb -. the airport from the Township. Capital City ~~4,;rp9rf: pt~v.iaji_ft.. ,~lte~uled :. ,- . commerc-i·al ·ai-r passenger ·and air freight serv:i'ces as ··w~,ll"a51 charter , . . .. - . flights for both passen~e.rs -~nd air. _f rJ.:!:~f,1· .,,.,;·~--: .,:;- _·:·• . ~·'?:;., :;: :_. -~ - ;~~.i~~a~l~•,.· 'the--L'an~~g- at'ea:: arid._. De-l~i"-,:j~s~1~:J~e -~~8~nqmic .iinks throughout- the· East North ·Central , 'P,dttiort' 'of fhe uniti'a'' Sta-i:¢~ ~ . This {highly in,dustria.l'i:z-'ed ' ~region.:"is directly depenci~t upon".""the hig°h\..;3.y and·. rail systems fo.r - d•i stribution of fini'Shed and semi-finished produc.~!':. t-f..Ra18fj)e:~fl. This fact further contributes to the economic viability of ··_t:fie :4:~~g :'-area :due to its favorable location · with respect tb major highway. and ·rail . facilities. Del ta Township, as evidenced by r.~gure GJ~ I ., .., ~jpr,~- ~:..,pi:efe~}ed posd.tion within· the· Lansing ~etropC?litan Ar·e·a .with res_~ec_t ,:t 'p .., ~~~ess-: ~~ ~highl>lay and rail ·· facilit'i-es. · .. ..r · -~-, -,. .,.r'- - -· .. ,- ...- _ - f!,• (::•.. ~~ .- !~n:- ~ ~, ::J.. :~ Historical Growth of Delta Township ;: ~.: The history of Delta Township can be traced along three lines of development. The first is the founding, growth and withering of G~and Riv-er City, t.t.'. a1s·o known as Delta Mills. This line of . development began 'i n t"he 1930 's reached its peak in the 1830'.s a~d 1890'~ anq. _subsequenflY terminated. &t, The second line of historical developm~nt in De+ta Townspip can -also be '1i~ traced · from the 1930' s with the foundi~g ~bf scattered farm.steads . distriG,~~0:· buted throughout the cTo~ship but . primari:J,y on ,secti~_n. . ~~\les . .: · this line ,:,.,_,;,:,..,_ of" development continues today as a '·signifii;:a~t prol'9rticm of ~- Township -~> land which · is · actively ·used for · agricultural purpose$ ! ; ·,'n'elta :.1\>.wnship 's ~-t } third . line of historical development c~~enced in th~ '!t9)0 's 'wfien the ·' :(:· · eastern portion of the Township began tq be developed a.ii .a subu:b of -- of development - was dependent OIJ. .the. growth . Lansing. This line of the ),\.l Lansing Region and did not greatly accelerlte until 'a fter 1945 . ~- .... ·d) ', .... ',' 12 of 1n- �. .. . FIGURE. GD-I LOCATION OF DELTA TOWNSHIP IN THE 1RI-COUNTY REGION ~ ,, .~ 'I•.:? • !" . \• -, _} . Li f [. ,'I. • \il"(. - 11 .;, I: <.- /; ...:·:ti.r.\" -:. • .s'°... ,· . •.: -~ -:.f i.J.• ,l ,., /Hf ,:~:, 1 ~ :,.~\· : ·' ;: :1' :! "' •~' , \-'-"( ,•+;;..it~\.,: _i,-'° A • ~ ; .. <:'~ 11)~:,;i-.. · ~ '::,l .-.-f}··, ~N• -:~fJ ". I,;,. ~-:£ 'f t '1-1 _.~_.v;J.:_ ~/r. .:...{, t "Jr~ \. . .~.~'.1'";1.fL1•1, d '1~.A10"1 '1~~ "' ! +:-:_ 1·: '••,' fJli: J, 1 -• ,!''\/'II.: ~"";fl'~ ~~~...,. ti :'; .c:..~.i:,a:;.;_, I •• .- # r ] ~;.!.7"': :'1 • L::;.;.-....Ji----1-.,..- ....1.--.....L--...J.....l_....i-_ _....,._ __. F'MK ·_; : nu.r: ~bta•o'i lf!;.. , .. '• 5:+.) ~ &t: ! .. 2 a 11:n:) :,r..~J. ::- 'I\J~" o•;m.:;-:Jt,_:. $. ....,, \ -t>'V <o, it l~ ! t~-- rl .:-·-$ !.~'.?:;) (, :- .. ': :..r-tv}~~ ;. 1!!:,.fi~Hl-h ,. i:t 0 Set-t-1::em~nt of the Tr1..:.:.cpunty ' Region along with most of the rest of lowef ., ,, Michigatl was ~ostponea · by tfi~ erroneous Tiffin report of 1815 which d-i~\~(l.: J settlers ±-o· focliana, Ohio ~nd Illinois. Subsequent survey and exgloratiGP. .... work cond,ucted under the direction of Governor Cass correct!!;1" ~~~~?~~~fcr' ... by the 1~30' s south central Michigan and the Tri-County Reg;o~~'1~~~-,alf-i!ct;--"'~ ing setflers interested in both lumbering and farming. ~-- J•· -··•V• U;\ _-,j:,.JH, . .. . , ~I-· . - 1·-· ,.1."'r··· '::";,. . ~,-s::~ . ,::;;;Q."'! "". J< ~;;: ~-~ :;;'..,. ~ l~ • . . ...: Tne first settler · of the Delta Mills area was Erastus Ingersoll 5titl6"pdt'~,h~~~d · BO&fa-e-rJ§ the Grand ' '.River: Ingersoll and others had comi .f8 ~ tH~ 1 i,e1tJ H°"',.,, Mills area in search of a site for an educational institution to be modeled . a.f°ter Oberlin College. However, their plans for the Grand River Theo~gidM,;.; Seniiriary we~e da~he,4 by_ the financial crisis of 1837-38. In , :~~,.me~~t£-Wl} 3'.: :. Ingersbll built a 's«:3-wmi.U and · began lumbering operations. An , I8A6 ~~U~r ~t · 1 authored by a resident of Delia Mills indicated that pe6ple d.m~" f ~dfil ·;':~.I :. · twenty miles away to have their flour made. Del ta Mills cbt\.'htiued ' t3s• d~v~1St§ 1 throughout the latter half of the 19th century at ~vhich time it reached iJ:s peak population of approximately 300. During the 1880' s and -l-89G~-s-.. ~.¥i~. .2:.~ Mills was served l'.iy Methodist·· artd Congregational churches, three blacksmit;,hs, -:· ~' ,>· re·~(:, 1 ; c$ three grocers, two masons, one cabinetmaker, one carpenter, one painter · and one paperhanger and two physicians • . Manufacturing activities inc).uded .. . were fabrication, cigar wrapping and furniture building. Socia:i~-l~a~..4t~i-s · time centered around the churches and the Grange Hall which attr~c~ed bqth , local residents and farmers from the surrounding country's id1':·.~.H1 r·,' .,._,, ·'."\': ;;:_: :.: t : .. ,,n.:.:. ~ ,a:'~,,\ ,,, .i ). !:)'."• ·•· !ft~: on , . t :.., .. Farming activities throughoQt Delta Township must have commenced about the same time that Erastus Ingersoll was founding Grand River Coi':t-y-:: .a~a=:.:.btl:iidI/ij,-.:;;~ his lumber mill. However, it was not until 1844 that the State _Legisl~tur~ ,, acted to officially establish Delta Township whose ter.r ito.riei§~~n t1~f'dk~ •·•,', ·,off from the eastern portion of Oneida Township. Tax toli-s : if?1844''' incffe!l tif twenty-six residing in the Township. 13 ' ' �This page was revised April of 1983 'J \. ·., firms carrying on operations outside the Lansing Metropolitan Area. With the e~ception of the General Motors Parts Dist_]:'ibution Center and Meij er Distribution Center, firms enga,ging ir-r dis·tribation activities employ relatively few people in th~ir local operations. I During the 1970' s a significant number··,;-£ -new industrial firms, the majority of which were associated with distribution of materials and goods, located in the industrial tract. This trend ;suggests th~t the location and access characteristics of the industrial tract are highJ,.y desirable. Typically, firms providing connnon carrier and freight transportation services require highly accessible locations ...to- both metropo-.litan , and regional service areas. /1. -~•=,,,.-,. .-r,..lt, ~ ':),~i.i~--- ~ ~~:~ - ,~......:: ~ - · - ~ - : : - ~ ~,... I . MAJOR BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS LOCAtED IN DELTA TOWNSHIP's INDUSTRIAL TRACT •.. 'L I l , , !' Construction and Related Activities · ·.~, . <' Distribudo'n ti ,_ ,t. J. ·.: . . 1 J. Ameri-Cel Structures Inc. Clark Foundation Company Douglas Steel Alvan Motor Fcreiglit Jacklin Steel ---Assoeia-t ed · Truc1C1.lines T. R. Noyce Construction Company Blue Arrow Inc. Bruce Cartage -- .......... Rieth-Riley Construction Company Shreve Steel Company ' - · _, ~- ---- ··-- . -· .,_ . ~ --·-eentral TransporF'.t nc. Tom's Asphalt Paving Company Interstate System Transcon.: Lin.e s _ '~ ,:_. .xr..:':;;,1~.J-;.::;.; ~-· . 'r. T~c~,e,r .,Fr.e ight, W:µes,.E,,i>' ¥~:·~:,;., . , ' :· - United Trucking Se;i;vic_e /::- ~.. · .·· , , . I,.. '<- ...... : ~~ Truck Rental -. I Manufacturers Service Corporation ~:~t~ttf;~~~~i~~~P#iP~~,- ~) i:- ·.: - .. • :;: s~. , _ ::! ..... : I ~ ::- Sf ~ (' •'. ' .-~ : ~"~(,..:. ·'., 1 - ~~fi~~~~{~~-: :. v ~a-Cola , Com-.pan~y·. : ,,.- c,,,,,,. '":: sr .}p:s? Coe ;J_"'." Gen~.r al Motors Parts·- Distr;ihution Center . Hi-Kl.iis Beverage . Lani;;Lng Storage Company .~ 1 :,-, :,Meij'er Distribution Cen't,ef::~ , ~ Jtey~ns Van Lines. , , . _. H Gr~in Elevators :_,:-! •,,_'._ l, ·:..·· ... / · t:?-. :. ,r ·:· .; .:i :· r ~ ~-- · • Detroit News Printing, F~~ility Oldsmobile Diesel Engine · Plant ii~.,;~- .ff~ ..~ l~ ; , ::~.~l 1.& ei1-fl. ~ -r.r .r , ·!:<dO :r;,:t'i.1;, ( HeaYY, ,, Atlas Truck Rental and Leasing · Keena Trµi;l<. Leai;i~g, c,. ::;~n . d ~.c·T :'Ryde,r _Try:ck Rent;il . a.;n9 ~~i;ln'.gJB Others •'11 . ~-JY,.:..~_c. ~:-~ •·._r., . ·,~~r - Millett Elevator Company Rals,ton Purina Company Miscellaneous Utilities and, Railroads ....... ,.. ,,. A-1 Auto Parts •· .. . .. r:i. _,,_ Canteen Services . r: .c . Tony M's Lounge/B~ldwin's Party $tore 54 • �I : Industrial Tract ';../ . , "! / _•f: '')_., C 1-80:) ;. ~~: .•.,. ' ' Du'r:ing the t970 '"s, -Delta Township attracted a ::i ~ignificanE' ii~~~~~rr··~~ .:, tndus-trial warehousing :firms. J~ 1 5~~ 1i-12:;}9JJ.:i P7Eiod, ~ppr~Hf~InfE.5:t)fq ~Z 1QOO :: square -fee·t of ma:nuf ac turin-g-·-s-p-a"C"e · was- ·constrm:te"d in tire- ·"Towush1p. - ·Dur_t,?.~ :,aPRF.P~fmat~J.r. EW0 --li4 1 H9n::; 9qu~~TT· !~~t 9b.r~fffJP 0 hl·~fng t:!:;-;:,t~/-~c@1Z>"f<iS =~~£'B:-S 1:~c ~-P: :-: In , .t~~ ~• lf1te_11~9 70 '.s ,, t9e {8~t?~~~~c,ffl-J8f ~ P,Ji8~ ~c ts tl:un . -~{}~ ipsfus f H<?-1.!_p,ac::,t _: -~ 014s¥1?b +t~ :l!gn;:r~~g~r 2:a~~~d:2~~~--ni~:te,q w;1-_ ·..:. -:~~y.,e:.::,:<t~99P,-J-~_90R. :~quar~. .Hef) , -.. ~~e,~ Gep~~~i :r~BEBrl? ,~a.5;s . '1ti1feq~}tt3e 0 ~~~~--~~,J,;~f2_i9:99. s.q pare J~e_;), ,~ij~J; ,Har:d lfp~ij. D¼Sf[iJ:>~F.t8~ ~ll~'tdit:g .)~15,; L~filt,,w~~F~_:f~e _tJ •:. C~5raTCola W~i:eh<f\l~e cr85 ·~99. -:.?~M~~e,J~~&~·tf.l-n~srliP~ J:?~troit .'$J~~~tp~g. p1cili;y (30,000 ~qu~re ....feet) . ._., ~,, ,£.9 _ c;·,,.,~Hj o.:: J::i.l .(; ;f:.~ J-Nt~:<~.c\mji 7 0 . S::--'£>;-' ..~~- ·~ /).,:i _JJn ...... ~ ,. -1 l, l c:"':; rif ..1.-: ~;-;J J -~ ~·-0 :·q Or!,L f. 8f:; II ,, P_roje·c:t_:i,on of Future Industrial Development Potential \ - : ; .. ;' .._ • u• -: fl•'c-1 ;J: ~--t-1.:fff.-:- _ :-.:: --_: -· • .. ·\ 'f•... , ')A!t ~fly~j,_~; _a nd projecti~n '. "['D~~~?-?P;t:ff:- ~c,~en_tia_l w~ll ge · . •; ~1':1 r. ~~ -' ~~-:~ ;·~ t,.o .".1S2 sF '.' of industrial, w,a r~housing and, :dh~f?,~gu;fgri carried,: eut in. four".xflfrPS •. -¥i~s g£i;~~~~on :/l;'m' :',~t3-M,, ?,J,.rr-?:i:F~_ct~d _to,. ~h~ overall ,. s _tructure ,1?!' lie~ ;I,,aq~in~1:) 'ri-:;-hg~_H : ,. -.,,;,.1-gr)~e~Jii-'«.:- ~c.09-omy . , •. ~~cq~~ly, c9ns~defation, will -~Er g~ven .: ~o ._, ;l)R~vu~H~cial .;£..;_ 'f..~J..fl)ff...~ --of . tJ:!~ Tr,1.:901,1n~y eFono1Ilic st~ucture _w~ich are i,J?pri17Ptflt j fo£ _· fP~JJlii.~J-.., ,.wa,li~hou~~ng and dist,ribuJ:ion econ~puc po;en til?-t~ J ·19iffibY., ::Jl.~~~¥-f'.J-/ e,mp_loyment (t;rends in i~dus tria1 Fand wh9.l~salin~-:, tr~9-~~c-1¥iH! rbe . _,__ 1 , aj}~}i?r~4.· ; )?inally,, _ projec_::,;~ons . 9f future Tri-Co4R.tY , !t?>dlf~Jl,?r~h,, ~n£Li,s _., ?' ;-7b?.f.~~~ling em-g:1,oyme1i1 t wip. be J,Ui 7sen t;~d1 and analy,zed '.)~n ordEr;t_;!) fgJ ~Er~ . te,r m1n~ :, f;1:1ture developmen~ __ potenfial _for .• ~el _t~ Towgship • . :'·:W " , , J i !''.,;~ Tri-County Regional Economic Structure fii .. ;,_. ~,- ·.•; . ,.,._ _______ thi-e~ . k~}'- .r+r1¥.~Ef~: . . _,_ .'.:..?.. flC.t j ,::.-!1L··1 Tl7-e ec9ro'!_IIY of the ~ri-County Reg:i,,o n is based. upon . §1.~~te g.ov~i:.-pment, higher educcj-tion and ~ptom_pbile m:=3-n1:1;~cf_lf.r .i pgJ.sif.:1~ying fm ; ~:PJ,l!;)IDY ba~ed on three such diversi~Je4 rJemenp, ,~aE~b~n.e .5}t~grJt1e Lansing. area. in terms of economic balance and stability ,F~_ i!-t(1I18·¥td 9 p-p,t . be possible in a more narrowly-based economy. Furthermore, this econ.oin?-c_ s .J:r~ctur.Er, has enabled t~e Lansing tfetropolitan Are-r, .$-9 ttl,<f:? ~ff?~~!,=P.~~ of n5_t1on~l growt~ trends in the three ker, e~oY.?1:lic sec,tor~ " Rts ,qO;YftrnW~?-t , ,•J._e~uc~__tipg_..,~n~ f:ndustry and thereby evolv~ .~s ~~e ee::,o nemic-- nv,e ~fmc~i:i,.t ral ,~a,._cJ:i-1_1~an,:_, dur2--ng the post World W<fr, Tw<J . p~_riod. "J,.:·:· . .,i".',.,:,~":>'i: Features of the Tri-County regional economy which have a bearing on the potential for future ind us trial development are primarily related·_ to the - skills and expertise which exist within the Metropolitan Lansing . Area. ·., 55 �I • U This page was revised April of 1983 TRANSPORTATION ,- . :; .. ' ' .\ ' The 9bjectiye of ~he transportation network is to provide essential -s ervice ~'dt:"fn '· mo~in~ :,nahicles throughout the Townshi p~ . prov idej tonveiiient . a c~~•~s-s to ·:.:;, ]tiv~;~~l?r<?f larty aii~ ·a1i6~~efficien1r ·wot ~, · ~~9pplh~ J~iitl~ ie; s~i-ia"'t ~ ! ~vehicle tt·it>~: · Jnie · stteet n~twork~ is ·t he tfio§t ' sbph:i.sti~Sl~ed i ana J developea- ~element ·;;, t,:f ~th~ 0 tr·a.tf~~6rtati8ri- system':· Other d~ent~ 5 inc1hcie th-e public '--'t ;;,i:i~sit ~~~ €~*~\ Gpe~ated 1:iy<thi!· C-:ipita~ A:ea- 1':tans~6!~at:i <:>rl Aut'fi~ri~( j ·:\ c~T{f.?' and i--,;~;': · ·~ tort~:C¢tihty- Transportation , Autf1or1ty (EATRi\N) ·, :fu:;nLmoto;-ized ":-:faq:t'.f:f;:~~es 'idewalks ' and: bi~e~~ys .! . and ,·a} ~P~r:t . ~ncf_ :_s'erv,~~~es_,_;- ~ f\uding ,-~ -~ ·pase ert:~~r -' ~hd:· frei~ht carugi. · _,, ,_. -• .,·· -.~ · "' 1-· )-{fl .. .· _ ·- :.<~iic~~~ltlf s ';:·1 \_=-- I.\_:(,~ . _ .,JL .1 • rail li.1 •.e,-, .. _r-;~: ~;r~ !':! .. ·.;• •_/,,· jJ __ :. ~; . . .- ._. The transportation plan element ot' the C<;>ptP~.e.~e:,1:s~v..,e, f.\~~ _prp v t ~:e .~ ,~n, analysis of each facet of the transportat'i'on ) -y~t~nrt:;:v~g' t 1fo-ottf1~{on to fuel costs, increased government emphasis on pu111ic · tr'afisit: r~feNlce and non-motorized facilities. 1 ·:..~.:rift. ~ ~ -, r_, ~1-:? dm 1 :1 :; ; .-..i.. . t~. ·.: : ~- - _'Hi~totiB.~~f D~velopm~nt of th~ Str~~t ,system -·"';",. ,.'..~i'.':,t~ • .., l.I cl.t w l.,,1.., - "•- L ,, J r~~l ... • . •.· ... . :. . !.'.: • . - .. l.!r--~ '! 1 r-· ~· '"f.. ~ ~ .·:.... -: __gt~ ~-~,1JIJ :'e:·~·-· :- ,.:..,. •, :;~l ''~P.:\'.!:~L-,:~ . . ,.,).,?:' .,'"·'·;v_rr.Eif ·)5; -~-~:fal ..p:ysr.;_r,i:: ', :111e Ji l §~ing thoroughfare ·patt-ern 'of beita1 Township :t ii e'v'g1)1~d'. p·r ': Hnnily ":-:: } 1:~~:: tw~ ~ff~s~f.- , ~igh~ay devel_o l'ment: fa:ct6rs. : . F~rst ,-, the_~i~} ¥i~cPJ~%d pi:i:~terrt"'evident · in the Township - re~iects· development crl,'farg- s~l:!'ti'ort"-'_fines . : wfi:i.c:h9 fl~~i!: ofltk'" to' the t_iih'e teentli · century survey of' 't:}1J11 N~;r'th.'<vest 'Te~ ri·. ·, '-: '. t:6-ry'.r;.1.> '.fh:ls p8:1icy r of " provitiing·· acce~s ~utes= along -s~c:tior( ·fitfes -fif1a~ -}-,:':,:,::1 i:i.\: c:hhes rrprodi:i~ed seemingly · arbitrary road alignment , pat·tertts1·:.~i!t::1:l-q_[~,:_ spect to natural features. However-, tonstruction of secri'on ·i'ilfe1~foa'.ds has also provided reasonably good access to all points within the . State. 1 :- .. :1 --·--· ·.!._· .. . ,_~,.:-.'-~ ~~-?~~--~~- ~~ ~- •· The second basic highway development factor which had a great impact- on '.'oh~t: ~hot bnghfare patte:dr bf the Township is the Federal Int"erstcite i:ilid f.: ::fleteiisl( .Highwi:i.y Program-. : The program is aimed ~t' developing_ i-d:g'ff''ripeed effiei~tft transportation links between maj orr centers of econom·f 2 iln'po·rt~ce it: 1 'tliroilg&dut the country. · Ini· Delta Tbwnship, tw3 interstate ~h'ilhwAys" ':':finpose a ':' strqflf new pattern over the ·old gr.i d configuration. A north:..$l,\£t1 iG.~seg: meri' the· and west"_hi' . ' .....t:-1; 6£ .;: . ...Int· . . e rstat.~ • •96 'tiivides ' •·~,. . . -..To~ship ,. into east . ·; '~- =· : .: i vjY:"' C\-, . ·. · Inj:efstate ' 496 divides ' the eastern half of the Township ~ ·to n'C>'rth'.e~1rt andrisoutl:ieast '· quadrants. These J existing interstate highways f>'r'ov.\ if'Ei'.·' e:ffitlen£ 1 connections to downtown Lansing as well "''tis other.·ma_fo'):- reifficient connections to doWntown Lansing' as well as to other major economic centers of the state and nation. ~ "'1(" ... ·...., to II 'l. Functional Classification of the Existing Street System }- - t - • ,. .. ~-, ,-- ,. ci~siification of street~ in an urban· area is intended to identify·· each ~;. -ii street; accbrciin'g ''t:o its serv':l.ce function. Such classification es-i:·a bJ'.iJh~i( th'e;.'. r el~l:ionship ;i,f each str~et to the entire system . s-er/icing ~: the•; ~t-b.a n ' atea·: _:: ' ,_,. . "< . .. :.i>rr)~- cJ- r1~· :: :c ... :1··· :;,,. :..: ~-; ~ • .i J Y -F utiH:'1.bh:s ir'e identified·- with respect to the types of land use served tfie' magtiitudi of their traffic 'generation, and also according t'O . ,;. '_ the mix of "through" and ' 1 '.Loc al" traffic on the various segments of the network. Through traffic ref'ers to~ trips which begin and end outs·ia·e :,anif ·::.: ·1 .•SJ.- .." ~- :,: r: . ' J .,..' ·· - 66 �i .. C U>· ' ' of the immediate study area. Mos~ of--t:~ tri~ n-S r ~ /-f&f-":;e ; ani{;:i t .: ~r; ,l~kel~ to h~~e t~eir. p~ t nt of __orig t ~ and -- ~~stin1ation .-~£ p.1.a ~~\fhr.: ~- r~-~<Jte _· frb~ ~e~~~t 1ownship. Tht\ int 7rs,fate h ~gh11ax .. netwo~~ ?r-0,d -:rN~~? r ;:_:·Hrs_:-~ a ~ ;~t~ mak~ ~p the _P~;-nc 3pal ar ~~~i1-t. net'gn:1.s .1q f _J'.OA1s. ~~y~e~,,. :;_k~· ! ::.'iar ge ''port:iort' ' c:sf ·'t i.-ip's "on a · re~iderltia.i streef1 "are like+X ·to.\~:~~m- ,;- ') ~~is~d' of ttaff i c ' with'"bdth o r igitf or deii'tinad.0 n in ·fJ;t,e i.mmedi <;l ~i : f i"1 ~,: ;. ~~,:I~fty~'. .These ''s~reet,~ ~~ € :: therefore desJ &~ated -~s·_,l~ca~ l ti:~--~ ~f, ½1b ·-:•~ Bit~ _f dfictiori:al syst;erli. ~·Local streets provide th~ .,~9 f or;st __ wit,fi .3;cc~.s s 1 ¾?;\: to ~a~tirtirig ·la'nd, ' \vherea~ i _arte r ial h_igfiwaxs f~.i iii t'~t;,¢'· mov{ mJ11sf ~:,1 i" f\ €nr~ttgt\ ;1n1 ara'a ;1'· '• Figflre t~r present's° , a "ci".:rss:i,,ficat ion .q~ Qel l a°~T~~:- S '~f reets, ind _ro~ds -~tr1:J t:fi:chi~;.; n,,_pepart1Aent. 0~ , ; (:MD~T~ in"_ 1979. A dessript.i 'on of -~he! varr o.~s cia5i~ihca~i_~I!,s 'ltqJlo',s in ~able T--1. · · ·---~ . .. '. hr .. J~tP ·-r'~:'F~~~{~\~J~p 0 The following list illustrates th,e. ,ba,sic criteria which are generally considered when classifying urban s 'treets. The origin and'~de~1tin:adbri ' of trips served (intra-urban, inter-urban and rural-urban). ~~_Gi--,_'l. :2:-.; '" The volume of trips served. 3. Th,e type of land uses served. rl,1.,, ._,r, 4. Spacing between travel corridors. ~~'&, '. :5 . .'. Rout 7 continuity. . . . :/,_I' _\ .· Physical characteristics such as parking, ~:~ · _· , : the number of access points, etc. 1. :«,. X • q~ i l ~' J · BE i •°j. 1 \l_, ~. I The i,,'C'fi'S.S'i:hcation of streets and highways in an area such' ~'.s! Delta ToWI'\~~ipJwhich is rapidly urbanizing is often complicated be,s:r use land·'_us-e· pat'terns are not yet established, travel volumes ar.e light and the' ·e xis.ting physical condition of a roadway may discou~:~ge its use as classified. It should be noted that road classifications _-~. ?~~J,..e~-f~~~~~ .,i1: ju\is.dic~ions w_h~:~h are experien 7ing signifi~_fnf ;. ,· :,-s--g;t~\\;J~ t9 in'7c~ea.:'es. l.Il traffic volumes, physi~~l roadway ~•~f bl~':i!.1,, ·-nP~ ~~~-gt_~- and cnanges . irt land uses. · . ... _, ,., '.· ,_. ~· ..\·~.: ~ - · ,-~;-l,._ -- - 1 ~,, , ~ .,-h,1 t~.(l · ... '~~;~ ~~ ~~~~~ PP,roximat1a}.y_ 160. tota~ ~11es of ro~~ways in D~1t 'r t'b~~-~ r,; · ·,r · 1m d.1tlding' e'k()resswa-0;, sec_tion l ~ne roads and_ local subdivi~i9p_,.g1rj~ts and roads. Road rights-of-way, including the interchange dghts-ofway, occupy over 2,000 acres or approximately nine percent of the • f _,., ~ '··.'\flttn· ,!:, °;; l 1 Township s total land area. Table T-2 depicts the total mileage of .the various roadway classificat:f.ons in '' hel ta Township. r:;,. ' ! J· "~ .Lt ~.ti\,,: i .·:; .{!'";!!': ,,,..,, ,, ·1 ·, ,., ,!:, .J ' . i :• -~ ,. -, ,. •. l - r! .. n.-·n:1. t' ;:.:' •'1.- ,0 , ... J 67 :.~ T :i' ,.:.. 3'"1!.~~ ,"r ·::-. ., •• , .L '-\.\,. iil; . . TJ ::, ",:1 't .': b:-,, !C • :.. 1 1:-r: 1 :, ~,- . f �This page was revised April of 1983 XI Mass Transit Service i~ _Delt 9 .. Township ... ,:_,I .: ._ ... ._ .... ~-~ j ) 7, j • • ·• • -.. . .. j ~' • • .~ ' 1:i .. U' •. .._ I : · l. ,i._ .J - • f ' . . ":'" i__., i (' . \/ .-1 •• ••. t. :-i :( t Ti;-a:nsit · service ln the Lansing _ai:;~a evolved _in a . ma11nei , s~ilaJ.; .. to., .t hat of _; ?ffi.~r ~~:ts~:§s at?,"_~5.tJfi~ c~untry ~-:-. ¾>. elec~f1.c'·~5 ~f:uE~fl~>~~i~o':tL and !~cal streetcar system served Lansmg and surround~g areas until 1932 , ,--r~ ~el! r they were rep}a~e~ . by a _mo~e- ~f_e~i~ln a~.9 : ~~e~!=>-~';~, ~ot9r i ~u~ sys-V.ll- t~- ~9,94 fri~~it se~ice in the a 71~a _w?:~ J ?..r?,V.:!ded by Pli~yate comI964 y~ty -~~ , Lan~ing :i.1:1c,~e~~~d ,,i,~~-~V?lvem~t i~ S~?e . ,<?~~r_a~3:o~ o; th1;~e1;:,r,qpolit,~ bus system ~f.t h ~lw :; ~:j,ty _dSSlfin~~ ;C~~plete 0 · / ~ ~; ·t~z , p~!:~;:. -?~ - :;i~~l!~¼e::t~i!~;~~~;;1~!~i!:~~:i;~ (~rlFS;rt~:~:~~~;ltt:~j ~:e cc£t:t ::~,f t _~ ~ ,I:u½5;_fc A'.c,ts of Mic,lj.igan, .1.965, .thro~gh a .pet_1 t:j.op by, .,tllt; ~~o~eJer '"· p'ki :a: T°.~:~htp n·e vei; o;~ iG_i'i~.+Y Joined - C4,5A. / :;_t~'.fh e 'f-'5 iTlustrates CATA ridership figures for the past sever a,.;!, "'ft~,:~ ·\J! }~~tt1~~¾.:, ,· _. .:., . . • :; ' , 1 ' tAB:t:E'::T-5 . "· ., "::"·. ,:,. .' ·- . . =.:. .: ' ::.~ ;, t" . • ;: :. ,. i ' 1 I'. ::1: ·e Year £ ~ l .SU . . - -'.) r .: : ,.\ tf . . ' r, I ' ... ~ 4; .ioo,001 : -~: ~ 4,4,B l,184 ·. -·' 4,4.68,828 _. -'- · • ~"' · 3 ;'a·20, 042 3,647,424 7 '~ - , 1976' - ~~}f+.P.~ ct~·.g l · ,. B,- · t _;_ :': ~-~~3o'"fP,~~;., +,JP 5:7,~,4 8c.:i, _ s a.1.1!{975 • -.. . l.,,, • r9(4 9 ~,~_c..;·,:_tl Jfi,•.~,-- .:1!:t ("I ., i·Q 1.' 1 c. 'J J -~ ;• Ridership 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 .., 19]7 , ,~ ~ ,.,.. • _j,"l • ',/JI t .• ._ . L· .,. L 1,2~] ,,5)8 ',-i6 ,-· - ,'f•~-- ;_~' .. [.Cf ..i'. ~ ~I~ -:q· !: 1 In th?}afe 1970' s ~~lta T~wns.h tp . ai}nw.illy p:royt~~d _CATi\-~-~ ti[ t¢.~ri~j.al su~sid'ies · for tran·s ~t servic~ prov~1~f "."7ithip th:~ T_Rwnship ~ ) ~ ~, .~-~t this method of fundmg transit service was altered when a seR1 te ~onfi;~eE-.-,g~t;ff~ CATA , ~nd. _De,lta Townrhi_!' was coopert~ively d~~~~~ c,?,µtr exe- : t!:1~~~- nri ~~ contra~;, }rafted for a _1 p~e-yea~_}'er?,-od, specif~e.~ g ._h .- ~ount · · 6~.J~D')·f~-: to be ~~ovided and the c~rresp9~~mgJ pa~ents. · · _, · . -:i · c,, f - -:. ... · d :_, ') lf: i :::..• '~ - . ; Route" Nuriloer Six of the CATA system~.• presently traverses the Township along $. J r:. • ' .. ' "' •waverly Road and West Saginaw Highway. :rbis route has one hour, int_~ rvals between buses (headways). A total of fifteen bus trips a day are made into the Township beginning at 6:40 a.m. and ending at 9:15 p.m. Transit service is not provided to the Township on Saturdays or Sundays. ..., 4 -, • C. ~ In 1981 voters residing within governmental units which are members of CATA, being the cities of Lansing and East Lansing and Meridian, Delhi and Lansing Townships, approved a millage issue which provided operating funds for CATA for a two-year period. Since Delta Township is not a member of CATA, its residents are not affected by the transit millage. 84 - �I This page was revised April of 1983 .. , .- lhe _Eat;qn _CoJ.n ty \ran~pp.rtat~o!1 ~~u:h<::t;.\;Y (~T~{ bega~ 1<;Pei;_a\=i;<?.:n on · October 1, 1980 under a contract with tbe Michigan Department o.f' 'l'ranspor1 ; ,·:;: c.it'iori~ *• unci'er th-~ ·c ontract, th.i{ ,sysf~ was)OOf.' fti1{d~d 'bf,' t'~-~ ."# ~~ e through Septembe~ '30, 1982 at whi~h t'inie tn'e residents of Mto1r"C'o'unty began making a local contribution in the amount of 25% from October 1, 1982 to September 30, 1983 after which time the contribution would be 50% of the operational budget. In August of 1982 Eaton County voters approved a 2/lOths of a mill proposal for supplemental funding for EA.TRAN. In 1981 Delta Township joined EA.TRAN which is a demand response bus system which constantly changes the way the buses are dispatched as customer demand changes. EA.TRAN services the entire Eaton County area while specializing in commuter express trips, and medical trips for senior citizens and handicappers into the Lansing Area. Appro~imately 70% of EATRAN's riders are on a permanent reservation, that is they utilize the system at the same time on a regular basis. The following factors could provide a major stimulus to increasing mass transit ridership in the Township: 1. 2. 3. 4. XII Expansion of mass transit service. Continued increases in the number of multiple-family households. Increased motor vehicle parking costs at Lansing Metropolitan locations, particularly the central business district. Increased costs of motor vehicle ownership and operation. Railroad Facilities Serving Delta Township The Chesapeake and Ohio and the Grand Trunk Western are the two railroad lines with tracks running through Delta Township. The Chesapeake and Ohio track cuts across the extreme northw~st corner of the Township, but does not provide direct service to the Township. Two Grand Trunk Western tracks cut across the southeast corner of the Township parallel to U.S. 27. The tracks are part of a main line route serving Chicago, Port Huron, Toronto and intermediate cities. The Lansing yard located at Snow Road and Pierson Highway is Grand Trunk Western's headquarters and main marshalling yard in the Lansing Metropolitan Area. Grand Trunk Western facilities and services in Delta Township represent one of the most important transportation assets in the Lansing Metropolitan Area. The Lansing yard consists of 13 switching tracks with automated controls and is a central assembly and dispatch point for railroad cars destined for all parts of the country. Grand Trunk Western serves the following Delta Township industrial type facilities. Oldsmobile Diesel Engine Plant Lansing Board of Water & Light's Erickson Station Meijers Distribution Center Millett Elevator Company Ralston Purina Company Grand Trunk Western has indicated a willingness to provide additional s.pur service to new industries desiring to locate in the Township's industrial tract. The Grand Trunk Western Railroad tracks carry approximately 15 85 �I This page was added April of 1983 .,r=J- :-rr.: _ r:-... · '"'.::..•r-"" · i. ..,..,,...... -,· ... - .· - - -r•; -. . .~.- ....... ., \.ii 1.•• .., ~.,,~ r-'a ~n~ ) >e1;:_ _:q.c!Y. , it\ ,_ea_clf d,,ir_e~cion, nJ.4~'fng Gr·a nd ·:_rrunR ~esterrt tnt?; ~jor 'IOJ,. ··: .r~:i;l ' J~i:itf~ itf ~he ·.1~nJ'm g· ar~~-'- Grcfrik 'Trunk Weste~~ has" eliminc!·teq the . : ·tas"sl[nger ; servfce it onc;e I?fq~ ided to the Township. ' ' , r ,_. '(.,_.Ja~•uv nuJ,:,. . , 'l ~<)( :r~ci'. ::. ::; , ~ J c; "'?!;. '"! • : ~ . \ ' ) ;:· ~;>.. ..,m., ..; ic:-· -,.. ,..,t:. :r. :-- ·,j: 1 .A: ' (' ..,., ~cr- i n.c; .: ;~~ ... ·,1:· ':'. ;c. r· ., ·•.-· ... ,:t, ,:: r .. ··1 rJ..: -'· ,,. i. ...... ·, ~ ·.J ...... > ;_ j.l. ( · -~ ·'_-:5'. 1 ,j t· .....--~f..:,.l.: - ·•; i::,· ,_ ..r: :::• -., • U°f'" ·- - ~- I.. . . ,._ :.. •.·!_·· ,; F, ~ I ._ : ... ... • • J ';., pr' -. t'• - jC J a ,,·f'' ,. ~T -~-•n: f1 :1.l of 1 un- ,., -s .:.··· ;;: r.J.8:a ,.. d:i.... :1: _;_ ,:· ·.. !(.,; ,...... -~. - - : l_!· __ ..• 2 .) - :i lJ ~:: :.-:c,,,.~ '.:-:'. '·,. . .BS-{f.E. r-:..31 ~ r .l ri-c :rr,.WQ.'T ~- •·· · :-:· .C"'1~~;~:;1 v.· !' t,~--- ..:1 --· l' .- .)J:CtJ".t'l ~f!_;_:· ; c~·· u.. s..E .....s·.:.. : :I':' c"'.... ?_;,., _. '·• ••' '3' "-.... ,-: " b:':I ~,:)ru ': ·., .. .., ,r.: ,·O ~ ~ .: ··•t', ~.rl-e:.. .cw ;.; .;_::J_." ,(J · .. \' ,.,. ;~. -, ?!_ - .. ,) SSA ;~;.., �~I f This page was revised April of 1983 requirements per gallon of storage, the provisions of easy access for repair, and the fact that ground ~torage facilities have more aesthetic appeal than elevated storage tanks. The Delta Township system has a 500,000 gallon elevated tank on the east side of Snow Road just north of St. Joe Highway. This tank has a static water pressure at its base of 59 pounds per square inch (PSI). A ground storage tank, equipped with variable speed pumps, is located on the west side of Creyts Road some 600 feet north of Millett Highway. The tank contains 1.25 million gallons of storage capacity and delivers water into the 16 inch South Creyts transmission main. The ground storage facility helps maintain 50-55 PSI in the south end of the water system _s erving lands south of I-496. Water Consumption Table W-2 illustrates that water consumption in Delta Township has steadily increased during the past s:ix years . A consistent pattern has emerged, that being that approximately 50 percent of the total water consumed is attributed to single family residences, 25 percent is consumed by commercial/office establishments, 20 percent is consumed by multi-family residential developments and five percent is consumed by industry. It is expected that the amount of water consumed by industrial establishments will significantly increase as additional manufacturing operations locate · in the Township industrial tract. TABLE W-2 DELTA TOWNSHIP WATER CONSUMPTION 1977-1982 Year Annual Water Consumption 1977 589,543,~80 _gallons 1978 638,522,720 gallons 1979 652,824,480 gallons 1980 647,782,960 gallons 1981 1982 Fire Flows As suggested previously, one major problem with the water distribution system is the undersized water transmission mains spaced on one-mile intervals. Historically, fire underwriters have identified municipal fire flow requirements using empirical formulas based upon resident population in the service area. With increasing sophistication of water supply systems and fire fighting apparatus, new criteria have been adopted which recognize the types of structure and density of development. In 1977, the Township Engineering Department calculated fire flows for existing major buildings, a partial listing of which is included in Table W-3. 94 - �This page was revised April of 1983 r·· 1.,c t 1 : • .. ,f,· I 1J :j ;-•: :.;_ _., ~r J } _Y : (,. •· • • t• ," ';L I ! ,. • , ) ~ t '"': lr. ( :, -=-.~. .) ~ .: . TABLE W-3 .. ,, '~ ! ! I ·• ~ • I ! '~-.; ..: , l,.' 1' ~'I t fil.· : ' :. . Recommended °J · .t Fire Flow i Es tabliJ;lhment , , ..... 3 :.!3.1 RECQMMENDEll FIRE FLOWS ·.... ·1. (Duration= --of· ··' Fire",- Fldw !:>,.. L ~ .. , l 6 hou'rs· ' _ ._Vill~ge .Green Apartments · -· 6,000 GPM ~-.;f ,t 9'-.r·'." Jo.~ t-• ~ ~ ·-r I 4 hours' 4-:,1500 .GPM ~ansing Mall. 1,, , ,· W~~ t 12 ~-~1~. . 1-,: ·H:e _,,, 2.n<. -~-! :;4";_ .!). ''L 0 1''lJC Michigan, Nat_j.ona¼, _ ,.__ ·:: ;Bank Center . .., . '1 ,,. Sea Hawk Restaurant . c J r... ~ "") $,a gin a~ Plaza, , ':.... ;.. J ~- . -~ ()" ' ~.1. ,_. ~ijer . (re~ail store) -Hilton Ii,m . Ct, •-- ~ 4 '1>l:aurs:l -· ~ ...:., ., 0 - -:: ..,.~ ....-._"1-~rl'I :31 .. : .,,-1,:;- , , J.:50 -GPM ".l: ·: ; ·, ·, ,, ,, ~1 r.. , -~ .. --~ ~; n· _J :.:-. ,, rr,.._, _; . .... ___ ,. ._ , :- ··~ -:Fbours 1 .,,, • -:: f :·~. ·-. : 2 hours VDlf ... 2 ,;: 4,500 GPM ' ,· . ..i'...b ~ >-rj 'I 3,000 GPM 4,500 GPM ~ ·:- '· -.J 1,500 GPM r- W~verly High School _.,. "' J . J :- :2 t.,,,.,, -J :", ·;,. )2, ._,.,.. _. I, -'o t ~-_Plum Tre~ Ap~:r;:tme.nt,s. ·,,,,: ·. 4,000. GPM:';,_.' · ·-'>.-.. >6':'.: J.o~ '" - '· ,. he.: .:.r~~ '-' ") . 4 h.Gfirs -·w -m,- J : : r ~ • I ,_. Bl hours abL11 -• 1 ::w: ,·•-, JS.rt ,,.,., · 14 °bout§'::11!'." - ... .,''O The addition of the 1.25 million gallon ground storage facility and the in.., , sta:1,lation qf 12 and 16 inch transmission mains along cr-eyts Koad imp.r oved : , ,_ the water syst~m' s fire flow capability and duration of .:l!:low:n°:tt -s~ould be ri~~ed that having fire flow capability in well production and~to·r-age !-:d oes ._,~ ~••,:. no~ . r_nean ~48:t recommended fire flow can be delivered to the s'ite '61-f •a ''-fire. ~e , dis tr !bu tion mains must be properly sized, spaced 1 . ,·artdHllooped-- to J.p rovide , ~mch fire flows at all locations in the water servidi ar-ea', i · u ··r! t;-: _. r,·." For purposes of providing adequate fire protection, close monitoring of daily water consumption demand versus supply capacity is needed. The ',exjjsting wate: system is capable of providing adequate fire flow to all but' 'a fl~w :.customers. Furthermore, as service is extended to new areas, need for transmission mains ·,~and added storage must be continuously reviewed. , 1.;1: 1 " ;_;·.. +.,~;r:. ,, .: Fut~r,e .S .ervice Area . r:,. fJ ~·\;. .t.l,_:. ;;:· Figure W-11 provides an indication of the future water system service ,area _in increments of five years. This figure should not be cons·11ru~<l 'as · '- iden tifying precise lands to be served during each ti~e perio&.'·· ·rt· 'fs int'.'ericled to convey the general extent and location of service area extensions based upon projected service demands. Figure W-II should be viewed in conjuncti9n wi th .Fi~ure SS-II presented in the Sanitary Sewer Service chapter asj to ;$he provision of both public water and public sanitary sewer servicess -:t.e crgd.ven 95 �·promptly toward rehabilitating and improving these collection and treatment facilities. The following narrative puts issues in perspective and suggests an approach to resolution of each issue. The following is intended to provide a basis and framework for the proposed extensions to the sanitary sewer system which are discussed at the conclusion of this chapter. fr Infiltration ,C The collection sewers in the Jrelta' 3roiiiitsh1ip sewer system are relatively new, the oldest lines were constructed in 1965. There are, however, significant quanti1~ies :-0f groundwater infilt:.r ation snd inflow to sanitary sewer iines in the .Rresent system. It is estimated: that apflq~iw-_g_t.?lY 40 percent of the wastewater - received at the treatme~t plant is groundwater and/or stormwater . There are , locations in the collection .sewer:,, :sys·1:em where sewer pipe is situated within the high ground water table. Also, a large number of dwellings and busJ.~SrSes have roof and footing ,:drains connected t.o sanitary sewer lines. Some situations exist where sanitary sewer service leads have been built t!,1,:-o.u,gh an existing storm . sew.er. - These ~:a'ds -may:.,be- broken or cracked causing a direct flow of storm water into the collection sewer system. This exc~ss, flow of water into the collection syS'teni tnrer1oaus t-he wastewater -treatment plant. Flow meters at the plant have recorded up to nine million gallons per day of influent to the treatment plani:, far :·in excess of plant :. i::.apa~i ty. The excess of. fG.-ow occurs primarily during periods of heavy rainfall, usually in the months of March and April. 2 :.:,-( ,• -. :. ~' l: • .: A detailed study of the present infiltration was conducted during 197519 77. 2 a1'ha..s study used daily flow records from the WWTP.i_: Mlich· we-r e analyzed. The amount of infiltration and inflow was estimated based on methods 8 9eveloped by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency t ' -rt ' was estimated that annually 300 million gallons of excess flow enters the treatme~t; pJ:an t . An economic study was conducted to determine aeosteffective approach to dealing with the excess flow. • J • - ·:"'J:_ ·.;)--:t:: L-•,.,._=- ~· v:. ..t.., .·.:~ ~·. ~, .'._)Tih~ ! s1™,,4y rev~aled that it would.not ·'ibe cost-effective to initiate a · program ,;; , .!:.:!?.f,r-4is.c;onnect:fing footing drains, but it did indicate that :' it would be cost-:- -u~e~~t;,:f;;v.e , to ~,emove excess was,tewater . flows by rehabilitating existing , .s•'l 1 ·-s~we.~s t: :;A d~ision to proceed with rehabilitation on a limited basis· would ~-~ .a1llJ!inJ!t1:t ·ap{tr())Cimately 15 percent of· the excess flow (•45 3 mi-ilion gallons annualJ,y);..-: T.he remaining 258 millfu'n gallons of excess flow would ' continue to be treated at the wastewater treatment plant. Ue>t 1 n ·so..; ,, • .b ,: "',Qual;;i;..t y ~ of , 8 -_r.,,ffi;-'I:+.~ ated; EfUuent 0 ) Water quality standards promulgated as a result of Public Law 92!..500 impose stringent quality requirements as to discharged effluent from the Delta Township WWTP. All present and future discharges from the WWTP nius.t: ·mee:t these standards. !,_ f ,·:·.r, ·: $ ;' --,, _c-:;-r2··-· , ....... , ·. ::.., r!'• ;p.e1,ta ·¾Jom:stlip is operating its treatment plant under final ef·fl1:1ent stand;,,: ~rd:s. .4 11. mun.icipal t:~ eatment plants throughout the nation operate as pro81 :Ci:.::'.,::. n .. ; -v,, :t "J r·u t rrc· .; · . -;,; i Reported i.n the Facilities Plan, conducted by Delta Township personnel in · n;=, cboperaition- with Fishbeck, .Thompson, Carr and Huber, Consul ting Engineers. 102 �This page was revised April of 1983 } -,f'lJ ;.f ... ~ "\ ::: · ., ...... - ~•'"'l"'rr t..; rJ- ,---if vided in the National Pollution Discharge· El~inatibn System ' '(NPDES). The 1 U.S. _;Envi~o~e~tal p~,;tecti~il. Agen~y- issu-~s-' NPDES permi,t:s' ei di "6perat1 ing t'r'eatment. pla~t iuid . estael_ishe§ . specifi~ watJ:r q\iA}_~·t r i~tt(~~ias as to effluent discharges. · e~r Table SS-1 presents sewage effluent standards established for the Delta Township WWTP by the Michigan Water Resources Commission, acting agent for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The WWTP is presently in need of improvements in order to address the following items: - Proposed EPA sewage effluent standards require that ammonia nitrogen be removed. - The flows of wastewater to the WWTP vary significantly during a typical day which hinders the plant from operating as efficiently as possible. - During hot, humid, windless, days the open treatment facilities at the plant presently emit a significant odor . - Excess seasonal flows of influent, attributable to infiltration, cannot be properly treated due to the limited capacity of the WWTP. The following improvements are needed at the wastewater treatment plant: 1) ammonia nitrogen removal, 2) equalization of wastewater influent, 3) odor control, 4) increased capacity, 5) auxillary power, and 6) backup sludge disposal. Delta Township is presently securing the necessary grants which, if obtained, will assist in financing a significant portion of the proposed improvements will result in the WWTP being in full compliance with future sewage effluent standards. In August of 1982 the voters of Delta Township authorized the issuance of four million dollars in general obligation bonds. This authorization provided Township officials flexibility in borrowing money at more favorable financing terms in order to pay for improvements to the wastewater treatment plant and extensions to collector sewers which will be partially financed through the sale of bonds. III Future Service Areas for the Wastewater Collection and Treatment System Projected Growth of Service The increase in demand for sanitary sewer service is directly linked with the increase in resident population. However, the extension of sanitary sewers is dependent on physical and financial constraints. This section provides projections of sanitary sewer service demand, proposed sewer service areas, and the periods of time in which the service is likely to be provided. Integration with other elements of the Comprehensive Plan is provided by utilizing population projections, land consumption rates and land use as set forth in chapters one and two. Table SS- 2 presents actual rates of new customer connections for the past seven years. These rates, together with anticipated expansion of service described in a later section, form the basis for projecting sanitary sewer customers,,,as illustrated in Table SS-3. 103 I �This page was added Apr il of 1983 .., "'· .. ~- :t (· c. ' ~~~ - t h~!',; ?:F.P3ec,~j on; ~f- f u,turf.-, ga;iitary sewer c~~)=o~~rs , was co~p} eted, it was nece~sary to further refin·e the projections. inc t -erms of cu·s·tomer ·t · :;c-.· ' .. i.l ,-:,. "'! ·1 · ; ;-••; i,t( , · · · , ~qu1.rf+~n :t;~, a{l,d expected wastewa1= er f19w at t~e t;-eatfue~,t · p~ant. Table ss:.4 -pr ovia es· the· results of this evaluation. i" "--· ..., " · ,,,_. . ·:. 1 -:·. . ,:;,J •"J ~.::. ~- '"· • ..., .. - ~ - :.,,: ··q: . :J .)· >; ''..!·- r : :.. _.t '~ ~ •' ·' t_,.., . ,. G' _I· ')C• l ,c. - :. :_ i./ 'f:. ;_:• .. · ,1 ' :; : .! 1P..l \, J :: .. . 1,1:, ...;· . !=•Lt" lal \ l:'Y: '"'.:F (c 1=- --~;~T~, b_r:,:, , 1~WC c:.s :)S.O s.r:: !. J' b f .- 11'. ,.J." j f · . .... B:.• ~ ':x.:i:.: I .., ~ .:., <r - T,,;: ~ ·;. ~ - .. .r1£!.i.!. i~ r ··-J: · .. ~qm-o:.i l .1.u:1 u.: :.J. L t .1: .,.• .! ::. .~. .i r r.. • __,._J ::;;rl-.:'.' .J~b~~ 1-.:.,_ 11\,.,! ... , i~ · 10 :::::,n . • -~!' .; ~ :.,•!J. 103A •.1-:.·,· �ents and expected wastewater flow at the treatment plant. provides the results of this evaluation. Table SS-4 TABLE SS-1 WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION'S EFFLUENT QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE DELTA TOWNSHIP WWTP Effluent Parameters Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD 5 )(2) Suspended Solids Ammonia Nitrogen Phosphorus Dissolved Oxygen Fecal Coliform Bacteria Proposed Final Standards Existing Treatment Current Standards ( l) 12 mg/L 16.5 mg/L 10 mg/10) 8 mg/L 15.0 mg/L 10 mg/L Me.8 :surement not Required 2 mg/L Provide 80% or greater removal of total phosphorus contained in untreated wastewater 92% 5 mg/1(3) 5 mg/L 200/100 ml 200/ 100 ml 200/ 100 ml PH 6. 5-9.0 6.5-9.0 6.5-9.0 Flow Measurement Daily Daily Daily (1) Current standards will remain in effect at the WWTP until the proposed improvements are completed at which time the proposed final standards will take effect. (2) Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) means BOD measurement average for five days. (3) Daily discharge limitations, all other values are thirty-day average discharge limitations. \. 104 �This page was revised April of 1983 .' · TABLE SS-2 I ; I ". I I SANITARY SEWER CUSTOMERS* 1975-1982 ' ,, : u '• ~ l I I Custome-r-.-!U-ass ',~ - , l:-97- 5 ·· 1976 1977 19 78 1979 1980 Single..:Fai;t-:Hy · ,>::-" r Residenti~l ' -1 1,1:;m, 3220 . 3500 3530 3860 3950 130 140 190 210 MultipleFamily Residential 100 3260 120 · 1981 1982 • ~ OfficeCommercial 230 270 300 330 360 430 Industrial 1 6 5 5 5 11 *l'he number of customers may actually decrease from year to year due to bu i lding vacancies. TABLE SS-3 PROJECTED SANITARY SEWER CONNECTIONS AND LAND ACREAGE CONSUMPTION 1985-2000 1985 1990 6000 464 Ac. 6830 464 Ac. 7650 8480 464 Ac. 464 A,c. 170 80 Ac. 190 101 Ac. 220 240 101 Ac. 101 Ac. Office/Commerc i a1Cl) Land~ Consumption 370 37 Ac. 410 38 Ac. Industrial (1) Land Consumption 13 139 Ac. 18 139 Ac. Single-family Residential Land Consumption Mµ ltj,p1,e~family Residentia1Cl) Land Consumption 1995 2000 • , ... ; 450 38 Ac. 500 38 Ac. 28 23 139 Ac. 139 Ac. (1) For purpose of computation of future wastewater influent at the 1 WWTP ;-' al1 .,. classes of customers are converted to customer equivalents, as set forth in Table SS-4 . An equivalent customer (a hypothetical term) means the wastewater from a typical household in the year 1977. Based upon actual water consumption statistics, this translates to 225 gallons/day/household or 6805 gallons/ household/month. 0 ·105 �L, I 1. t} ,:. . • ~.:, SOLID WASTE ,.':,.. -· .·r Solid waste is generally referred to as materials which you usually have to pay someone to t.a-ke off-s~t;e ::-and _d,ispose of. Table SW-1 illustrates annual solid waste generation .in Eaton County for the year 1980. Of the estimated 54,493 tons of solid waste generated in Eaton County in 1980, tapproximately 79 perce~~ •. or 43; 1:68 tons t were di:sposed : : Qf ~in , ·· : _. landfills. It has been estiinal:ed tha£· approxiinately 7·5 -percenfC::O.r.::.-t:HEr..s-., !S::.'.· solid waste in Eaton County is generated by residential househol.c;i$:; ·.......;. Table SW-2 ill4strates :$Olid c~raste estimates for Delta . Township :f~i:,}:::.:5':,;j.t. the 1980-year 2000 period. >~£:.~'i.i~,,s:• . , ... I I ..:..:..:£q; ..I .• TABLE SW-1 I '.r•~ , J L ;i ;.., ESTIMATED SOLID WASTE GENERATION I EATON COUNTY : ;-_. 1980 •~ f I -, • r ;..'- Coefficient* (lbs/day) 2.9 Number .Peqpl~ (Residents/ Employees) /tons of. Waste,/' Year 77,402 40,965 10. 6** 4,248 5,223 Retail 5 . 75 5,238 3,494 Government 1.5 2,489 Residential (( j •.._ '~ Manufacturing 433 ,_ ft. ... Communications/Utilities Significant Other 10. 6 31.. 5. 75 ~J,.L• t!, 6, 506~. 1 .[ 'o'. 38 L l IT" '"- .. - • TOTAL .4., 3.40 54,493 .Ii" j ....... ?1•1',... _r-1 ' ,';. *State of Michigan, Department of Natural Resources, _ Reseurce._:· Recovery Division, Guidebook of Solid Waste Management, Table 4-1 , pg . 4-4 • **Coefficient was derived from actual waste generation figures from Oldsmobile and Fisher Body, Lansing, Michigan. .\. . ~(1 Source: 1 ,- Proposed Eaton County 641 Plan, Tri-Cotmty Regipnp1.: :PJ.aning Commission, 1982. 'J • 9,.,, \ 114 - '·· , �This page was revised April of 1983 TABLE SWr 2 ESTIMATED SOLID WASTE GENERATION DELTA TOWNSHIP 1980-2000 .. :,· ' --,· 198'0 1•- , r...;.7 I.. l •J' qn ~" .l , 1985 .. '16·,215 Tons 18,772 Tons 2000 • 26,005 Tons rr .: Source: Proposed Eaton County 641 PLan, Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, 1982. " Solid waste collection is presently provided by private haulers within 1:ie'lt'a Township. Most of the solid waste generated in tpe Township is <:.. pr i s 't?n't::ly deposited at the Granger Land Development Sanitary Landfill ~1:oc~f ed in Watertown Township in Clinton County. This privately owned · · ~ iciiity presently accepts approx~ tely 800,000 cubic yards of solid ·•t.;ast 'e:' per year. It is estimatea t h:a,t 78 _pe;~ent of the waste deposited ' . 'at"" tthr;f Granger Landfill originates in fugham County, ~l, percent in r Clinton County and 10 percent in Eaton County. If the operators of the landfill are permitted to continue wit~ present exp~nsion plans a nd 1f· the amount of solid waste does not ~increase appreciably in the ·t ' \ '· future, it is estimated that the landfill will . have sufficient capacity to operate until 1998. C , ..,1 D'... ,.. J Solid was te· disposal is also provided by a landfill near Eaton Rapids. This facili t y is limited in the amount of waste it can accept and is expef ted to cease operation within several years. Eaton County operated a landfill on Windsor Highway, northwest of Potterville, from 1971 to 1982. The Eaton County Board . of Commissioners closed the landfill due to the increasing cost of keeping the operation in "'c ompi i anc'e with licensing requirements of the Michigan Department of Natur al Resources (DNR). The closure of the Eaton County landfill re: su ited in greater amounts of solid wastes being diverted to the Granger ' 1andfili in Clinton County, the C and C landfill in Calhoun County and · the ' ~ ton "Rapids landfill. -~ -- , r~rr- . . .: ... -, The r~cycling of solid waste is an idea which is becoming increasingly popular. In 1979 the DNR's Resource Recovery Division published a document entitled Resource Recovery in Michigan : Potential, Costs and Impact. The following excerpt from this document defines the terms source separation and recycling and notes the benefits of these approaches. Source Separation: Recycling: Separation and collection of individual recyclable components at the point of generation or discard. When the materials collected are used to make a product (collection by itself is not recycling.) So"urce separation and recycling should not be viewed as a panacea for solid waste management. Regardless of whether a recycling program is successful or not, it will not take care of all solid wastes. However , 115 .i �·r FUTURE LAND USE I , The Future Land Use Component con_tains. the Future Land Use Plan and analyses of its different land use elements. Six separate parts of the component describe and analy~e residential development, commercial development, office development, industrial development, open space and recreation facilities and the thoroughfare network designed to serve the proposed lartd use pattem. A·.brief discussion is·\riso provided regarding the relationship betwe~n lanp use planning 1and zqning. Figure LU-I is 'the Generalized Future Lana Use Plan while Table LU-1 indicates the areas allocated to differre n_~- la~~ uses. , 0 ,. ,. .. ·;c,:· I The Relationship of Planning to Zoning The relatioE-ship betwe~p_ lan~ u:~,e plfinning and zoning is ,m impp~~~~t one. Planning is basically the act of planning the uses of land within the Township for • 'the futurJ while ~6ni~g' is the act qf regulating_ ti\:~'.,.c ~se of . .• these lands by ordinance. The laws 9f the State of Michigan require that '' a co~unitf 'e ngage in land u~~ ~l'~ni?g' activities, including t~_' p,repar1 ation of a " comprehensive plan,. pf"ior to the init;i.a.tion o.f a zoning ordin!'illce in ~- coininuni ty'. ·"' :.. ,. Bi, ' ·" : " ~ ") .... Dt• .... ~, ·~ -; i. . ' . "" .1- r . ,'::, . . . .· ,,,, ,, ."tr In order to 'irovide . a b~tt~i-' unders tanµing of the terms _pl;:m~'i ~~ ~fl zons- ing, the :-• fol16wing ·definitions are offered: . . .,. . , .. ·~ •. :Z::.' ·S ·r Land Use Planning: (·-( . ~ . r. Zoning: i ,.;: "' · _ .... ,. .J '•, - ~ S ..... !~1J:.S ''1:;>0 ,: • The process of guiding the future growth and development of a community. Generally•. ..a .docum~t ~s pre:;· - -: -· J..i. pared known as the Comprehen~ive Plan wh~ch ~ddresses the various facet~ relating fo thr . . grj:rw.th ot -a community. Through the process - of land use planning it is intended that a community can ,__ preserve,.~promote, protect and improve the public health, safety 'Tand general welfare. Additional considerations include; comfort, good order, appearance, convenie~ce, . iaw ~nfq~c:emen t and fire prevention; prevent the overcrowdtng·· 9f land and avoid undue concentration of p~pu~~tio~; ~iiilitate the adequate and efficient provision ,of , transportation, water, sewage services, scli 99 is, ~p~rk'.~.:-~ recreationa1 facilities, housing and other requireme~ts and services; and conserve, develop, utilize and protect natural resources within the community. J • The process of partitioning a community into districts each of which permits certain uses of land for the purpose of conserving and promoting the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the people within the community . A zoning ordinance is often adopted which contains regulations controlling land uses, densities, building heights and bulk, lot sizes, yard and open spaces, setbacks and accessory useq ,_... .A zoning ordinance consists of two disti1Lct ·parts, ·being a written text and a district map. The text sets forth the purposes, uses and district regula,.9 ,on~ : fol?> each 118 �~- t .. •'- r 1 • •.:. j 5 This page was revised April of 1983 ·-•; TABLE LU-1 ; r ... ·:..-; FUTURE LAND USE LAND USE CLASSIFICA!ION ACRES PERCENT OF TOTAL Very: i9w Density Residential 2,366 10.3 8,786 38.4 739 3.3 ,c:; '~ '';:.I Lp~ pen.sity _R~sidential _MediUlll Density Residential 618 High - D~n~ity ~esidential ; ~ ..... ( J ~ r 2.7 tf 425 1.9 645 2.8 Light Industr;r. 599 2.6 Heavy Industry 1,913 8.4 Community Facilities 534 2.3 Parks and Open Spaces 766 3.3 Agricultural and Non-Urban 2,451 10.7 Transportation 2,145 9.3 Grand River 352 1.5 City of Lansing 576 2.5 22,915 100. 0 _ Off~~~- p~v 719,pment r .. 119 .-. �Thie page was revised April of 1983 ·, district and the standards for special land uses and admimistration of the ordinance. The map denotes a specific zoning district for every parcel of land within the community. ( Zoning is one of the instruments, along with capital improvements programming and the administration of local subdivision regulations, which implements the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. The enactment and administration of the zoning ordinance are legislative and administrative processes conducted by local units of government relating to the implementation of the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. II r. (_ Residential Development : The predominant land use in the Future Land Use Plan is residefitial tlevelopment. A total of 12,509 acres or 54 percent of the Township is designated for residential use. Four general residential d€:Yelopnierit densities are recommended; very low density, low density, medium density and high density. According to population projections prepared in development of the Comprehensive Plan, the year 2000 population of Delta Township wili be approximately 34,000 persons. The residential derisity•; pattern has been designed to protect the character of existing neighborhoods and to provide attractive areas for the development oi i1ew ·hbtl~ing C The majority of residential land has been planned for low density development in accordance with the character of the existing residential d~velopiuent pattern. Several areas have been designated for medium and high density residential development in response to the growing demand fo r: ··mu1.tiple family housing within the Township. One of the land development concepts which is becoming increasingly popular is a technique known as planned unit development. Several planned unit developments have been established· in Delta Township. A brief explanation of the concept of planned unit development follows the description of the various residential densities. !.. .. Very Low Density Residential Development ' : ·; ,_, .... 1 ( ·- The Future Land Use Plan indicates a total of 2,366 acres or lG p1dcent of the Township is designated for very low density residential development. Very low density residential areas are intended to be developed at a maximum density of one dwelling unit per acre. It is anticipated that very low density areas will be developed with single-family detached residences which utilize private wells and septic tanks. Very low density residential areas are located in the southwestern portion of the Township and north of the Grand River. It is intended that these very low density areas will remain essentially non-urban in character with large individual lots due to the limited fire service which is available to these areas. Public utilities such as water and sanitary sewer service are not envisioned for these areas in the near future . The very low density residential land use indicated north of the Grand River is intended to preserve the existing nonurban character of that area which contains agricultural parcels, woodlots, flood plain areas, and a few very low density sin8le-family subdivisions. The very low d_e nsity residential land use indicated for the southwestern 120 �. .,_.j.r C :,., This page was revised April of 1983 portion of the Township is intended to preserve the largely non-urban . character of · this area which includes four sections of land designated . for agricultural purposes. The very low density residential designation aJ.sQ, respects the poor drainage capabilities of soils in this area. Density R,esident·ial Development µOW '' '.1 . The Future Land Use Plan indicates a total of 8,786 acres or 38 percent of tb._e. Township for low density residential development. Low density resid~~t-ia1,; areas are intended to be developed at a maximum density of five uni.tl's per acre. It is anticipated that low density residential areas will be developed primarily with single-family detached residences ~l~hough planned unit developments or other development forms which do IlQ!,e~ceed five dwelling units per acre could be utilized. It is intended that low density residential areas will be served by public water and sewer service and hard surfaced roadways. It is recommended that certain limited institutional and non-residential uses, such as community shopping fa-ci~ities, be permitted in order to provide convenient services to resi4entiial areas while at the same time preserving the overall residential ,<iQ.h _~acter pf the area in which they are located. Low density residential ~~yelop~ent areas are concentrated in that portion of the eastern half of the Township lying between the Grand River and 1-496, and in that portion of the western half of the Township lying between the Grand River ~anch·Mt; .,, Ho.pe Highway. The low density residential area in the eastern rpo:i::tt-ion. of,, the_ Township is extensively developed with single family subdivisions. l'he low density residential land use indicated for this · area is intended to preserve and round out the basic character of exi sting development. The western half of the Township lying between the Grand River and Mt. Hope Highway contains a scattering of single-family subdivisions as well as strip residential development located along section line roads . The existing development, while not complete, constitutes an em~rging _ pattern of basically low density residential development which is incorporated in the Future Land Use Plan. The Future Land Use Plan indicates small areas of low density residential development north of the Grand River and adjacent to Waverly Road; in the vicinity of Delta Mills; south of I-496 in the Marcy Road, Guenther Road and Echo Valley Esta,tes areas; within the community of Millett; south of the Grand .R iver in the vicinity of Locust Lane; and in the area adjacent to Jolly Road. These areas of low density residential development were all delineated to round out existing single-family developments. Medium Density Residential Development total of 739 acres or 3.3 percent of the entire Township is designated for , medium density residential development. These medium density residential areas are intended to be developed at a maximum density of eleven dwelling units per acre. It is anticipated that a variety of housing types will be developed in such areas. Permitting planned unit developments in medium density residential areas will allow for flexibility and ipnovation in the land development process. It is assumed that these areas will be adequately served by major thoroughfares and public utility services. It is recommended that certain limited institutional and nonA '{: ' 121 �This page was revised April of 1983 - -:.'.1. Neighborhood Four ···l.i. The residential developl'lent that exists in this ·,neighlrorhood -ts df; a low density single family character. A significant amotin't ,~ · vacant land exists in the northeast and central portions of the neighborhood. Approximately 100 acres of vacant land between Willow Highwaiy< --an<i'0t,he Grand River in this neighborhood is presently in -agriculnu~a1, pto-d~ction. The Great Lakes Bible College Campus is located in the center of this neighborhood. The proposed east-west collector street.(will -t tr:ave-rie the center of this neighborhood~ . P-rovisions should ·l).e mades7to <irts--'u late this roadway as. much as poss•ible sfrom the Melody Acres S.t1bdiii;l-siottr to the south and from anticipated residential development to' th-e· rt(j:r·1!h. .. \. ,':. r. 1· .. ' ... .! 1 .,, This entire neighborhood is ·1oca:ted' within the Grand Ledge Schoo!l;T ,D:istrict with the Waverly/Grand Ledge School District boundary serving as this neighborhood's eas tem boundary. . ' : ·,''. •. · •- T The majority of this neighborhood:: lies within the Watson and Wa'tSbn Some portions of this district, parti"cularly the :..,: :; G.arfield Avenue Branch, have experienced persistent flooding ·pr,ob:lems 1 .in the past. The Watson ang Watson Drain generally lies wi1:hin~- the - · Creyts Road., right-of-way and empties into the Grand Rive-rc. ,. ,. -~. no.t. n·· Sanitary sewer and water service is generally available th.r:oughout '· this neighborhood. A sanitary sewer pumping station is · located on~ the nbrth side: of Olde River Trail within the Delta Mills Subdiv-ision.f r.Water: Well Number Six is located southeast of the intersection· of -Crey'ts· Rdad and Willow Highway. A water well is presently planned on the north side of Willow Highway, west of Rockdale Avenue. -'' J.,c--·. .. z..,_ :Dl!ainage District. A low density residential development classification is recommended for t.his neighborhood in order to preserve the character of existing- residential areas and also due to the fact that the existing utility systems and roadway facilities in this area are adequate to serve this':':.-type of development. ri~: -1 .. i t ~ f ·~ Neighborhood Five The majority of this neighborhood presently consists of vacant land with the exception of the Willow Woods, Robbins Acres and Armstrong Hills Subdivisions and dispersed single-family housing along Willow Highway, Canal Road, and Old River Trail. The existing land use pattern in the developed portions of this neighborhood is low density residential development. i::i . ., •( Delta Mills Park is located in the northeast portion of this neighborhood. This 32 acre facility was Delta Township's first park facility - antl offers a picnic shelter, softball fields, tennis courts, a basketball court, fishing and canoe launching. , ,. -- Sanitary sewer service is generally not available to the westernmost portion of the neighborhood at this time. The eastenmos t portion°: 0f the .,. neighborhood is presently served by sanitary sewer service. Water service is generally available in this area. A Township well site is located northeast of the intersection of Canal Road and Willow Highway. 0 128 �r This page was revised April of 1983 "'.'>. _l (-- The Delta Township Wastewater Treatment Plant is located on the north side of Willow Highway within this neighborhood. This facility, loc~ted on a 25 acre site, presently provides secondary treatment of s ewage. Planned improvements to the plant include flow equalization, ' odo r -, control and tertiary treatment. r, A low density residential classification is recommended for the neighborhood due to the establishea low density residential land use pattern and the general availability of utilities in the area. Neighborhood Six Neighborhood six is characterized by vast amo\lllts of vacant land and single family residences along Creyts and Canal Roads. The only existing subdivisions in this neighborhood are the Earlington Estates Subdivision in the extreme eastern portion .of the neighborhood and the Riyerdale Acres Subdivision in the northwest corner of the neighbor·nood . The Willow Creek residential condominiums are located on the sou t h side of Willow Highway immediately west of Carrier Creek. The proposed east-west collector road will traverse the center of this neighborhood. Proposed development in the center of Section Ten should be required to execute the necessary documents to reserve the needed right-of-way for the proposed facility. Efforts should be made to provide for a non-motorized transportation corridor adjacent to the Carrier Creek which could commence at Willow Highway and continue southwardly. This neighborhood is primarily served by the 36 inch Carrier Creek Sanitary Sewer Interceptor which traverses the center of the neighborhood in a north-south direction. Thus, lands within Section Nine, located west of Canal Road, are presently without sanitary sewer service. Sewer lines within Creyts Road serve the easternmost portion of the neighborhood . Public water service is generally available throughout the neighborhood. \ A 9\ 129 �This page was revised April of 1983 by the Myers and Henderson Drainage District while the central portion is served by the Decke Drainage District and the southwest area is served by the Munton Drainage District. This neighborhood is bordered by Onieda Township to the west. The Eaton County Development Plan illustrates parks and open space uses for the majority of land in Section 24 of Onieda Township while a small area is classified as rural non-agricultural uses. In December of 1982 Michigan's Transportation Commission chang:~it the proposed routing of I-69 from the "original alignment" whihh': tra·ii~t=sed Sections 20, 29, and 30 within Delta Township. The CommisJion"·' a.eiided to upgrade 16.4 miles of existing U.S. 27 to freeway status between· Lansing and Charlotte. ,1 ·, l ! ... , • ,. ~ I (1' ) ' The Michigan Department of Transportation has acquired approx::µil.ately 106 acres in Section 20 (neighborhood 27), 120 acres in Section 29 and 260 acres in Section 30 (neighborhood 28). At some time in the f~ture the Department will inevitably dispose of properties in neighborhoods 27 and 28 which it no longer has a need for. The proposed extension of Broadbent Road to Mt. Hope Highway will inevit, ably be delayed due to the change in routing of I-69. ~ A low density residential land use pattern is recommended Twenty Seven for the following reasons: for ~~ighborhood J 1. A low density single family residential land use pattern has already been established in the area due to the existence of £.he Coµntryside Estates and Evergreen Heights Subdivisions. 2. There are several areas in this neighborhood where soil conditions would not be conducive to the construction of conunercial or mulitple family buildings. 3. This neighborhood is located several miles from existing and proposed fire service facilities. Therefore, land uses wµich require significant fire flows should be discouraged in this area. ~-i Neighborhood Twenty Eight The majority of land in this neighborhood is vacant with the exception of several single-family residences located along section line roads. It is estimated that approximately 2400 acres of land within this neighborhood are currently in agricultural production. All of the neighborhood is located within the Grand Ledge School District. The neighborhood presently lacks public sewer and water service. The extension of public water and sewer service is not planned for this area in the near future. The entire neighborhood is served by designated county drainage districts. The easternmost portion of the neighborhood is served by the Dann Drainage District, the McCalpin Drainage District and the Moon and Hamilton Drainage District. The western portion of the neighborhood is served by the Munton Drainage district, the Thornapple Extension Drainage District, the Decke Drainage District and the Fox Drainage District. 148 �, ·'· '\. I - This page was revised April of 1983 Most of the soils in this area are very conducive to agricultural uses. These soils also present severe limitations for urban type development due to poor septic tank percolation, poor compaction and load bearing capacity and the fact that they are susceptible to frost action. The Delta Township Parks, Open Space and Recreation Plan recommends that a community park site be obtained somewhere in this neighborhood tn order to serve the long range recreation needs of residents in the southwest portion of Delta Township. Delta Township owns twenty acres of land on the north side of Millett Highway adjacent to I-96 which is planned to be used as a future cemetery site. This neighborhood is bordered by Onieda Township to the west and Windsor Township to the south. The Eaton County Development Plan depicts parks and open space uses within Sections 25 and 36 of Onieda Township. The Windsor Township Comprehensive Development Plan depicts agricultural land uses for those areas within Sections 4, 5 and 6 which abut Neighborhood Twenty Eight. An agricultural land use classification is recommended for all of Sec- tio~s 29, 30, 31 and 32 for the following reasons: l. , The, soils in this area are most conducive to agricultural activities. 2. ~ 3. Public utility service is not planned for this area in the near future. agricultural land use pattern has been firmly established in this area. A very low density residential classification is recommended for the remainder of Neighborhood Twenty Eight for the following reasons: 1. A very low density single-family residential land use pattern has been established in this area. 2. The relatively flat topography within the eastern portion of Neighborhood Twenty Eight presents problems in adequately handling storm water runoff generated by urban type development. 3. Public utility service is not planned for this area in the near future. 4. The section line, gravel surfaced roadways in this area could not safely accommodate the higher volumes of traffic which are associated with higher densities of residential developments. 149 �This page was revised April of 1983 .V Office Development Two large office development areas are described in the Future Land Use Plan. The first is located north and south of West Saginaw Highway between Canal Road and Carrier Creek. The second is located ih the ·vicinity of the Creyts Road/I-496 Interchange. The West Saginaw Highway office development area contains approximately 125 acres while thiF Creyts Road office area contains approximately 210 acres. Both proposed office development areas are directly a<ijacent to interstate highway· int'erchanges and are effectively linked with the entire Lansing metropolitan area as well as other portions of the State of Michigan. These two offi~e development areas should provide sites which are particularly attractive to companies desiring state and regional headquarters office complexes. The two office development areas, as delineated, are large enough in size and of appropriate shape to permit the design of integrated office parks or campus-lik~ developments with internal circulation and parking systems as well as attractive on-site landscaping. Because of the location of the office facilities in close proximity to · residential housini areas and their ready accessibility to the interstate highway system interchanges, congestion during peak traffic hours in the vicinity of these - developments should be minimized. ( Office development is also recommended adjacent to Waverly Road between Saginaw Highway and St. Joe Highway. The area bounded by Saginaw on the north, Waverly Road on the east, Michigan Avenue on the south, and Dibble Boulevard on the west is experiencing a gradual transition in land use. Although there are a number of residences in this area, a non-residential land use pattern is recommended for the future due to the following factors: 1. A mixed land use pattern presently exists in this area consisting of commercial/office uses and low density to high density residential uses. Encouraging office development in the area would establish a single land use pattern and prevent· conflicts between competing uses. 2. Public office equate office drains 3. The lots in the Parkview Acres Subdivision which front on Waverly Road generally have 350 feet of depth. Thus, these lots are large enough to accommodate physical improvements necessitated by office land uses such as buffer strips, service drives, parking areas, storm drainage detention areas, etc . 4. The area is no longer desirable as a residential neighborhood due to the high traffic volUliles on Waverly Road and the resultant negative impacts such as noise, aesthetics and vehicle emissions. In spite of the fact that a significant number of vacant parcels sewer and water service in this area is adequate to serve land uses. Storm drains in this area are presently inadto serve office land uses and thus it is recommended that land uses not be authorized absent improvements to the or the utilization of on-site detention measures. 150 - �exist adjacent to Waverly Road, a single family residence has not been constructed with frontage on Waverly Road for more than fifteen years. 5. Such factors as a close-in location to the greater Lansing metropolitan area, frontage and visibility on an arterial street, and the existence of an interstate freeway interchange less than one and a half miles away make this area attractive to office land uses. 6. A stable single-family residential neighborhood exists in the Clairborne Heights Subdivision immediately to the west of the aforementioned area. The establishment of office land uses along Waverly Road will serve as a transitional area between Waverly Road and the low density residential area to the west. The three block area which is bordered by Michigan Avenue on the north, St. Joe Highway to the south, Waverly Road to the east, and Hume Boulevard to the west consists of a mixture of commercial, office and singlefamily residential uses. Although there are a number of single-family res~dences located in this area, an office land use pattern is recommended for the following reasons: 1. This area is not a viable residential neighborhood for the following reasons: a. The lots in this area generally consist of approximately 6600 square feet which pres en ts difficulties when attempting to locate a 1,000-1,200 square feet residence on these properties. b. The high traffic volumes on Waverly Road make it extremely difficult for residents to ingress and egress from properties in this area in addi tian to the roadway's negative impacts such as noise and poor aesthetics. c. The existing mixed land use pattern in the area has resulted in inevitable incompatibilities and conflicts between land uses. 2. Designating an office land use pattern in the area would permit developers to assemble enough parcels together to form sites which would be large enough to accommodate office development. Parcels at least a third to a half acre in size would be required due to front setback requirements on Waverly Road, and the need for transitional buffer strips and storm water detention areas. 3. The area is attractive for office land uses due to the visibility and access provided by arterial roads such as Waverly Roa.cl, Uichigan Avenue and St. Joe Highway. This area is also located in close proximity to the I-496/Waverly Road interchange which affords excellent access to the greater Lansing metropolitan area. The recommendation for office land uses in these two areas is made with the following qualifications: 151 �This page was revised April of 1983 r tion of a few large industries within an area could significantly increase the amount of industrial development in that area and thereby increase the amount of land required. ., 1 It is reconnnended that the Township encourage the establishment of planned industrial parks within industrial areas. , ,. ,. ' • 9. "With the exception of very large plants and those that re-:.-,,, quire free-standing sites because of their need to be close ,~, to raw material sources or because of their incompatibility with other plants, industrial parks provide the most advan~ tageous locations because they are designed to meet the requirements of modern industries. Operating efficiencies can .-be gained and conflicts with neighbors can be avoided when ·an area is especially planned to accommodate industrial development. Interdependent plants can take advantage of opportunities to cluster in close proximity. If an industrial park in an urban area is sufficiently large and intensively developed, it will be able to obtain transit service which can result in significant cost savings both directly for employees and indirectly for employers." (Source: The Practice of Local Government Planning, International City Management Association, 1979, page 265.) In addition, industrial parks generally result in fewer curb .cuts and identification signs on arterial roads than do individual lot by lot developments. Since the businesses in industrial parks ·are . concentrated, it is often easier to cooperatively provide for such needs as storm water detention and rail service. VIII Parks, Open Space and Recreation Facilities Development In 1978 the Delta Township Parks and Recreation Connnission prepared a Parks, Open Space and Recreation Plan for the Township. The plan contains an inventory of existing park facilities, notes deficiencies in the parks system based on accepted recreation standards, contains a goals statement, and concludes with a parks and recreation master plan. The Parks and Open Space Plan and the Comprehensive Plan are well coordinated in that they utilize the same population projections and neighborhood units. Rather than attempt to duplicate the contents and recommendations contained within the Parks and Open Space Plan, the Land Use Plan depicts the future parks and open space sites which are illustrated on the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Figure LU-III depicts private and public park facilities in the Township as well as designating four green belts. The four major green belts depicted serve two purposes. First, the green belts reflect one hundred year flood plain areas and attempt to preserve these areas in their natural state as much as possible. Secondly, these green belts are intended to be used to screen intensive industrial uses from less intensive residential uses The Carrier Creek Green Belt The Carrier Creek Green Belt begins at the Grand River and continues three miles to the south to Mt. Hope Highway. This area has the potential to 158 .. �~(CJ ~ ( ~'---' ( /' TOWNSHIP DELTA PARKS AND PUBLIC GREEN BELTS PARKS ANDERSON 2 DELTA MILLS 3 ERICKSON 4 GRAND WOODS (City of Lansing) 5 HAWK MEADOWS OI .... lf"I Q) bO Ill p.. 6 LELAND H H H 7 LOOTENS ~ 8 SHARP CJ PRIVATE L , , ,/<:// , / /--i·- ----:-' , ...... _ .,,,"' ,I l\()d / CITY Of LANSING I Q) ~ RECREATIONAL AREAS ~ 9 INGHAM COUNTY CONSERVATION LEAGUE 10 WOLDUMAR NATURE CENTER GREEN BELTS A CARRIER CREEK B MT. HOPE HIGHWAY C NORTH GRAND RIVER D SOUTH GRAND RIVER - ;:I bO •.-l NORTH FIGURE LU 111 �' r offer a myriad of recreational opportunities, ranging from a casual picnic lunch for adjacent residents or office workers to an all-day hiking or bicycling outing. It is anticipated that the majority of the open space, which will be preserved adjacent to the Carrier Creek, will lie within the 100-year flood plain due to the fact that the Townsh~p__ Zoning Ordinance prohibits permanent structures within such areas. It is recommended that a minimum distance of 50 feet from either side of the Creek be preserved for the open space corridor. The 100 feet wide open space corridor should provide adequate space to accommoda te bicycle paths and pedestrian walkways in the area. Fences and other structural facilities which obstruct access to the open space area should be discouraged. 1 It should be noied that the Carrier Creek, between the Grand River and I-496 is established as the Moon and Hamilton County Drain and · is under the jurisdiction of the Eaton County Drain Commissioner. S~nce the Carrier Creek serves as a county drain, its primary purpose is ~to provide a storm water runoff outlet for properties within the storm drainage district. There will be a need to periodically clean and maintain the drainage channel which could impact the natural vegetation in the area. It is hoped that land owners and developers adjacent to the Carrier Creek will voluntarily enter into open space agreements with the Township to assure the preservation of the area in its ~atural state. It would be cost prohibitive for the Township to attempt to purch~,sP J.and adjacent to the Carrier Creek for the purpose of reserving the land as -open space. North Grand River Green Belt The second major open space area runs north and south of the Grand River between Royston Road on the west and Webster Street on · the east. This area has excellent potential for development of day use facilities and water oriented recreation. The Carrier Creek green belt and the north Grand River green belt are linked at a common point and could provide the opportunity for continuous hiking and bicycling. South Grand River Green Belt The third major green belt is located between Lansing Road and the south course of the Grand River and contains the Anderson Nature Park and Woldumar Nature Center . The short-range improvements which are planned for Anderson Nature Park include fencing the perimeter of the site, upgrading existing nature trails, improving Wardell Road and the installation of an off-road parking area. Long-range improvements include the construction of a building to accommodate the proposed nature interpretation program. Continued efforts should be made to coordinate Anderson Nature Park's development and programming with the Woldumar Nature Center. Mt. Hope Highway Green Belt \. The fourth major green belt is located along the south side of Mt. Hope 160 �~ - - - · This page was revised April of 1983 Highway between I-96 and U.S. 27. The purpose of this green belt is to provide an effective separation between the planned industrial uses on the south side of Mt. Hope Highway and the residential uses to the north. It is recommended that the green belt have a minimum width of 50 feet and that it be landscaped with trees and shrubbery. Due to the relatively narrow width of the green belt, it is assumed that the area will serve passive recreational pursuits rather than active recreational uses. Consideration should be given to the installation of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway in this area which could serve workers who live in close proximity to the industrial tract. Private Development of Open Space Areas It is anticipated that portions of each of the recommended green belts will be developed and maintained as private or commercial recreation facilities. Such facilities could include golf courses, sportsmen's clubs, nature study preserves and various kinds of commercial recreation facilities which will maintain the natural beauty of the green belt areas while not disrupting their continuity. IX Proposed Thoroughfare Improvements Figure LU-IV illustrates improvements proposed for Delta Township's thoroughfare network. The thoroughfare improvements illustrated in Fig. ure LU-IV are designed to either correct deficiencies in the existing thoroughfare network or to serve the land development pattern contained in the Comprehensive Plan. Table LU-2 contains a description of each proposed thoroughfare improvement and a summary of the primary purposes the proposed improvement is intended to fulfill. Cost estimates have not been provided due to the volatile nature of road construction costs. Funding for many of the proposed projects is expected to be provided by federal monies, specifically Federal Aid to Urban Systems Funds, and non-federal sources such as the MDOT and Eaton County Road Commission. The road improvement projects do not appear in order of priority. X Community Facilities The community facilities classification on the future land use map, Figure LU-I, designates a number of public and semi-public institutional uses such as schools, cemeteries and governmental complexes. Churches are not included in this classification since they are typically located in residential neighborhoods. A review of the various community facilities within Delta Township is presented in the following chapter. 161 �-- Q z < Q,. ( ~ t- en WI- % u, w<J z ~ 0 I- ,c I..J w Q > • a:~ t-o cna: I- (J w -, 0 a: a. Q w ..J .= U,c( G) o:e en a. 0 a: a. C, Oc, I LI. ~% ::) ·- Q~ W> ~% a:- 0 ' I I \ I \ I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ '' ' '' \ \ \ \ ' ' '' ' ' I .._ I ' II ' \ \ I ' \ II \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I: Figure LU-IV Page 162 I I I I ii \ �This page was revised April of 1983 TABLE LU-2 PROPOSED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NAME Elmwood Dr. Willow Highway Interstate· 69 LENGTH PROPOSED Ilfi'ROVEMENTS PRD!AR.Y (MILES) LOCATION .5 Saginaw Hwy. to Michigan Ave. New construction/reconstruction, realignment, widen to four lanes, install turn lanes. Eliminate through traffic from a residential neighborhood, improve circulation Waverly Rd. to Canal Rd. Resurfacing, drainage outlet, additional lanes at selected points Improve condition of existing roadway surface Not Available Construction of an expressway, connection to I-96 Provides connection to major midwestern metropolitan areas and the Stace Capitol of Michigan Ir\ and Indiana 3.5 Not Available PURPOSE(S) h St. Joe Hwy. 1.0 Creyts Rd. to Canal Rd. Reconstruction, correct vertical alignment, additional lanes at selected points 163 Improve traffic circulation and traf £ ic carrying capacity �'11111111 This pages was revised April of 1983 COMMUNITY FACILITIES r The Conmnmity Facilities Component of the Comprehensive Plan consists of five parts. In Part I Township offices and departments are analyzed and a brief description is given of major Township buildings. Part II contains a review of police protection services which are contractually provided to the Township by the Eaton County Sheriff's Department. The discussion examines the level of existing police service and describes future law enforcement needs. Part III consists of an evaluation of Township fire protection needs. Existing fire facilities are analyzed and future needs are reviewed. Part IV consists of a review of existing library service provided to Township residents. Finally, Part V contains an analysis of existing and future school faci l ity needs of the Waverly and Grand Ledge School Districts. I Governmental Offices and Departments Table CF-1 contains a listing of ings. The listing only includes does not include such facilities structures or other buildings of the major Delta Township owned buildthe larger Township structures and as well houses, lift stations, park less than 1,000 square feet. The Delta Township Administration Building is the most prominent Township owned structure. The building contains the offices of the Township Clerk as well as the Building, Accounting, Engineering, Planning, Parks and Assessing Departments. The Administration Building is almost fully occupied at the present time. It is anticipated that additional space will be needed to house Township administrative offices within the next ten years. It is reconnnended that a Township space needs study be undertaken in the future. The purpose of the study would be to conduct an inventory of existing Township floor space, analyze manpower needs, and provide a projection of future space requirements for Township governmental functions. II Police Protection The Police Department is responsible for the safety and security of the Township. The Department regularly patrols Township thoroughfares as well as commercial, industrial and residential areas. Other responsibilities of the Police Department include the serving of warrants, subpoenas and other forms of legal process, execution of court orders and transport of offenders to the Eaton County Sheriff's Department. Table CF-2 illustrates the workload of the Delta Patrol Division for the past seven years. 169 �This page was revised April of 1983 TABLE CF-1 INVENTORY OF MAJOR DELTA TOWNSHIP OWNED BUILDINGS Building Square Footage Primary Use Administration Building Houses the majority of Township departments Parks Department Building Date of Construction 10,600 1970 Parks maintenance equipment is stored and repaired here 1,900 1,400 1973 1977 Water Department Building Houses Water Department offices, well controls and monitoring equipment, and maintenance equipment 3,300 1,400 1970 1982 Wastewater Treatment Building Contains the Wastewater Treatment Department offices, laboratory and monitoring equipment and an incinerator 8,000 1971 Fire Station One Houses Delta Township Fi.re Department 3,700 1956 Fire Station Two Houses fire fighting equipment 2,600 1979 Sheriff's Department Sub-Station Houses the Eaton County Sheriffs Department's Delta Patrol Division 2,900 1982 Waverly Library Houses the Waverly Branch of the Ingham County Library 11,400 Remodeled in 1982 TABLE CF-2 DELTA PATROL DIVISION ACTIVITIES 1976-1982 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 7,199 6,982 7,554 8,590 7,927 7,631 7,482 Total Accidents 853 924 1, 141 1,206 836 869 934 Total Arrests 719 495 322 575 876 856 1,042 2,821 1,981 3,164 2,748 3,594 4,409 4,372 Total Calls for Service Total Traffic Tickets 170 �- Existing Service / / Delta Township has contracted with the Eaton County Sheriff's Department for police protection since 1970. There are six patrol cars and twentyone employees which are permanently assigned to the Delta sub-station. In 1982 the police force moved into a new 2900 sq. ft. building on Administrative Drive. At the present time there is one lieutenant, two sergeants, one secretary and seventeen patrol deputies employed at the Delta Township substation. Additionally, a detective is based in Charlotte. The police department presently does not man the sub-station on a twenty-four hour basis. All calls at all hours are dispatched through the Eaton County Sheriff's office in Charlotte. Future Needs Police service is generally proivded by dividing the geographic area of the community into patrol districts. The factors determining the size of districts include cirme rates, overall size, geographic conditions, traffic conditions, population densities and response times~ The Delta Patrol Division has divided the Township into four service districts. There are no uniform "need for services" standards available for police service because these factors vary significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The national average for police service is presently 1.6 officers per 1,000 residents. The present ratio in Delta Township is approximately .8 officer per 1,000 residents. Although additional manpower was added to the Delta Township Patrol Division in 1982, continuing demands for police service preclude little specialization in order to cover investigation activities. More personel is needed for a wide variety of required specialties such as juvenile officer, traffic specialists, full time worthless document investigator and additional command/administration personnel. 171 �This page was revised April of 1983 III Fire Protection Personnel Prior to 1970 the Fire Department was staffed by a fire chief and volunteers. At the present time the Fire Department staff consists of a fire chief, a dispatcher, nine full-time fire fighters and twenty five volunteers. Three full-time fire fighters are available at all times at Station One. When a fire alarm is received the full time fire fighters take the fire engines to the scene and the volunteers, who are alerted by radio, respond to the scene. In 1979 the voters of Delta Township approved a millage issue of onehalf mill for the operation of a paramedic unit within the Township. A paramedic staff of three trained individuals now operates under the direction of the Township Fire Chief. Presently one trained paramedic is available at all times. A fully equipped ambulance was purchased in 1979 which is utilized primarily for paramedic activities. Service Table CF-3 illustrates Fire Department responses and Township fire losses for the past seven years. This table does not include such departmental activities as building inspections and mutual aid requests. TABLE CF-3 DELTA TOWNSHIP FIRE DEPARTMENT RESPONSES AND FIRE LOSSES 1976-1982 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 76 28 57 86 36 63 61 21 63 57 21 so 56 15 50 61 39 54 64 34 61 Vehicle Fires 41 49 48 30 32 37 41 Ambulance Assists 14 30 35 49 101 91 59 155 66 15 6 35 8 2 14 107 1.5 15 6 117* 23 500 337 Fire Alarms Single Family Dwellings Multiple Family Dwellings Businesses Estimated Fire Losses (Thousand Dollars) Single Family Dwellings Multiple Family Dwellings Businesses Vehicle 60 106 16 17 68 1 7 4 *Total 1981 estimated loss all categories -- breakdown unavailable. 172 13 �Existing Facilities Station One is located northwest of the intersection of Canal Road and Saginaw Highway. The station consists of 3,700 square feet and occupies a 32,000 square foot site. The facility contains a kitchen, a living room, and bedroom which are utilized by the full-time firemen. The equipment which is housed at Station One includes two pumper trucks, a ladder truck, a mini-pumper truck, a water tank truck, a compressor/ generator truck, two ambulances, the fire chief's car and a jeep which which is utilized for grass fires. Fire Station One is well located with respect to the proposed Township development pattern. Access is available to both Canal Road and Saginaw Highway from Station One. The fact that the Station One site consists of less than three-quarters of an acre limits future building expansion. Station Two is located on the south side of Lansing Road immediately south of Millett Highway. The station consists of 2,600 square feet and occupies a 1.2 acre site. This facility is presently tmmanned. The equipment which is housed at Station Two consists of two pumper trucks. f ~ .( . ~ The location of Fire Station Two provides protection to that portion of the Township lying between the Grand Trtmk Western Railroad Tracks and the south course of the Grand River. Most of this area is within a one mile travel distance of Station Two. Apparatus stationed at this facility occasionally experiences difficulty entering U.S. 27. Traffic on the Grand Trunk Western Railroad Tracks impedes movement of fire apparatus to the Township's industrial tract at crucial moments. Fire Facility Location Criteria The Insurance Services Office has developed criteria for the location of fire stations. Locational criteria are based upon fire flow requirements for various types and densities of development. Fire flow requirements are the minimum number of gallons of water per minute (GPM) that would be required to extinguish fires. Fire flow requirements for most types of development range from a low of 500 GPM for single family residences separated from other buildings by a distance of 100 feet or more to a high of 12,000 GPM for very large, high hazard industrial facilities. Certain types of industrial or warehousing facilities such as oil refineries or lumber yards might have fire flow requirements in excess of 12,000 GPM. Precise computation of fire flow requirements for various types of development is a complex procedure which involves an evaluation of many details of building construction siting as well as on-site fire protection equipment. Generally, fire flow requirements increase in direct proportion to increases in the intensity of land use. In selecting fire station locations, consideration should be given to access problems created by topographical and man-made barriers. In 173 �This page was revised April of 1983 Delta Township, expressways and railroads form important man-made barriers which will affect the effective deployment of fire fighting equipment. The Grand River forms a natural barrier which will also affect the deployment of fire fighting equipment. The existence of the I-96 and I-496 expressways make it ncessary to select fire station locations in close proximity to the arterials which cross these expressways. Proposed Fire Station Locations Figure CF-I indicates the general location of the seven fire stations proposed to serve the development pattern contained in the Future Land Use Plan. Fire Stations Number One and Two are shown in the same area in which they are presently located. Plans for the development of Fire Station Number Three are already underway. The Township should acquire property at the other five locations as soon as practical to ensure the balanced distribution of facilities needed to provide a high level of fire protection. Construction of facilities should be paced to coincide with Township development. Furthermore, facilities should not be constructed absent assurances that the necessary personnel will exist to properly staff such facilities. The numbers which identify each of the following proposed facilities do not indicate a priority for the construction of the fire stations. Fire Station Number One It is recommended that Fire Station One continue to operate at its present location. Although the small size of the site limits expansion, the location of this facility should provide excellent protection for the Township Administration Building, the office areas located on Saginaw Highway east of Canal Road and the high density housing areas located to the north and south of Saginaw Highway. This facility should provide good secondary protection to the entire northern portion of the Township as well as to the southern portion of the Township adjacent to Canal Road. Fire Station Number Two It is _recommended that Fire Station Two continue to operate at its present location. The existing structure has been designed -so that it will accommodate a full range of modern facilities. Sufficient room exists on this site to train firefighters and provide for building expansion. Fire Station Two should provide excellent protection for the area between Lansing Road and the Grand River. This facility will also provide a secondary means of fire protection for the eastern portion of Delta Township's industrial tract. Fire Station Number Three Delta Township presently owns a one and one-half acre site on the north side of Mt. Hope Highway, immediately west of the General Motors Parts Warehouse, which is envisioned as a future fire station site. Providing improved fire protection to the industrial tract should be a high Township priority. Fire Station Three will provide good protection to 174 -~-----..;.._------ --~-~ ~ �Q w u, 0 a. t' ·' ~ 0. 0 :c Cl) z == 0 ~ a: Q.u, -. LL. 0 -c ~ -I w Q ... G) ~ a, LL. ·- Cz Zo <I- (J) (J) z -- 0 IC I- C, z ->w< I- ZI- (J) -a: ><WI. 0 IC I(J) (J) C,c( -u, IU,W .Z • Q w (J) 0 ii CL 0 a: CL 0 . .. .... ....-~ Qa, .... I I \ I \ ' I \ \\ \\ '' ' ' ' \ '' ' ' '' ' ' ' '- \ ',, I ' \ I I / \, \ I I I I I I I J Figure CF-I Page 175 I I I I I �This page was revised April of 1983 the northeastern po_rtion of Delta Township's industrial tract, most of which would lie within a one mile travel distance. Good protection would also be provided to the multi-family residential and commercial development proposed for the area adjacent to the interchange of Creyts Road and I-496. Fire Station Three would provide secondary protection to the low density residential areas between Michigan Avenue and I-496. Fire Station Number Four Delta Township presently owns seventeen acres of land on the east side of Elmwood Road directly south of the Plum Hollow Subdivision. Only a small portion of the site would be needed to accommodate Fire Station Four • . A two acre alternative site is owned by the Township on the west side of Elmwood Road immediately south of the St. David's Church site and adjacent to Sharp Park. Either of these sites would provide excellent protection for the Delta central business district, most of which is located within a one mile travel distance. The sites would also provide good protection for the strip commercial development on Saginaw Highway east of the central business district. Station Four would provide secondary protection to most of the northeast portion of the Township. Fire Station Number Five It is proposed that Fire Station Five be located adjacent to Willow Highway in close proximity to Looten's Park. Such a location would allow Fire Station Five to provide good protection to the low density housing areas located between Willow Highway and the Grand River. Such a site would also provide good protection to the Hayes School complex located at Nixon Road and Willow Highway. Fire Station Five should provide good protection to most residential areas north of Saginaw Highway and west of I-96. Fire Station Number Six It is proposed that Fire Station Six be located near the intersection of Nixon Road and St. Joe Highway. Such a location would provide good protection to all single family residential areas located between Saginaw Highway and Davis Highway. Fire Station Number Seven It is proposed that Fire Station Seven be located in the vicinity of the Canal Road/Millett Highway intersection. This location would place most of the southwestern portion of the Township's industrial tract within a one mile travel distance of Station Seven. Fire Protection Deficiencies While the indicated distribution of seven fire stations should provide the Township with excellent fire protection, there are three primary areas which are not ideally protected. The most important of these is Delta Mills and the low density residential area penetrated by Delta I 176 �This page was revised April of 1983 Township residents are also presently served by the Grand Ledge Public Library and the Lansing Public Library. The Grand Ledge Library is located on Jefferson Street in Grand Ledge and the Lansing Library is located on South Capitol Avenue in Lansing. • / V School Facilities Delta Township is served by four school districts as illustrated in Figure CF-II . The Grand Ledge and Waverly School Districts serve the major portion of the Township while the Lansing and Holt School Districts serve relatively small areas. Grand Ledge School Facilities I I The Grand Ledge School District, which serves the western portion of Delta Township, encompasses a large, primarily rural, service area. The district covers approximately 125 square miles distributed over several townships and three counties. Providing service to students distributed over such a large area necessitates daily bus runs of approximately 3,500 miles. Because of the extensive bussing necessitated by the size and population density of the district, school attendance areas have not been rigidly delineated. Instead, bussing has been utilized as a flexible tool which allows balanced classroom sizes throughout the school district. TABLE CF-4 ENROLLMENT IN THE GRAND LEDGE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM 1971-1982 Year 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 Year Enrollment 5,646 5,766 5,929 5,995 5,978 5,884 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 Enrollment 5,838 5,711 5,652 5,481 5,220 4,991 Table CF-4 illustrates student enrollment trends in the Grand Ledge School District for the 1971-1982 period. Student enrollments increased annually from 1971 until they peaked in 1974 after which time they have annually declined. Waverly School Facilities The Waverly School District, which covers the eastern portion of Delta Township, serves a primarily suburban service area. The entire district covers approximately 22 square miles, more than two-thirds of which is 179 �This page was revised April of 1983 located in Lansing and Delta Townships and the remainder of which is distributed between Watertown and Windsor Townships. The school district bus runs cover approximately 840 miles a day. The school district has attempted to develop a pattern of neighborhood schools where practical and to rely on bussing where rural densities exist. Table CF-5 illustrates student enrollment trends in the Waverly School District for the 1971-1982 period. Student enrollments declined annually throughout this period. TABLE CF-5 ENROLLMENT IN THE WAVERLY PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM 1971-1982 Year 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 Year Enrollment 5,047 4,884 4,753 4,614 4,454 4,332 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 Enrollment 4,142 4,079 3,852 3,650 3,539 3,395 ~ Waverly School District facilities located in Delta Township serve Delta Township students as well as students located in other portions of the District. Further, some Delta Township students are served by facilities located in Lansing Township. The Waverly High School serves all district high school students. The Waverly East Junior High School, located in Lansing Township, serves all 6th and 7th graders. The three Waverly elementary schools located in Delta Township serve primarily Delta Township residents. Delta Township residents are also served by elementary schools located in the Lansing Township portion of the school district. J . 180 �~ ,) . ~ ,,,.•. .,,.,,, ,,.•"""''••'"""" DELTA TOWNSHIP Figure SS · II EXISTING & PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER SERVICE AREA { 1983) '"rj I-'• ()Q i:: 11 0 EXISTING SERVICE 8 1983 ·1985 CJ LJ 1986·1990 • ro (/) (/) I II H H 'i:l 1991 ·1995 POST 1995 TO BE SERVICED BY THE CITY OF LANSING Pl ()Q ro ..... 0 00 ! 1 i]rm!~ ![1i:ll !lli ~l l~ lltli[l 1 ,r;~MJ'~)~~'.:~[;~ ;gw¥.Y-. ................. ··········:r .......... , ::::::··.;, 0000000000 ~=❖:❖:0~P,.£S ~0oJ'0oa°0oJ ~ooooc°cfoof i?ooloooooo i:>0OO0O l~i=:=:❖i c. !?;::o~:!i~~:oc · =~• ;.. ~:•• .•: •".,·:" 0 1.. 1, • "':. ,, ...!l. ~ ;'.5 en - NORTH tI1 ti ~ --.... 00 ~ �IV Neighborhood Unit Delineation The residential land use pattern has been organized into twenty-eight individual neighborhood units. These twenty-eight neighborhood units are indicated in Figure LU-II. The delineation of neighborhoods was based on the following factors: I I I Location of natural or man-made devisive elements Distinct changes in land use Population patterns School district boundaries Existing land uses Sewer and water service areas Census tract boundaries A brief description of each neighborhood follows. Neighborhood One This neighborhood is unique in the Township in that it is located within the Lansing School District and is also served by the City of Lansing utility system. The 1975 Sanitary Sewer Service Agreement, which was entered into by the City and Delta Township, limits the density in this area to approximately five dwelling units per acre. The northern portion of Neighborhood One is positioned between a very low density residential subdivision to the west, being Saratoga Farms, and a higher density residential development to the east in the City of Lansing, being Mount Vernon Park. Residential development in this area should provide for a transition between the high density residential areas to the east and the lower density residential areas to the west. Delta River Drive bisects this neighborhood in an east-west direction. This roadway has been designated as a Natural Beauty Road by the Eaton County Road Commission in compliance with Act 150 of 1970. Due to the winding nature of Delta River Drive and the fact that sight distances are limited in this area, developments within this neighborhood should utilize Waverly Road as their primary access point. A significant amount of the southern portion of this neighborhood lies within the one-hundred year flood plain. Development in this area should be regulated so as to utilize and preserve the natural amenities of this area and to complement Grand Woods Park which is located on the south side of the Grand River in Sections One and Two of Delta Township. The extreme northern portion of this neighborhood lies within flight zones of the Capital City Airport to the northeast. However, it is expected that the airport flight zones will not impose a major impact on residential land uses in the area due to the fact that the Capital City Airport Master Plan reconunends that future air traffic utilize landing strips further to the north. This neighborhood is bordered by Watertown Township to the north. The Clinton County Comprehensive Plan illustrates parks and open space uses along the northern border of Section One of Delta Township. A low density residential land use pattern is recommended for this neighborhood due to the readily available access to an arterial road, the 124 �• = N I I I\"' ,J I ."'I' • >Z ::x, 0 mz >· cnZ m C) :::c gJ 0 ::x, :::c 0 0 (REVISED 4/8 3) Figure LU-II Page 125 C czc zmm --r -(C)- -·"T1 (C ... C z a,m (1) Ql> ::x, -I :::c: m C: (I) :::c: 0C 0 C C m r -I J> r - -I 0 :ez en :c "'C ~ _./ �THE DELTA TOWNSHIP COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1982 prepared by: DELTA TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION 7710 WEST SAGINAW HIGHWAY LANSING, MICHIGAN 48917 �DELTA TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION DELTA TOWNSHIP BOARD OF TRUSTEES Ronald Ratajczak Chairman Joseph E. Drolett Supervisor Terry G. Bladen Vice Chairman Barbara Barrett Clerk June Johnston Secretary Robert Richards Treasurer Ronald Brabant Member Lyle Brown Trustee Barbara Israel Member Philip Chisholm Trustee Edward Jaye Member Daniel Stump Trustee Robert LaMoreaux Member Gerald Winans Trustee Janice Vedder Member Jerome Wittkoski Member The Comprehensive Plan for the Charter Township of Delta has been prepared pursuant to Act 285 of 1983, the "Municipal Planning Commission Act," and became effective on July 12, 1982 by unanimous approval of the Charter Township of Delta Planning Commission. �CONTENTS PAGE GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN I. II. III. IV. v. VI. VII. VIII. IX. Community Goals . . . Residential Development. Commercial Development • Industrial Development . Community Facilities and Services. Transportation Facilities Development . • Open Space and Recreation Facilities Development • Energy . . . • . The Environment. GEOGRAPHIC DETERMINANTS . . I. II. III. IV. v. VI. VII. VIII. IX. Location of Delta Township Historical Growth of Delta Township. Climate. • . • . . . • . . . . . Geology and Topography. . ... Soil Conditions in Delta Township. Ground Water . • . . • • Surface Water • • • . . . Existing Land Use Pattern . . • Delta Township Land Use Trends (1972-1980) I. Population Growth in Delta Township. Population Projections • III. Characteristics of Existing Commercial Development Projection of Future Commercial Development . . • Major Findings of the Commercial Base Analysis I. III. 12 12 14 15 16 17 17 19 19 24 32 34 36 51 52 Analysis of Delta Township's Existing Industrial Base. Projection of Future Industrial Development Potential ••.• Conclusions • • OFFICE SPACE ANALYSIS . • II. 6 8 9 10 34 INDUSTRIAL BASE ANALYSIS I. II. 3 4 5 24 COMMERCIAL BASE ANALYSIS . . II. III. 1 2 12 POPULATION ANALYSIS AND PROJECTIONS. I. II. 1 52 55 60 61 Office Types in Delta Township Office Development Trends . . . • Determination of Delta Township Office Space Market • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii 61 61 64 �PAGE TRANSPORTATION .......... • ...................•.•.•................ 66 Historical Development of the Street System ............• Functional Classification of Existing Street System ..... Truck Operation Classifications ...........•............. Jurisdiction Over Delta Township Roads ................. . Financing of Road Improvements .•......•................. State Trunk Lines ......... . ...........................•. County Primaries and Locals .......................•..... Financing Prerogatives ....................•.....•....... Thoroughfare Cross Sections •............................ Right-of-Way Deficiencies .............................. . Mass Transit Service in Delta Township ................. . Railroad Facilities Serving Delta Township ............. . Air Service to Delta Township .......................... . Non-Motorized Transportation •........................... 66 66 I. II. III. IV. v. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. 72 72 74 74 74 76 76 76 84 85 86 88 WATER SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Historical Information ......................•.........•. Description of Existing Water Service System ........... . Future Service Area . . ...............•................... 90 90 95 SANITARY SEWER SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . 98 Historical Information ••••••••...•....•.•.•.....•••..•.. Description of Existing Sanitary Sewer Collection and Treatment Facilities ................•.....••........ Future Service Areas for the Wastewater Collection and Treatment System.................................... 98 I. II. III. I. II. III. STORM DRAINAGE. . • • . • . • • • • • • . • • • . . • • • . • • . • • • • • • . • . • . • . . . . • • . . . . • • . . I. II. III. IV. Storm Water Design Criteria ............................ . Inventory of Existing Storm Drainage Facilities ........ . New Storm Drainage Practices ...................•........ Recommended Storm Drainage Practices .................•.. 101 103 109 109 109 111 112 SOLID WASTE 114 FUTURE LAND USE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . 118 The Relationship of Planning to Zoning .................. Residential Development ................................. Residential Neighborhood Module Concept ..........•...... Neighborhood Unit Delineation ........................... Office Development...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . Commercial Development............... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Industrial Development.................................. Parks, Open Space and Recreation Facilities Development... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proposed Thoroughfare Improvements ...................•.. 118 120 123 I. II. III. IV. v. VI. VII. VIII. IX. iii 124 150 152 157 158 161 / �PAGE COMMUNITY FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 Governmental Offices and Departments ................. . Police Protection .................................... . Fire Protection ...................................•... Library Facilities ..........................•......... School Facilities .................................... . 169 169 179 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN........................ 183 Zoning Ordinance ..................................... . Subdivision Ordinance .......................•......... Sign Ordinance ...........•............................ Capital Improvement Program .......................... . Administrative Procedures ............................ . Program Coordination ................................. . Federal and State Grants-In-Aide ..................... . Economic Development Corporation ..................... . Planning Advisory Services ........................... . Mapped Improvements Ordinances ....................... . Public Information Services .......................... . Revisions to the Comprehensive Plan .•..•..•.•••.••...• 183 183 183 184 184 184 184 185 185 185 185 185 I. II. III. IV. v. I. II. III. IV. v. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. - --------~- iv 172 177 �TABLES Table GD-1 GD-2 P-1 P-2 P-3 P-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 C-5 C-6 C-7 C-8 I-1 I-2 I-3 I-4 I-5 0-1 0-2 0-3 0-4 T-1 T-2 T-3 T-4 T-5 Title Page Existing Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1972 - 1980 Land Use Change: Delta Township ..•............. Comparative Population Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Incremental Population Increases . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Population Per Household Delta Township 1960-1980 .......... . Population Projections to the Year 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Five Mile Trade Area Population Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Year 2000 Tri-County Projected Per Capita Retail Expenditure Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . Changes in Retail Expenditure Patterns for the Tri County Region and Eaton County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Year 2000 Projected Trade Area Retail Expenditures ......... . Neighborhood and Regional Shopping Centers within the Tri-County Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proportion o f Total Trade Area Retail Expenditures Accruing to the Delta Central Business District in the Year 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Retail Floor Space Required to Serve 2000 Retail Expenditure Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~omparison of 1977 and Year 2000 Required Shopping Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Major Business Establishments Located in Delta Township's Industrial Tract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tri-County Region Employment Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Projections of Manufacturing and Wholesale Employment in The Tri-County Area . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Projections of Manufacturing and Wholesale Employment in the Delta Industrial Tract . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Projected Land Consumption for Manufacturing and Wholesale Activities in the Delta Industrial Tract ...... . Distribution of Office Buildings - 1977 Lansing Metropolitan Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Office Construction Activity by Governmental Unit 1971 - 1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acreage and Floor Space Devoted to Office Uses Delta Township 1966 - 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Projected Office Land Development and Projected Office Floor Space Requirements Delta Township 1981 - 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Functional Classification of Highways-Metropolitan Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Delta Township Road Mileage by Functional Classification . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Planning Impacts on Roadways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unique Delta Township Features . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CATA Ridership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V 20 21 26 26 3] 32 40 41 42 45 47 48 49 50 54 57 58 58 59 62 63 63 64 69 70 71 72 84 �TABLES (continued) Table W-1 W-2 W-3 SS-1 SS-2 SS-3 SS-4 SW-1 SW-2 LU-1 LU-2 CF-1 CF-2 CF-3 CF-4 CF-5 Title Existing Water Wells, Del ta Township ..........•••..•••.•... Delta Township Water Consumption .•..•..•..•.•..........•... Recommended Fire Flows ..•..••.......••.......•••...•....•.. Water Resources Commission's Effluent Quality Standards for the Delta Township WWTP ..•.....•...•.•..•.. Sanitary Sewer Customers 1973-1980 •... • .......•..•....••.•. Projected Sanitary Sewer Connections and Land Acreage Consumption 1985-2000 .•..••.••...............•..• Wastewater Flow Projections at the Delta Township WWTP 1985-2000 .....•......•.....••..••.......•.• Estimated Solid Waste Generation Eaton County, 1980 .••.••.•...•.•.••.••..•.•....•..••••••. Estimated Soild Waste Generation Delta Township, 1980-2000 •...•..•.•...•.•.•••...•..•.••.. Future Land Use ••......•••..•...•.....••.........•......•.. Proposed Road Improvements .......•...•.•.•.......•••.•...•• Inventory of Major Delta Township Buildings •..•.•..•.••••.. Delta Patrol Division Activities 1975-1981 .........•...•... Delta Township Fire Department Responses and Fire Losses 1975-1981 •.••....•.•.•.•.••..••..•.•...•..... Enrollment in the Grand Ledge Public School System ...•..... Enrollment in the Waverly Public School System .•...••.•.... Page C 93 94 95 104 105 105 106 114 115 119 163 170 170 172 179 180 0 vi �FIGURES ~ ) Figure Title GD-I GD-II GD-III P-I P-II P-III P-IV Location of Delta Township in the Tri County Region.......... Soil Associations..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Existing Land Use Map........................................ Location of Comparative Geographic Areas..................... Comparative Population Trends................................ Population Distribution Five Township Area 1960-1980......... Age-Sex Distribution for Delta Township 1960 - 1970 - 1975............................. . ........... Five Mile Trade Area Delta Township Central Business District.......................................... Delta Township Industrial Tract............ . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . MDOT Functional Highways Classification...................... Truck Operation Classifications.............................. Road Classifications for Financing Purposes.................. Expressway Cross-Section........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross-Section of Arterial Road with Boulevard................ Cross-Section of Two Way Arterial Street..................... Cross-Section of Collector Street............................ Cross-Section of Local Street................................ Road Right-of-way Deficiencies.......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • Existing Water Service Area (1982)........................... Existing and proposed Water Service Area (1982).............. Existing Sanitary Sewer Service Area (1982).................. Existing and Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service Area (1982).. .. . ..... ... . . ... •. .. .. . .. . . .. ... . . . .. .. . .. .. . . Existing Storm Drains (1980)................................. Generalized Future Land Use Plan••···········See binder pouch Delineated Neighborhood Units....................... . . . . . . . . . Parks and Green Belts........................................ Proposed Street and Highway Projects......................... Existing and Proposed Fire Stations.......................... Existing School Facilities................................... C-I ~ I-I T-I T-II T-III T-IV T-V T-VI T-VII T-VIII T-IX W-I W-II SS-I ss-II SD-I LU-I LU-II LU-III LU-IV CF-I CF-II vii Page 13 18 23 25 27 28 30 37 53 68 73 75 78 79 80 81 82 83 91 97 99 108 110 125 159 162 175 178 ��GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Community goals are general statements with a uniform, community-wide application. Objectives are expressions of specific developmental issues within the Township. Policies express measures designed to implement the stated objectives within Delta Township. The goals, objectives and policies presented in this section are intended to reflect particular local attitudes and aspirations with respect to the growth and changes within Delta Township. Delta Township as a community provides living, working, shopping and recreational spaces for the use and enjoyment of its residents. The goals and policies provide guidelines governing the preparation and implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. With proper design and effectuation, the Plan suggests means of improving and maintaining the living, working, shopping and recreational spaces for the betterment of the entire Delta Township community. Use and application of the stated goals, objectives and policies in planning and development is essential to ensure success of the planning process in Delta Township. They should be consulted each time a decision is made regarding private land development, redevelopment and public service capital expenditures. I Community Goals 1. Provide conditions of adequate public health and safety 2. Provide a choice in housing 3. Attain a diversified local economic base 4. Provide a variety of shopping opportunities 5. Assure a sufficient level of public services and community facilities 6. Attain a diverse property tax base to assure adequate revenues 7. Establish development densities to avoid overcrowding and placing burdens on public services 8. Establish conditions which promote an aesthetically pleasing environment 9. Emphasize a neighborhood development pattern 10. Provide opportunities for energy conservation and the use of alternate energy sources 11. Attain a high level of environmental quality while simultaneously fostering utilization of the Township's natural resources 1 �I II Residential Development 1. Objective: Provide a satisfactory range of housing choices Policies 2. A. A range of housing types should be provided to accommodate varying needs in household size, location and style preference. B. Residential buildings within each neighborhood should be compatible and transitions should be provided where different types occur in close proximity. Objective: Encourage residential development on a neighborhood basis with the necessary supporting facilities Policies 3. A. Residential development should occur on a neighborhood unit basis and should be functionally unified through land planning and interior circulation design. B. Residential areas should be adequately served by schools, neighborhood shopping facilities, parks and recreation areas, transportation facilities and police and fire services. Objective: Strive for maximum livability development and amenity in residential Policies 4. A. Residential development should provide adequate light, air, privacy and quietude. B. Residential living areas should be separated from commercial and industrial areas by functional elements such as open space or buffered thoroughfares. C. High density living areas should be developed to be compatible with lower density living areas. Objective: Preserve the existing housing stock Policy Existing housing should be protected from premature environmental decay. 5. Objective: Attractiveness and livability of residential development should be increased through open space relationships. Policies A. Open spaces within residential areas should be related to the 2 �overall open space and recreation facilities of the Township. B. Park and open space facilities, either public or private in ownership, should be provided within or in close proximity to medium and high density residential areas in order to afford residents of multifamily housing a balance of high density living and open space relief. C. The design of new residential developments should provide for the preservation of existing trees, scenic features and provide for natural settings. / 6. Objective: Medium and high density residential settlements should be situated near supportive services Policies III A. The capacity of existing and future public services should be considered in selecting sites for medium and high density settlements. B. Due to the high cost of providing public supportive services, higher density settlement areap should be situated to allow the most cost-effective installation of supportive services. C. Multi-family housing should be situated in proximity to comparison shopping and high capacity transportation facilities. Commercial Development 1. Objective: Distribute connnercial development according to the specific requirements of comparison and convenience shopping facilities Policy Development of comparison shopping facilities shoul d be situated to be easily accessible to residential areas. 2. Objective: Commercial development should be related to an overall land use pattern within the Township Policies 3. A. Commercial strip development along thoroughfares in the Township should be discouraged. B. Where strip connnercial development exists, or cannot be avoided due to the present land use pattern, remedial measures such as minimizing the number of access points, optimizing curb radii and utilizing parallel access roads should be examined. Objective: Attain satisfactory relationships between connnercial development and other land uses 3 '-<=. �- I Policies 4. A. Incompatible land uses should be eliminated from commercial areas. B. Commercial areas should be desi r,ned and situated so that they do not adversely impact nearby uses. Objective: Attain aesthetically pleasing commercial development areas Policies 5. A. Comparison shopping facilities and neif,hborhood convenience shopping facilities should include pedestrian circulation, landscaping, adequate setbacks and other amenities which create an attractive shopping environment. B. Sign control regulations should be promoted since they often result in advertising displays which communicate better and provide improved aesthetics. C. Landscaping within parking lots should be encouraged since it improves the visual environment and can beneficially affect the microclimate of parking areas by moderating the affects of heat, absorbing runoff, diverting wind and reducing noise and glare. D. Screening of solid waste areas should be required because it improves aesthetics. Objective: Facilities in commercial areas should be improved wherever possible Policies IV A. Early signs of blight in commercial areas should be reversed through resolution of traffic ingress and egress problems, prevention of excessive penetration of local driveways into arterial thoroughfares, elimination of excessive advertising signs, and provision for improved site planning design and landscaping in remaining developable parcels or upon reuse of existing buildings. B. High standards of site design and maintenance should be required in commercial areas. Industrial Development 1. Objective: Provide suitable conditions for the development of new industry and expansion of existing industry Policies A. Industrial development should be continued in the area generally bounded by 1-96, Mt. Hope Highway, U.S.-27 and the south Township boundary. 4 �B. 2. The industrial area should be reinforced through improved accessibility, utility installation, and supporting service ' facilities. Objective: The attainment of an optimum relationship between industrial development and supporting transportation facilities Policies 3. A. Industrial enterprises should provide adequate off-street parking and loading facilities. B. Roadways built to all-season standards should be provided throughout the industrial area. Objective: Industrial development should be compatible with other land uses in the Township Policies A. The creation of industrial parks should be encouraged and scattered industrial operations should be discouraged. B. Industrial areas should be separated from residential areas by appropriate open space buffers or other transitional land uses. C. Industrial nuisances such as air pollution, noise and vibration should be controlled by adequate zoning and performance standards. D. Incompatible land uses should be prevented from intruding into industrial areas. V Community Facilities and Services 1. Objective: Attain an optimum aesthetic relationship between public facilities and the neighborhoods in which they are situated Policies 2. A. The design of public buildings should be of high quality and should contribute to the character of the neighborhood they serve. B. Installation of underground utilities should be encouraged in order to achieve pleasing neighborhoods. Objective: Attain an optimal functional relationship between community facilities and the transportation system Policies A. Elementary schools should be located so that they are within walking distance of all students in the attendance area. 5 �• ' 3. B. Elementary and junior high schools should be located away from heavily traveled thoroughfares. C. Churches, meeting halls, and other places of public assembly should be located on major arterial streets in order to increase their accessibility to the public and to prevent intrusion of extraneous traffic into residential neighborhoods. Objective: The provision of law enforcement services adequate to maintain the security, safety and well-being of the Township's residents and property Policy Police facilities should be located to allow deployment of adequate manpower within minimum time to all parts of the Township. 4. Objective: The provision of fire protection services adequate to meet Township needs Policies 5. A. Fire protection facilities should be located where they can provide adequate service to all development in the Township. B. Buildings which require significant fire flows should be located where they can be served by the public water system. Objective: Implement a timely and cost-effective site acquisition program for public buildings Policy Sites for the development of institutional uses should be acquired well in advance of the development of an area. 6. Objective: Provide water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage facilities adequate to serve development needs Policy Development of water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage facilities should be staged to coincide with anticipated needs. VI Transportation Facilities Development 1. Objective: Maintain a balanced relationship between land use traffic generation and the thoroughfare system capacities Policies A. Thoroughfares should be organized in an interrelated functional system, with the traffic carrying and land use 6 �I 111111 service functions of each thoroughfare segment clearly defined. Local streets should primarily serve abutting properties and should be used only by local traffic. Collector streets should gather and channel traffic from local streets to the arterial street system. Arterial streets should carry traffic from collectors to destinations or to limited access expressways. B. 2. Improvement of the thoroughfare system should be coordinated with adjacent communities to ensure both a sound local and regional transportation system. Objective: Separate major thoroughfares from neighborhood units Policies 3. A. Freeways and major arterial streets should be located so as to bound rather than penetrate residential neighborhoods. Neighborhood streets should be reserved for local residential traffic. B. Development should be separated from arterial streets and expressways by adequate buffer space or building setbacks. Objective: Design and build attractive thoroughfares Policies 4. A. Where practical, thoroughfares should be located to take advantage of existing scenic features such as wooded areas, and topographic variations. Where appropriate, landscaping and nonobtrusive noise barriers should be developed along thoroughfare rights-of-way. B. The use of cul-de-sacs, which create areas of privacy, prevent through traffic and often provide for better utilization of odd shaped parcels of land, should be encouraged. C. Curvilinear streets should be promoted in residential developments since they discourage through traffic and increase visual interest. Objective: Develop an efficient and pleasant pedestrian and bicycle transportation system. Policies A. Pedestrian and bicycle routes should be provided wherever possible between residential, recreational and other land use areas of the Township. Where feasible, pedestrian linkages should be free from interruption of motorized traffic. B. Provisions for non-motorized transportation should be incorporated into residential developments and road construction projects wherever possible. 7 I �- ' 5. Objective: Minimize conflict between land uses and transportation facilities Policies 6. A. Major thoroughfares should have a minimum number of intersections in order to limit land use-transportation friction. B. Frontage or service roads should be utilized in commercial, institutional and industrial zones in order to maintain the traffic carrying capacity of the roadway and to reduce the occurence of conflicting turning movements. C. Ingress and egress points to major traffic generators should be designed to include, where appropriate, such items as sufficient curb radii, deceleration lanes, through passing lanes and lane tapers in order to insure safe traffic movements. Objective: The provision of public transit service to Township residents Policy Improvements to mass-transit services within the Township should be encouraged. 7. Objective: Maintenance of and improvements to the streets and highways in the Township should be a continuing process to ensure the safety and convenience of motorists Policy The Township's Capital Improvements Program should include a road construction and maintenance reserve which could be utilized as a local match to federal road construction grants as well as possibly supplementing monies expended by the Eaton County Road Commission for maintaining Township streets. VII Open Space and Recreation Facilities Development 1. Objective: Create an interrelated system of open space and recreation facilities to meet the leisure time requirements of the Township's populatior ·. Policies A. A system of recreational facilities should be developed which includes major community-wide day use recreation facilities, major park and athletic facilities for use by residents of the Township, neighborhood recreation facilities, and special facilities such as community recreation centers, bicycle and hiking paths and scenic riverside vistas. 8 �2. I I B. Open space areas which link residential areas with shopping districts and provide opportunities for non-motorized transportation should be encouraged. C. Commercial recreation facilities should be related to the planning and development of public open space areas where possible. Objective: Open space and recreation areas should be designed to enhance the character of residential developments Policies 3. A. Open space should be utilized to delineate residential areas and to give individuality and character to various neighborhood units. B. Developers should be encouraged to provide open space and recreation facilities as part of their overall development design. C. Neighborhood recreation facilities should be developed in conjunction with school facilities wherever possible. Objective: Delta Township should pursue a timely and economical open space acquisition and development program Policies VIII A. Sites for recreation facilities should be acquired or reserved well in advance of development. B. Implementation of open space and parks development in the Township should include particjpation of federal, state and local governments. Energy 1. Objective: Encourage the development of energy efficient forms of transportation Policies 2. A. Growth patterns which enhance the feasibility of mass transportation service should be promoted. B. The installation of sidewalks and bikepaths, in order to facilitate the use of non-motorized transportation, should be encouraged. Objective: Implement local regualtions which permit innovative methods of energy utilization and generation 9 �- ' Policies 3. A. Alternative energy generating technologies such as wind, biomass and solar should be encouraged. B. Township regulations should be drafted which insure a property owner's right to sunlight. C. Energy generating facilities should be compatible in terms of safety and aesthetics with adjacent land uses. Objective: Investigate and encourage new techniques relating to energy use and conservation Policies IX A. Public and private decision-makers should analyze the possibility of utilizing steam produced by the Erickson Power Plant as a resource for industrial operations within the area. B. Delta Township governmental services should emphasize energy conservation through its capital improvements spending. C. Construction design practices which will encourage ener gy conservation should be promoted. D. Buildings should be oriented to take advantage of energy conservation practices. The Environment 1. Objective: Insure that development activities respect the features of the natural environment Policies A. Township planning efforts should recognize the value of retaining vegetation since it helps control runoff, stabilizes slopes, attracts wildlife, buffers noise and provides privacy. B. Flood-prone areas should be preserved in their natural state to minimize environmental damage, reduce the unnecessary private and public costs which result from inappropriate development in these areas, assure the safety of residents, and guarantee the free flow of water. C. Marshes and wetlands within Delta Township should be preserved since they serve as ground-water discharge areas, provide wildlife habitats, provide natural filtration of contaminates within stormwater and are a component of the natural drainage system. D. Urban development should be limited to soil types which allow for properly functioning septic systems if sanitary sewer service is non-existant. 10 �E. 2. The development of steep slopes should be avoided since the development of such areas can result in erosion or septic tank problems. Objective: Preserve prime agricultural lands for farming activities Policies 3. A. Isolated residential development in agricultural areas should be discouraged so as to ensure the economic viability of agricultural enterprises. B. Highly productive soils such as those found in southwestern Delta Township should be reserved for the production of specialty crops. C. Agricultural lands adjacent to watercourses should be managed such that agricultural wastes and soil sediments do not adversely affect water quality via run-off. Objective: Measures should be taken to minimize the negative impacts of urban development on the natural environment Policies A. Areas from which mineral deposits have been extracted should be reclaimed and proper safety measures undertaken. B. Delta Township should participate in regional efforts to investigate the possibility of establishing a solid waste management program. C. Soils which are highly susceptible to erosion should be protected by corrective measures if development is proposed. D. Natural drainage patterns should not be disrupted absent remedial action due to the fact that erosion, siltation and structural damage may result. E. Properly designed and engineered storm drainage controls should accompany the installation of significant amounts of impervious surfaces. F. The abatement of pollution of Delta Township watercourses should be given a high priority. G. Groundwater quality and supply problems should be identified and a groundwater management strategy should be developed. H. A comprehensive flood plain management program should be a required element of the Township's planning efforts. 11 �l �, GEOGRAPHIC DETERMINANTS I , Location of Delta Township The location of a community is an influential factor and indicator of what changes are likely to take place within the community. Location of a community in relation to major transportation facilities and employment centers will bear directly on the likelihood of growth within the community. I I' Situated within the Lansing Tri-County Region, Delta Township has experienced rapid growth since 1960. This growth can be attributed to the Township Is close proximity to major employment centers, such as the State Government and the Oldsmobile Industrial Complex, as well as Delta's strategic location in relation to the interstate highway network. Major routes providing direct service to the Township are I-96, I-496 and US 27. Interstate Highway 69, eventually connecting Port Huron, Michigan and Indianapolis, Indiana is slated for completion through Eaton County into Delta intersecting at the I-96/I-496 Interchange. Existing and proposed freeways have given impetus to expansion of commerce within Delta's industrial sector, especially with respect to najcr freight carriers and the warehousing distribution service industry. The Grand Trunk Western Railroad (GTWRR) traverses the southeastern quadrant of the Township, paralleling US-27. The GTWRR operates a major rail switching yard in Section 25, further complementing rail services to the Township. Capital City Regional Airport is located one-half mile northeast of Delta Township. Waverly Road and Grand River Avenue provide primary access to the airport from the Township. Capital City Airport provides scheduled commercial air passenger and air freight services as well as charter flights for both passengers and air freighc. Regionally, the Lansing area and Delta Township have economic links throughout the East North Central portion of the United States. This highly industrialized region is directly dependent upon the highway and rail systems for distribution of finished and semi-finished products to markets. This fact further contributes to the economic viability of the Lansing area due to its favorable location with respect to major highway and rail facilities. Delta Township, as evidenced by Figure GD I, enjoys a preferred position within the Lansing Metropolitan Area with respect to access to highway and rail facilities. II Historical Growth of Delta Township The history of Delta Township can be traced along three lines of development. The first is the founding, growth and withering of Grand River City, also known as Delta Mills. This line of development began in the 1830's reached its peak in the 1880's and 1890's and subsequently terminated. The second line of historical development in Delta Township can also be traced from the 1830 1 s with the founding of scattered farmsteads distributed throughout the Township but primarily on section lines. This line of development continues today as a significant proportion of Township land which is actively used for agricultural purposes. Delta Township's third line of historical development connnenced in the .1930 's when the eastern portion of the Township began to be developed as a suburb of Lansing. This line of development was dependent on the growth of the Lansing Region and did not greatly accelerate until after 1945. 12 I, I �• FIGURE GD-I LOCATION OF DELTA TOWNSHIP IN THE TRI-COUNTY REGION IN Settlement of the Tri-County Region along with most of the rest of lower Michigan was postponed by the erroneous Tiffin report of 1815 which diverted settlers to Indiana, Ohio and Illinois. Subsequent survey and exploration work conducted under the direction of Governor Cass corrected the record and by the 1330's south central Michigan and the Tri-County Region were attracting settlers interested in both lumbering and farming. The first settler of the Delta Mills area was Erastus Ingersoll who purchased 800 acres on the Grand River. Ingersoll and others had come to the Delta Mills area in search of a site for an educational institution to be modeled after Oberlin College. However, their plans for the Grand River Theological Seminary were dashed by the financial crisis of 1837-38. In the meantine, Ingersoll built a sawmill and began lumbering operations. An 1840 letter authored by a resident of Delta Mills indicated that people came from twenty miles away to have their flour made. Delta Mills continued to develop throughout the latter half of the 19th century at ~vhich time it reached its peak population of approximately 300. During the 1880's and 1890's Delta Mills was served by Methodist and Congr egational churches, three blacksmiths, three grocers, two masons, one cabinetmaker, one carpenter, one painter and one paperhanger and two physicians. Manufacturing activities included were fabrication, cigar wrapping and furniture building. Social life at this time centered around the churches and the Grange Hall which attracted both local residents and farmers from the surrounding countryside. Farming activities throughout Delta Township must have commenced about the same time that Erastus Ingersoll was founding Grand River City and building his lumber mill. However, it was not until 1844 that the State Legislature acted to officially establish Delta Township whose territories were broken off from the eastern portion of Oneida Township. Tax rolls in 1844 indicate twenty-six residing in the Township. 13 - �-, I I I At about the same time that Erastus Ingersoll was planning the Grand River Theological Seminary and other settlers were clearing portions of Delta Township for farmsteads, decisions were being made in other parts of the State which would one day have a direct bearing on Township development. By the terms of the 1834 Constitution, it was required that the capital of Michigan be removed from Detroit within a period of twelve years. The prosperous communities of Jackson and Marshall, located on the territorial road between Chicago and Detroit, were given primary consideration as sites for the new capital. However, due to the stubborn nature of partisans of each city, an alternative location was selected. The Village of Michigan, later to become known as Lansing, was proposed by a legislator who owned a sawmill nearby. Growth of Lansing during the second half of the 18th century was primarily due to the establishment of the capital there. However, the City also became the site of growing economic activity. By 1869 there was at least one manufacturing concern serving the outside market. This firm produced agricultural implements, bobsleds and stoves which were distributed over a wide portion of the midwest. Another firm made machinery for the lumbering industry operating further to the north. In 1886, R.E. Olds built his first horseless carriage in Lansing. His subsequent decision to establish automobile manufacturing operations in Lansing was the most important single factor in the history of the Lansing Metropolitan Area. It was during the last quarter of the 19th century when Lansing was becoming a complete urban entity with governmental, manufacturing and educational activities that surrounding cities and villages such as Delta Mills were reaching their fullest development as service centers for the local farm population. However, during this time population increases produced in the farm lands were attracted to Lansing rather than to the small service centers. During the 1930's the wide-spread use of the automobile and the development of paved streets led to the suburbanization of Lansing's growing population. This process was much accelerated after 1945 when the industrial power which had been mobilized for Worlcl War II was diverted to production of consumer goods, particularly the automobile. III Climate Delta Township lies within the central plains climatic region. The regional climate is moderated by the influence of the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes act as a moderator of what otherwise would be locally hotter summers and colder winters. Characteristics of Delta's climate and adjacent inland areas are best described as follows: .Temperature averages 26.3 degrees in winter, 69.5 degrees in summer, with an annual average of 48 degrees . . The frost-free growing season typically runs from early May to mid October and averages 154 days . . Precipitation approximates 33 inches annually, and is fairly well distributed throughout the year. The average number of days receiving measurable rainfall is 160 or about 45% of the year . . Snowfall varies considerably each year, but the normal snowfall approximates 26-28 inches. 14 �• .Prevailing winds are out of the southwest during warm weather months, and west-southwest during winter, averaging6-10m.p.h. during a typical 24 hour period . . Tornadoes pose a nominal threat during warm weather months, but destructive thunder storms and severe winds are a more common occurrence. An area's climate is not typically deemed a controlling environmental factor with respect to the development of a community. However, temperature, winds, and precipitation have several meaningful effects upon urban culture and manmade development . . Amount and frequency of rainfall does affect ground water recharge and thereby affects water supply . . Rainfall amounts and intensity affect storm drain design capacity and slope design of impervious areas . . Rainfall distributed throughout the growing season is conducive to a variety of agricultural activities . . Snowfall amounts as received in Delta suggest that roadsides and parking lots be designed to store snow during weather . . Plant and landscape materials, sensitive to extremes in temperature and precipitation, must be carefully selected . . Wind levels may require specific development regulations as to wind loading and vegetation or structural screens in shopping and living areas to reduce ground level wind speeds . . Level of sunlight has numerous implications: such as alternative energy, heat concentrations from extensively paved areas, recreation opportunities, need for shade and orientation of building to the sun. When preparing short term plan elements and specific development regula·tions climatic influences must be given consideration. IV Geology and Topography Two primary geological formations underlie Delta Township. The first 100 feet below the surface consists of debris laid down and contoured by advances and recessions of the glaciers. Below this glacial debris is several hundred feet of sedimentary rock precipitated from the lakes which covered Michigan during the Paleozoic Era. This sedimentary rock alternates in layers between limestone, sandstone and shale. The glacial action which was responsible for deposits of debris over the many layers of sedimentary rock also created the surface topography of Delta Township and the rest of the Tri-County Region. This topography is primarily level with slopes ranging from zero to five degrees except along major watercourses where slopes may be steeper. Elevations in Delta Township vary from a high of 890 feet above sea level in the vicinity of Creyts Road and U.S. 27 to a low of 800 feet where the northern course of the Grand River leaves the western edge of the Township. These elevations reflect Delta Township's location near the center of the Tri-County Region which slopes gradually from a high elevation of 1,052 feet in southern Ingham County to a low elevation of 640 feet in western Clinton County. Within the context of this gradual slope from the southeast to the northwest, Delta Township topography is characterized by a major drainage divide. The 15 �, northern and eastern portions of the Township lie within the Grand River drainage basin while the southwestern portion of the Township lies within the Thornapple River basin. Most of the portion of the Township lying within the Grand River basin drains to the northern course of the Grand River; however, much of the southeastern portion of the Township drains to the lower course of the Grand River. Drainage in the southwestern portion of the Township is toward the southwest. The relatively level topography within the Township does present several important implications to further urbanization. These influences are generally described as follows: Sewerage and storm drainage systems, dependent upon gravity flow for optimum operation, must be carefully located, sized and graded at initial installation to avoid operating problems and service area limitations. Level land can result in monotonous development unless artifically induced contours and/or vegetation zones are introduced into the urban environment. Development of the steeply sloping lands adjacent to the Grand River and Carrier Creek, should be judiciously regulated or precluded by planning policy and development controls. The steep slopes (woodlots usually exist concurrently) pose potential for hillside erosion and stream damage, yet at the same time offer scenic areas and passive open spaces for the benefit of nearby homesites. V Soil Conditions in Delta Township Three factors must be considered in evaluating soil conditions in Delta Township. These factors are fertility, stability and permeability. Most of the diverse soil types found in Delta Township are in the medium to high fertility range. This fertility, as well as a moderate climate and rainfall make large portions of Delta Township highly attractive for agricultural purposes. Soil stability factors are important considerations in determining the feasibility of large commercial and industrial developments which can be constructed on unstable soils only at great costs. Construction of large facilities has occurred on soils of poor stability characteristics, however, such development is costly and should be avoided where possible. The permeability of drainage capacity of soils is related to both their fertility and stability. The low percolation rates attributable to the mixture of clay, silt and sand common to much of Delta Township soils are desirable for agricultural activities because they allow water to move through them at rates beneficial to plant growth. However, the clay content of these soils makes them unacceptable for the discontinous type of suburban development which must be served by septic tanks and drain fields instead of sanitary sewers. The diverse pattern of soil types found in Delta Township makes it difficult to draw generalized conclusions about which portions of the Township are acceptable for different kinds of development. Specific tests are necessitated for each development proposal to determine whether or not soil conditions permit utilization of septic tanks and drain fields on a permanent basis, or not at all. Similarly, detailed soil analyses would be needed to determine the load-bearing characteristics of particular development areas due to the diversity of soil types in Delta Township. 16 �• Despite the wide variety of soil conditions scattered throughout the Township, it is possible to draw some broad generalizatons pertaining to the type of development and services which must be provided to portions of the Township. Soils which are extremely poorly drained and which have high concentrations of peat, muck and alluvial soil can be found scattered throughout the Township. Such poorly drained soils cannot accommodate septic tanks and drain fields and present load-bearing problems which make development difficult. The greatest concentrations of such poorly drained soils occur in the southwest quadrant of the Township west of Broadbent Road and south of Mt. Hope Highway. These organic soils are utilized for the growing of sod and cash crops such as mint and vegetables. Other major locations where peat, muck and alluvial soils are located include the banks of the Miller Creek. Concentrations of somewhat poorly drained soils occur throughout the Township, but particularly in proximity to the peat, muck and alluvial soil of the southwest quadrant. Other concentrations of poorly drained soils occur along the Miller Creek watercourse, and at various locations between the Carrier Creek and Elmwood and Snow Roads. For the most part, soil conditions in the Township are of sufficiently low permeability to indicate that septic tanks and drain fields will be inadequate for use on a long term basis. As a matter of local policy and regulation, development of vacant land should be discouraged where public sanitary sewer service is not provided concurrent with such development. Figure GD-II illustrates general soil associations in Delta Township as determined by the Eaton County Soil Conservation Service. VI Ground Water Fresh water used by Delta Township residents and persons living throughout the Tri-County Region comes from water bearing layers of sandstone rock known as aquifers. In portions of the Region, including Delta Township, water is also pumped from gravel and sand lying above bedrock. The primary ground water source for the Region is known as the Saginaw sandstone formation which can be tapped by wells averaging 300 to 400 feet in depth. Ground water levels vary according to seasonal climatic conditions and the rate of pumping. When water in an area is pumped faster than it can be naturally supplied, the residential or municipal wells surrounding the area become temporarily dry. Tri-County Region ground water is notable for its hardness; it includes 300 ppm hardness and 0.5 ppm iron. Glacial deposits in the Township vary considerably in their water yielding characteristics. Again, detailed study of specific locations and their characteristics are prerequisite to determining the true availability of ground water. Outwash deposits are potential sources of large water supplies because they usually consist of permeable sands and gravels. An exposed outwash has been identified by the Michigan Department of Transportation lying in Section 19 of Delta Township. VII Surface Water The principal natural feature in Delta Township is the Grand River which enters near Dimondale, just south of the Township, and then traverses the southeast corner of the Township and then re-enters the Township at Waverly Road and crosses the entire width of the Township. A greater length of the Grand River is in Delta Township than in any governmental unit in the Region. Minor watercourses which flow into the northern course of the Grand River include the Carrier Creek and Miller Creek and numerous other natural drains of lesser size. Minor watercourses feeding into the southern course of the Grand River include the Clement's Drain and other drains. Natural drainage 17 �,) ) 1) DELTA TOWNSHIP Figure GD·II SOIL ASSOCIATIONS D Marlette· Capac: t.8 Houghton-Gilford-Adrian: Nearly level to gently undulating, well drained to somewhat poorly drained, loamy soils on till plains. Nearly level, very poorly drained, mucky and loamy soils in glacial drainageways. >zj I-'· 00 C t'i (I) D @ Marlette-Capac-Owosso: Nearly level to hilly, well drained to somewhat poorly drained, loamy soils on moraines and till plains. I H H ,tj D Pl 00 ro ,_. ,,,," 00 ,,..,, ........,...,,..,,,---/ L ________ .,,, ,,- ---- / / / / I -- / / .,,. / / / / ,, ,, / ,, ,, / / / Capac- Parkhill: Nearly level to gently undulating, somewhat poorly drained, loamy soils and nearly level, poorly drained and very poorly drained, loamy soils; on till plains and low moraines. --··---- 100 Year Flood Plain / NORTH Ill �in the southwest portion of the Township is southwesterly toward the Thornapple River. Delta Town ship's watercourses, particularly the Grand River and the Carrier Creek present an excellent potential for the development of recreational facilities and high value residential areas. To realize this potential, the problems of flooding and water pollution must be addressed. Water pollution is primarily a regional problem, the resolution of which Delta Township can promote by taking a lead in implementing high standards of wastewater treatment. Flooding is also a regional problem which Delta Township can best help solve by prohibiting development within the natural flood plains. Figure GD-II illustrates the general location of the one hundred year flood plain within Delta Township. VIII Existing Land Use Pattern Delta Township may be characterized as a community experiencing a major change in personality. The emerging land use pattern suggests the community is developing an independent economic base, major comparison shopping facilities, and a wide variety of housing types. No longer a sparsely developed, suburban bedroom community, the 1980 lµnd use survey reveals that vacant land in Delta Township is being converted to urban uses at the rate of over one hundred acres per year. During the 1972-1980 period twenty one new subdivisions were platted, four apartment projects were constructed, and three condominium developments were constructed. Major commercial and office uses developed during the 1972-1980 period including the Waverly Plaza, additions to the Lansing Mall, Auto Owners Insurance Company headquarters and the Hilton Inn. Major new industrial-warehouse uses include Oldsmobile Plant Number Five, the Meijer Distribution Center, General Motors Parts Warehouse addition, Central Transport, Blue Arrow Trucking, Interstate and Associated Motor Freight Companies, Lansing Storage Company, Flint Pipe and Well Supply Company , Clark Foundation, the Detroit News, Shreve Steel and Coco.Cola. Table GD-1 presents a breakdown by acres of the existing 1980 land use composition of Delta Township. Figure GD-III presents the spatial distribution of the existing land use pattern. A comparison of Figure GD-III with its 1972 counterpart on page 23 of the 1973 Comprehensive Plan provides the reader with insight regarding the extent of land development in the Township in the 1972-1980 period. IX Delta Township Land Use Trends: 1972-1980 Delta Township's land use p~ttern can be characterized as being in a dramatic state of change. Since the 1972 land use survey was conducted as background for the 1973 Comprehensive Plan, approximately 1,000 acres of land has been converted from an agricultural or vacant classification to urban uses. Table GD-2 illustrates the change in the 1972-1980 period which has taken place as to the land use pattern. As of November 1, 1980, Delta Township had 3203 acres of land devoted to single-family detached residential uses (low density), 234 acres to multiple family residential uses, 413 acres to public-semi public uses including schools, churches and colleges, 325 acres to commercial uses, 606 acres to parks and open-space uses, 739 acres to warehousing-industrial uses and 2380 acres to transportation facilities and utilities. 19 �1 I TABLE GD-1 EXISTING LAND USE 1980 Acreage Percent of Total Residential Single Family Two Family Multiple Family 3203 30 234 Office Commercial - Retail Commercial - Services Warehousing Industrial Utilities and Transportation 14.2 .1 1.0 87 198 127 495 244 2380 .4 .9 .6 2.2 1.1 10.5 413 606 1.8 2.7 7881 6387 335 34.8 28 . 2 1.5 22,620 100.0 Community Facilities Schools Parks and Open Spa ce Agriculture Vacant Water Area TOTAL 20 �• TABLE GD-2 1972-1980 LAND USE CHANGE: DELTA TOWNSHIP 1980 Acreage 1972 Acreage Percent Change Residential Single Family Two Family Multiple Family Office Commercial - Retail Commercial - Services Warehousing Industrial Utilities and Transportation 3203 30 234 2,878.oO) *83.0 87 198 127 495 244 * 171. 0 40.0 * * 2380 * + 11% * + 182% * + 16% + 218% * * * Community Facilities Schools Parks and Open Space Agriculture Vacant Water Area 413 606 214.0 461.0 * * * TOTAL 22,723 7881 6387 335 * * * 22,620 * *Information not available. (1) Actual 1972 adjusted acreage was 2,878 based on calculations developed by the Delta Township Planning Department 21 + 93% + 31% �1 [, '\ Nearly all of the new land development in Delta Township during this period occured east of I-96, and, excepting industrial and warehouse uses, north of I-496. This is explained due to the provision of sanitary s ewer , public water, and urban storm drainage utilities in this area. Since the 1972 land use survey a most obvious trend has been the infill of the so-called northeast quadrant of the Township, being south of I-496 and east of I-96. This growth in the southeast quadrant has been based upon favorable location in relation to transportation facilities and an aggressive posture on the part of Township Officials in providing utilities to and encouraging development of the area, known as the "Delta Industrial Tract." Another very evident trend has been the substantial number of large lot single-family homes built in the non-urbanized portions of Delta Township. Occuring primarily west of I-9 6 , most of these homes have been constructed on non-platted parcels of land. Over one-quarter of the Township's total land area lay vacant as of 1980. The majority of the vacant land within the Township is located west of 1-96. Vacant land appears in a number of forms including floodplains and wetlands, forested areas, large acreage parcels occupied by a single dwelling, fallow farm land, public lands and areas composed of poor soils. Vacant land is recognized as an important commodity since it represents one of the Township's most valuable natural resources and presents many opportunities for the future. The existing land use map, Figure GD-III, differentiates between lands in agricultural production and vacant lands. The amount of land used for farming activities in the Township has decreased as development of the Township's industrial tract has intensified, residential subdivisions have been platted and the construction of single family homes on large parcels has increa sed. During the period of 1969 to 1978 the amount of land in agricultural production in Eaton County decreased by eight percent. (Data source: "Michigan Farm Lands are Increasing Again", Detroit News, April 12, 1981). During the late 1970's several hundred acres of farm land in the Township were enrolled in farmland development rights agreements under the provisions of Act 116 of 1974 being the Farmland and Open Space Preservation Act. Delta Township has attempted to preserve prime farm lands by a number of actions including active participation in the aforementioned farmland preservation program, creation of agricultural zoning districts and efforts to channel new development to areas already served by public utilities and services. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes agricultural activities as a long-term, permanent land use rather than a "holding area" for future development. 22 ��I -~-----..... TOWNSHIP DELTA Figure GD·III EXISTING LAND USE Single Family Residential k Single Family Subdivision Two Family Residential __, ~ Multi-Family Residential ii Office • Commercial Retail D Commercial Service ~ Warehousing [ ] Industrial-Manufacturing II II Transportation-Utilities Public-Semi-Public Parks and Open Space Agriculture D CITY OF LANSING .1L-------------- ............. ....... Vacant and - NORTH Figure GD-III Page 23 Non-Urban �1 ~I POPULATION ANALYSIS AND PROJECTIONS An analysis of population characteristic.s I ai.1d trends cannot be undertaken exclusively for a limited geographic area such as the 35 square mile area of Delta Township. In order to make reasonable estimates of population within the Township, it is necessary to consider population characteristics and migration patterns in and around the entire Lansing Metropolitan Area. The Tri-County Regional Planning Commission (TCRPC) projections, together with population characteristics data from the 1970, 1975, and 1980 census reports have been relied upon extensively in the following discussion of Township population trends and characteristics. I The population analysis and projection chapter consists of two parts. In Part I, the past trend of population growth in Delta Township is described; comparisons are also drawn between Delta Township's past growth and that of similar and surrounding areas. Part II deals with Delta Township's future population; general implications of future population change and characteristics are also discussed. I Population Growth in Delta Township Past population trends experienced by Delta Township have been compared to the population trends of the State of Michigan, the Tri-County Region, the Five-Township Area, Eaton County and Meridian Township. These areas are grap_h ically depicted in Figure P- I. Figure F-II illustrates the nature of Delta Township's growth over the past fifty years. Each decade has experienced substantial additions to the Tcwnship's total population. In numerical terms, Delta Township's population has risen from under 2,000 in 1930 to 23,800 in 1980. This represents a growth rate for the fifty-year period of more than 1100 percent. Thus, Delta Township had the largest growth rate in the period of any of the six areas which were analyzed. The region's second largest growth area, Meridian Township, experienced a rate greater than 900 percent for the period. During the 1960's Delta Township experienced its highest rate of growth, being a 129 percent increase, for any decade within the 1930-1980 period. The population increase for the Township in the 1970-1980 period indicates a clecr c,ase in the rate of growth when compared to the previous decade. During the 1960-1970 period, Delta Township's annual population increase averaged approximately 970 persons. The 1970-1980 period resulted in the Township's population increasing by approximately 600 persons annually. Comparison of Delta Township Population Trends With Other Areas Tables P-1 and P-2 provide comparisons of change in Delta Township population to other selected areas. Table P-1 presents resident population for the period 1930-1980. Table P-2 shows the numerical increases for each census year during the same period as well as the corresponding percentage of population increase for each period. The rapid pace of population growth in Delta Township is evident when compared to the other areas. Figure P-II graphically depicts the information contained in the aforementioned tables. 24 �• I FIGURE P-I LOCATION OF COMPARATIVE GEOGRAPHIC AREAS STATE OF MICHIGAN FIVE-TOWNSHIP ,""T"-t--+~+ii-41+ffld-""T"-, AREA TRI-COUNTY REGION DEWITT DELTA DELHI ,, FIVE-TOWNSHIP AREA - 25 �1 I I TABLE P-1 COMPARATIVE POPULATION TRENDS 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980* Delta Township 1,921 2,618 4,131 7, 627 17,396 23,822 Meridian Township 2,878 4,767 9,!08 13,884 23,827 28,754 103,160 116,184 158,293 198,142 245,842 271,661 31,728 34,124 40,023 49,684 68,892 88 ,JJ 7 Tri-County Region 172,489 191,411 244,159 298,949 378,423 419,750 State of Michigan 4,842,000 5,256,000 6,373,000 7,823,000 8,890,000 9,262,078 Five-Township Area 1 Eaton County 1 rncludes Delta, Delhi, DeWitt, Lansing and Meridian Townships; Lansing and East Lansing. Source: Table by Delta Township Planning Department based on data from the U.S. Censuses of Population and Housing, 1940-1970; from the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission; and from the Department of Management and Budget, State of Michigan. *1980 Figures represent Final 1980 Census Counts, February, 1982 TABLE P-2 INCREMENTAL POPULATION INCREASES 1930-1940 Delta Township Meridian Township Five-Township Area Eaton County Tri-County Region State of Michigan Source: 1940-1950 1950-1960 1960-1970 1970-1980>'< 697 (36%) 1,513 (5 3% ) 3,496(85%) 9,769(129 %) 6,426(37 %) 1,889(66%) 4,341(91 %) 4,776 (52 ;~ ) 9,943 ( 71 %) 4, 923 ( 21%) 13,024 (13%) 42,109(25 %) 39,849(25 %) 47,700( 21%) 25,819(U%) 2,376( 9%) 5,899 (18 %) 9,661(24 %) 19,208( 39%) 19, 4L+5 (28 %) 18,922 (11 %) 52,748(28 %) 54,790(2 2% ) 79,474( 27%) 41,327(11%) 414,000( 8%) 1,116,000(21 %) 1,451,000 (23 ~~ ) 1,052,000( 13%) 372,078( 4%) Delta Township Planning Department based on data in Table P-1 *1980 Figures represent Final 1980 Census Counts, February, 1982. 26 �• FIGURE P-II COMPARATIVE POPULATION TRENDS 130 120 110 I I I 100 I I I I I 90 I I w fl) 80 ct w 0::: u z I- z w 70 60 u 0::: w 11. 50 40 \ \ ""\ " .. ··· .· ·. ·· .. _ "" 30 .··· DELTA TWP. ···.... EATON CO. MERIDIAN TWP. 20 10 ················ ~,, TRI-COUNTY REGION FIVE-TWP. REGION 0 19201930 1930- 1940- 1950- 1960- 1970- 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 Tl ME -. 27 19801990 �1 I FIGURE P-III Population Distribution Five Township Area • 1960-1980 !DELTA TWP. -MERIDIAN TWP. -EAST LANSING LANSING/ LANSING TWP. -DELHI TWP. TWP. ;DELTA TWP. 1960 TWP. -EAST LANSING TWP. TWP. ;DELTA TWP. 1970 EAST -LANSING -DELHI \DEWITT TWP. TWP. 1980 28 �I - • Distribution of Population in the Five-Township Area The Five-Township area encompasses a large portion of the Lansing Metropolitan area. Figure P-III portrays changing distribution of population in the area during the 1960-1980 period. Those portions of the metropolitan area with increasing shares of population are vividly presented. The Townships of Delhi, Dewitt, Meridian and Delta currently represent thirty percent of the metropolitan area population as compared to fifteen percent in 1940. This redistribution of metropolitan area population appears to be continuing. A possible explanation for this changing pattern of population distribution is a general tendency for the growth of a given area to slow after a certain density has been reached. During the 1960-1970 period, the population in the suburban townships surrounding Lansing, being Delhi, Dewitt, Delta and Meridian, increased by 46 percent while the increase in the 1970-1980 period was 23 percent. The slow down in the urbanization of the suburbs can be attributed to many factors including increasing energy costs, a decreasing supply of land which has the necessary public utilities, and the increasing cost of development which is characterized by high land costs, high mortgage rates, and high materials costs. The Impact of Inrnigration on Delta Township's Population Growth Inmigration has played a significant role in Delta Township's phenomenal population growth. Usually, the net migration experienced by an area over a period of time is determined by finding the difference between the actual change in population during the time period and the natural increase or decrease of the population over the same time period. Natural increase or decrease is determined by the difference between the recorded births and the recorded deaths attributed to the region for the time period in question. Until recently, however, birth and death records have not been kept for areas smaller than a county. During the period of 1960-1970, sixty-five percent of the population growth in Eaton County was attributed to inmigration. Inmigration also had a significant impact in the 1970-1980 period when sixty-four percent of the population growth in Eaton County resulted from inmigration. Certainly, Delta Township has experienced a large amount of inmigration over the past decade. Due to the fact that Delta Township's population grew at a greater rate (35%) than Eaton County's population (25%) during the 1970's, it is likely that Delta Township experienced a higher inmigration rate than did Eaton County. Age-Sex Structure of Delta Township's Population An age-sex pyramid for Delta Township is illustrated in Figure P-IV. It indicates the number of males and females in various age groups thus resulting in its pyramidal shape. Such a graphic presentation of population structure is useful because it indicates at a glance any abnormalities present in a population. The concept of a perfect pyramid may be used as a guide against which to measure the pyramid actually generated by the population in question. The assumptions upon which the perfect pyramidal shape depend can be summarized as follows: Age-specific mortality rates will remain constant and will be, for any age group, equal to or greater 29 �1 ' than those of any younger group. This helps ensure that each age group will be broader at the base and more gradually sloped. Finally, the perfect pyramidal shape of any age-sex distribution depends on both birth and mortality rates being the same for both males and females. If they are not, the pyramid will be lopsided. It is unlikely that the foregoing assumptions would hold entirely for any real population as birth rates vary from year to year as do death rates. FIGURE P-IV Age-Sex Distribution For Delta Township 1960-1970-1975 'T!IYoan IINIOII CIT1ZINI 7 ,.INI LAIOII ,ollCI ITUDINTI' Plll•ICHOOL !I· 14 u11~•• s Year• 2400 ZIOO 1D00 1100 IIOO 1400 1100 1000 100 600 400 Females ZOO 0 200 400 100 100 1000 1200 1400 1800 1100 1000 UOCU400 Males "-••··-• 1975 P,OPULATION •----- 1970 POPULATION - - - 1960 POPULATION In Figure P-IV each age group, except the first, represents a span of ten yea~s. This limitation results in a deviation in the shape of the pyramid. The youngest age group, being a shorter time span, appears abnormally thin. In spite of this limitation, Figure P-IV contains useful data. The comparison it draws between Delta Township's 1960 and 1975 populations is indicative of the 173 percent growth rate that the Township experienced over the 15 year period. Population increases have been significant in every age- 30 �- I sex group, excepting only males 75 or more years old. The pyramid indicates abnormalities which appear in the general shape of Delta Township's 1960, 1970 and 1975 age-sex composition. Significant indentations can be seen for two 1960 age groups -- the 15 to 24 age group and the 25 to 34 age group. These indentations can be explained in terms of the aforementioned expected indentation of age groups born during the Depression. For males, the indentation of the younger group was carried forward to 1970 and all but disappeared in 1975. The indentation of the older group seems to have disappeared by 1970. This obviously represents a greater inmigration of males 25 to 34 years old in 1960. For females, the indentation of the older group has also been eliminated by the effects of inmigration. Further, the indentation of the younger group has itself almost disappeared as of 1975. Of significance is the size of the five to 14 age group in 1970. Although this group cannot logically be compared to the next younger group, it can be compared with the next older one. Again, in its extremely large size, the effects of inmigration can be seen. The 1975 census data indicates the effect of inmigration as to the five-14 age group has lessened significantly representing not only an absolute decline of population in this age group, but suggesting a decline of new families with school age children. Population Per Household An important social characteristic of population is the continuing decrease in the population per household in Delta Township. Table P-3 illustrates past trends in the population per household in Delta Township over a twentyyear period. TABLE P-3 POPULATION PER HOUSEHOLD DELTA TOWNSHIP 1960-1980 Year Population Per Household 1960 3. 74 1970 3.75 1975 3.22 1980 2. 83 Source: U.S. Bureau of Census The continued decrease in the population per household can be attributed to many factors including a declining birth rate and corresponding maturation of the population as a whole. Social factors contributing to this decline include a greater mobility of the under 24 age group accompanied by higher economic independence, a declining marriage rate, and a trend toward childless cohabitation. - 31 1 �1 I I The U.S. Census Bureau has reported a 66 percent increase in nonfamily households during the 1970's. Nationally, nonfamily households in 1980 accounted for one-fourth of all units, compared to one-fifth in 1970. The Census also revealed that almost 90 percent of nonfamily households consist of one person. ,_ The 1980 census counts for Delta Township revealed that a significant difference exists between the population per household figures for multiple family units and single family detached units. An analysis of census tracts which consist solely of single-family detached dwellings revealed that the population per household figure is generally between 3.0 and 3.6 while the population per household figure for census tracts which were occupied by multiple units ranged from approximately 1.5 to 1.7. The decline in persons per household while the population increases has implications as to the demand for and type of dwelling to be provided for in future years. Based on present trends, it appears that the population per household figure in Delta Township will continue to decline. This trend will very likely result in a demand for smaller dwelling units and a decrease in the school age population. 1 II Population Projections Estimates of future population are important in the planning process to the extent they provide general indications of probable land consumption, school enrollments, public facility use demand and similar impacts. This section provides population estimates for 1985, 1990 and the year 2000 within Delta Township. Basic methodology is a regional cohort-survival model with apportionment among minor civil divisions to consider affects of net migration. Net migration has been developed from two sources: (1) trend increases in Delta Township population in excess of expected cohort-survival totals and (2) increases in reported household tax return exemptions on U.S. Census Bureau data. Table P-4 provides the population projections for Delta Township, Eaton County and the Five-Township Metropolitan Area, and the TriCounty Region through the year 2000. TABLE P-4 POPULATION PROJECTIONS TO THE YEAR 2000 1980* 1985 1990 2000 Delta Township 23,822 26,138 29,355 34,466 Eaton County 88,337 92,965 101,222 113,800 Five-Township Area 271,661 291,537 306,180 337,145 Tri-County Region 419,750 443,270 475,750 527,999 *1980 population figures represent the final 1980 census counts. Source: Population Projections for the Tri- County Region, 12/15/77, Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, Lansing, Michigan. 32 �- I Table P-4 suggests Delta Township, in comparison with other areas in the Tri-County Region, will continue to evidence a significant growth rate, though not as dramatic as occurred in the 1950-1970 period. The real increase in Township population is expected to average 500-550 persons per year through the planning period. The population projections for the year 2000 indicate that Delta Township will experience a 45 percent population increase, the Five-Township area a 26 percent increase, 29 percent for Eaton County and a 27 percent increase for the entire TriCounty Region. Population projection is not an exact science and is affected by numerous factors in the local projection area. Increases in employment beyond that expected, recessionary periods, amenities of a community and other factors all influence the amount of inmigration. Also, a community's growth policy may have a significant impact on the population change. If Delta Township should institute a growth policy requiring phasing of development on lands adequately served by utilities, parks, schools, roads and other services, the estimates of population increase would be different from those being projected. The presentation of estimated population herein has presumed no such growth policy. The declining household size suggests a leveling off or actual decline of school-age children during the planning period. This will affect school facility planning. The trend toward fewer persons per household may be of importance as to development regulations pertaining to minimum dwelling unit size and also as to minimum parking space requirements, especially in multiple housing developments. 33 7 ��COMMERCIAL BASE ANALYSIS Commercial facilities in Delta Township are presently located in four principal areas: The Delta Central Business District (CBD); on Saginaw Highway east of Elmwood Road, on Saginaw Highway west of Mall Drive West, and at the Waverly Plaza along Waverly Road. The Delta Central Business District consists of an enclosed mall shopping center, the Lansing Mall, which contains the Hudson's, Penny's and Montgomery Ward Department Stores, as well as Meijer Thrifty Acres, K-Mart and Dornet Village which are located on the south side of Saginaw Highway across from the Lansing Mall. The stores of the Delta CBD comprise a comparison shopping magnet of regional significance. Although the Lansing Mall-K-MartMeijer Thrifty Acre group was not planned in a related fashion and is bisected by the traffic pattern of Saginaw Highway, this grouping of major stores does function as an interrelated business district. The commercial district located on Saginaw Highway east of Elmwood Road consists largely of commercial strip developments which were primarily constructed during the period of 1965 to 1975. There is little or no functional transition between the types of commercial uses in this strip, and the area is generally congested and unattractive. The area along Saginaw Highway west of Mall Drive West is evidencing a similar trend toward total strip development which will probably be reached unless alternative land development policies are implemented. With the exception of the Waverly Plaza, the commercial development on the west side of Waverly Road is of a strip nature. However, existing retail stores are separated by large distances of non-commercial usage so that a true strip character has not yet emerged. / I Characteristics of Existing Commercial Development Types of Commercial Enterprises Retail shopping areas within Delta Township have taken on two different and distinct forms. The first type of commercial development is known as the shopping center which is defined as "a group of commercial establishments, planned, developed, owned and managed as a unit related in location, size, and type of shops to the trade area that the unit serves; it provides onsite parking in definite relationship to the types and sizes of stores. 1Prior to the evolution of the shopping center, retail stores were usually developed as a miscellaneous collection of individual stores each on a separate parcel of street frontage. The second type of commercial development is generally referred to as as strip development. This type of development usually fronts on both sides of an arterial roadway and extends inward for half a block. Strip development is often characterized by an assortment of office and commercial uses requiring relatively small parcels of land. 1The Community Builders Handbook, Urban Land Institute, Washington, D.C. 1968, pg. 264. 34 �- I Shopping centers are generally classified as one of three types; the neighborhood, the community, and the regional. The shopping center's type is determined by its major tenant or tenants rather than site area or square feet of structures. The Urban Land Institute defines the three types of shopping centers as follows: Neighborhood Center - provides for the sale of consumer convenience goods (foods, drugs and sundries) and personal services (laundry and dry cleaning, barbering, shoe repairing, etc.) for day-by-day living needs of an immediate neighborhood. It is built around a supermarket as the principal tenant. In size, the neighborhood center has an average gross leasable area close to 50,000 square feet. Community Center - in addition to the convenience goods and personal services of the neighborhood center, it provides a wider range of facilities for the sale of soft lines (wearing apparel for men, women and children) and hard lines (hardware and appliances). It makes more depth of merchandise available -- variety in sizes, styles, colors and prices. It is built around a junior department store or a variety store as the major tenant, in addition to the supermarket. It does not have a full-line department store, though it may have a strong specialty store. In size, the community center has an average gross leasable area of about 150,000 square feet, but the range is between 100,000 square feet and 300,000 square feet. Regional Center - provides for general merchandise, apparel, furniture and home furnishings in full depth and variety. It is built around a full-line department store as the major drawing power. For even greater depth and variety in comparative shopping, two department stores, or even three or more, are being included in the tenancy. In size, the regional center has an average gross leasable area of 400,000 square feet. Regional centers range in area from 100,000 square feet up to 1,000,000 square feet or more. / There are examples of these three types of shopping centers within Delta Township: Neighborhood Center - the West Saginaw Plaza, located northwest of the intersection of Saginaw Highway and Waverly Road, which consists of approximately 55,000 square feet. Community Center - the Waverly Plaza, located southwest of the intersection of St. Joe Highway and Waverly Road, which consists of approximately 180,000 square feet. Regional Center - the Lansing Mall, located northwest of the intersection of Saginaw Highway and Elmwood Road, which consists of approximately 1,000,000 square feet. Location of Types of Commercial Enterprises The majority of the Township's comparison retail stores are located in the Delta Central Business District. Department and apparel stores are more likely to be located in the Delta Central Business District than any other commercial area within the Township. The majority of the Township's retail convenience stores are located on Saginaw Highway east of Elmwood Road. The fact that convenience stores have yet to decentralize on a neighbor- 35 7 �hood level throughout the Township could be attributed to two factors: 1) Delta Township households are very auto-oriented, therefore, it is not an inconvenience for the majority of residents to drive several miles to purchase day-to-day necessities, 2) many residents oppose the establishment of any type of commercial development in their residential neighborhoods due to the fear that the commercial development would change the residential character. Fast-food restaurants are presently conceptrated on Saginaw Highway east of Elmwood Road due to the high visibility and traffic exposure offered by this area. Quality sit-down restaurants are much more dispersed throughout the Township than the fast-food outlets. It should be noted that the recent trend of converting gasoline station structures to other retail uses has frequently occurred in Delta Township. I I Reasons for Locating Commercial Uses Delta Township has experienced steady growth in commercial development over the past decade. There are several reasons which account for retail merchants desiring to locate in Delta Township: the Township's arterial stre2t pattern affords good traffic access while providing excellent exposure to retail firms; the availability of land within the Township, when compared to more urbanized and centralized locations in the Lansing Metropolitan Area, is a primary locational factor; and the existence of adequate public services makes the area attractive for commercial development. The steady increases in the Township's population over past decades, as well as the area's growth potential, is another inducement to retail firms. The existence of a regional shopping center such as the Lansing Mall also serves as an inducement for commercial development to locate in the area. Finally, Delta Township constitutes a new market place within the Lansing Metropolitan Area. / II Projection of Future Commercial Development In analyzing and projecting Delta Township's commercial facilities requirements ., it is necessary to distinguish between two basic kinds of shopping needs. First, comparison facilities must be provided to serve the needs for clothing, furniture, household appliances, and other major items. Secondly, convenience facilities such as groceries, drug stores, and barber shops will be required to serve daily shopping needs. This section will analyze Delta Township's comparison shopping needs as well as several of the more significant convenience shopping needs such as food stores, drug stores, hardware stores and restaurants. There are five basic steps required to project the facilities .needed to serve comparison and basic convenience shopping needs. First, the primary trade areas to be served by comparison and convenience shopping facilities must be determined. Generally, the trade area of convenience facilities is limited to surrounding residential neighborhoods, while the trade area for a regional comparison shopping center includes a large portion of the Lansing Metropolitan Area. 36 �- I FIGURE C-I FIVE MILE TRADE AREA DELTA TOWNSHIP CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT 0 <{ 0 "'..... ..... j; w DEWITT TOWNSHIP 0 ..... w w "'..... V) ~ I I r--""' r I 1-96 CEDAR PARK CENTER 37 7 �The second step required to project the need for comparison and convenience shopping facilities is to determine future total sales in various retail categories within the trade area. Determination of trade area future total retail sales is dependent upon changes in population, purchasing power and expenditure patterns within the trade area. The third step is to determine the proportion of total trade area retail sales that will accrue to the projected facilities. Convenience facilities are considered to draw business throughout their trade area. The proportion of total trade area retail sales that comparison facilities will draw is dependent upon a number of factors, most important of which is the relative quality and location of competitive facil i ties. The fourth step is to determine the amount of square foc.tage required to sustain the proportion of total trade area retail sales that the facilities will generate. This determination can be based on current projected marketing standards. The final step is to compare the projected future requirements with existing facilities. This comparison will indicate the extent to which new facilities will be required. In determining future comparison shopping facilities needs, attention will be focused on the concentration of comparison facilities centered in the Delta Central Business District. These facilities include the Lansing Mall Stores, Meijer Thrifty Acres, K-Mart, and Dornet Village. Further, the stores of the Delta Central Business District can be meaningfully compared with other major shopping areas in and near the trade area. This comparison will be the basis of assessing the impact of these stores on the trade area. Determination of Comparison Shopping Trade Area The first step required to analyze the major comparison facilities in and near the Lansing Mall is to determine the trade area served by these facilities. The experience of regional shopping centers in other metropolitan areas indicates that such centers draw a major portion of their customers from within a three to five mile radius. Because it is located in a sparsely settled region, the Delta Central Business District would most likely have a trade area approximated by a five mile radius. This trade area is indicated in Figure C-1. It encompasses virtually all of Delta Township, most of the western half of the City of Lansing-Lansing Township area, as well as significant portions of Watertown and DeWitt Townships. While it is assumed that 50 percent of the Delta CBD c ustomers live bey onc the five mile trade area, it is probable that in the future this percentage will decrease. AsDeltaTownship becomes more densely populated, it will contribute more and more patrons to the stores of the Delta CED. Furthermore, insofar as the areas surrounding Delta Township remain rural, they will be less significant to the stores of the Delta CBD. As some areas near Delta Township become more highly urbanized, they can be expected to develop their own comparison shopping facilities. This will reduce the demand that would otherwise be placed on Delta Township's facilities. 38 �- • conversely, because of the Tri-County Region's excellent highway system and the expected future pattern of population gr·owth, it is likely that the stores of the Delta CBD will continue to play a large role in fulfilling the comparison shopping needs of people living in the outlying portions of the Tri-County Region. Based on the foregoing considerations, it is assumed that by the year 2000 approximately 60 percent of the patons of the Delta CBD stores will live within the five mile trade area. While this judgment should not be interpreted as a firm prediction, it will be useful as a basis for further analysis. Determination of Convenience Shopping Trade Area Having determined the trade area of Delta Township's comparison shopping facilities, attention is now directed to consideration of the trade area of Delto Township's convenience shopping facilities. As previously noted, convenience shopping facilities generally have a limited trade area. This is understandable because of the frequency with which they are patronized by individual customers. Because people are reluctant to travel far to satisfy daily shopping needs and because of the amount of traffic generated by convenience shopping trips, convenience stores ideally should have a trade area no larger than a grouping of neighborhoods. Therefore, the exact distributi on of trade area delineations for convenience shopping facilities in Delta Township will depend upon the neighborhood unit plan. The present analysis will restrict itself to specifying the total amount of convenience shopping facilities which will be required to serve Delta Township's projected year 2000 population. Projection of Future Retail Sales The second major step required to analyze and project the need for comparison and convenience shopping facilities within Delta Township is to determine trade area future total sales in various retail categories. Determination of trade area future total retail sales is dependent upon three factors: 1) population growth within the trade area, 2) growth in per capita retail expenditures within the trade area, and 3) trade area changes in retail expenditure patterns. Current and projected populations for the trade area are presented in Table C-1. This table divides the trade area into the following units: Delta Township, the Lansing-Lansing Township area, Watertown and DeWitt Townships. Population increases in the Lansing and Lansing Township portions of the trade area were determined from projections of the total population of Lansing and Lansing Township by using a two-step procedure. First, the Lansing-Lansing Township area was surveyed to determine the distribution of vacant residential land which might accommodate increases in population. Second, future land development trends envisioned by the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission for the Lansing-Lansing Township area were evaluated for their probable impact on the development of vacant residential land. Consideration was given to the projected distribution and extent of various densities of development. Based on the distribution of vacant residential land and expected development trends, one-half of the projected population increase for the Lansing-Lansing Township area was allocated to the portions of Lansing and Lansing Township lying within the five mile trade area. 39 ] �TABLE C-1 FIVE-MILE TRADE AREA POPULATION PROJECTIONS / Political Subdivision of the Trade Area 1980* 1990 2000 Delta Township 23,822 29,355 34,466 Lansing-Lansing Twp. Area 68,100 75,063 76,238 Watertown Township 1,200 1,904 1,923 DeWitt Township 1,900 2,859 3,543 Data Source: Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, 12/15/77. *1980 population figures represent final census counts, February, 1982. The portions of DeWitt and Watertown Townships' populations living within the five-mile trade area were determined by the same methodology as was applied to the Lansing-Lansing Township portion of the trade area. The portion of the two townships' 1980 population living within the trade area was estimated on the basis of the existing pattern of residential development. The portion of the two townships' 1980 through year 2000 populations living within the trade area was determined from Tri-County Regional Planning Commission population projections. Population increases were allocated to the five-mile trade area on the basis of the availability of residential land and expected development trends. It was determined that approximately one-fifth of DeWitt Township's 1980 through the year 2000 population is or will be living within the five mile trade area. It was also determined that approximately one-third of Watertown Township's 1980 through the year 2000 populations are or will be living within the trade area. The second factor bearing on future trade area retail sales is future per capita retail expenditures. Future per capita retail expenditures can be determined by estimating projected increases in real per capita purchasing power and applying such a projection to an estimate of current per capita retail expenditures. During the period of 1969 to 1974 per capita incomes within the Tri-County Re8ion increased 38.4 percent. Per capita income is computed by dividing the residence-adjusted total personal income by population estimates.2 In order to account for inflation during the 1969 to 1974 period, the increases in the U.S. City Average Consumer Price Index were applied to the increases in per capita incomes. The U.S. City Average Consumer Price Index figures are derived by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics based on a cross sampling of 56 U.S. cities. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor, the U.S. City Average Consumer Price Index figure is more indicative of the impact of inflation on the Lansing Area than either the U.S. or Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area Consumer Price Index figures. The U.S. City Average Consumer Price Index increased 34.5 percent during the period of 1969 to 1974. When the 34.5 percent increase in the consumer 2The source of the per capita income figures was Current Population Reports, U.S. Bureau of Census, Series P-25, Number 670. 40 �- • price index is subtracted from the 38.4 percent increase in per capita incomes, the result is a "real" growth rate of 3.9 percent for the period or .78 percent per annum. This .78 percent annual "real" growth rate was then applied to the period of 1975 to the year 2000 in order to arrive at a projected year 2000 Tri-County per capita income. In order to determine what percentage of the year 2000 inflation adjusted per capita money incomes would be ci2vt2t.~1 to retail expenditures, a national index was applied. In 1975 the U.S. per capita personal income was $5,903 of which $2,746 or 47 percent was devoted to retail e xpenditures. Applying this percentage to the projected year 2000 Tri-County inflation adjusted per capita money income of $5,502 results in an inflation adjusted per capita money income retail expenditure in the year 2000 of $2,586. TABLE C-2 YEAR 2000 TRI-COUNTY PROJECTED PER CAPITA RETAIL EXPENDITURE PATTERNS(l) Total Retail Spending $2,586 Total Comparison Store Spending Department Store 853 491 Variety Store 13 Apparel and Accessory 129 Furniture and Appliance 91 Other Comparison Store 129 Total Convenience Store Spending Food and Liquor 518 440 Drugs 52 Hardware 26 Eating and Drinking 310 Other Retail Expenditures 905 (1) Based on 1969 dollars. Source: Table by Delta Township Planning Department based on a projection of Tri-County Region retail expenditure patterns developed by the staff. Table C-2 presents the Year 2000 estimate of total per capita retail expenditures along with a breakdown of how the total expenditure is epxected to be allocated to various retail categories. 41 A �TABLE C-3 CHANGES IN RETAIL EXPENDITURE PATTERNS FOR THE TRI-COUNTY REGION AND EATON COUNTY Tri-County Region 1963 Tri-County Region 1967 Eaton County 1967 Eaton County 1972 Percent of Total Percent of Total Percent of Total Percent of Total 100.0% 100. 0% 100. 0% 100. 0% Total Comparison Store Spending 28.1% 32.9% 43% 56% Department Store 11.0% 16.3% 2% 2% Variety Store 2.3% 1. 3% * * Apparel and Accessory 4.3% 5.0% 3% 6% Furniture and Appliance 4.2% 4.5% 5% 4% Other Comparison Store 6.3% 5.8% 33% 44% 28.2% 25.1% 32% 24% 23.9% 21.4% 29% 21% Drugs 3.0% 2.8% 3% 3% Hardware 1. 3% 0.9% * * Eating and Drinking 5.9% 6. 7% 7% 9% Other Retail Expenditures 37.9% 40.1% 18% 6% Total Retail Spending Total Convenience Store Spending Food and Liquor - Source: Tri-County data contained in the 1967 Census of Business, Major Retail Centers, Eaton County data containec in Economic Profile of Eaton County, Office of Economic Expansion, Michigan Department of Commerce, September 1975, Sheet #6.1. *Data not available for this category. 42 �Changes in Retail Expenditure Patterns The third factor bearing on future trade area retail sales is current and expected changes in retail expenditure patterns. Table C-3 presents retail expenditure patterns in the Tri-County Region for the years 1963 and 1967 and retail expenditure patterns for Eaton County for the years 1967 to 1972. The table indicates total expenditures in various comparison and convenience retail categories. Three aspects of retail expenditures within the Tri-County Region deserve particular attention. First, within the general comparison category, the relative growth in department store sales at the expense of sales in other comparison facilities is notable. This Tri-County regional trend is reflective of a national trend that has been going on for several years. All other comparison retail categories fared less well than did the department store category. Apparel and accessory stores and furniture and appliance stores posted gains well below the comparison store average. Variety and specialty stores actually showed a decrease in their proportion of total retail sales. The relative increase in department store sales in conjunction with the relative decrease in other comparison store sales is evidence of the superior drawing power of the multifaceted department store approach to comparison goods merchandising. It should be pointed out that the variety store has suffered most from the impact of the department store. This should be expected in view of the fact that the two types of stores are similar, with the exception that the department store actually offers a greater variety of merchandise. Because of the substantial marketing edge of department stores over variety stores, it can be expected that department stores will continue to increase their sales at the expense of variety stores. The fact that apparel and accessory, furniture, appliance and specialty stores have not fared quite as badly against department stores as have variety stores probably reflects an advantage of specialization. Another important reason why these stores have not lost more ground to department stores is the modern tendency to group them with department stores and other specialty stores in shopping centers. This creates a complex of stores which all benefit from the drawing power of the major department store. The second notable feature of Tri-County regional retail expenditures pertains to the food and liquor category. This category has experienced a decline which is attributable to a steady increase in per capita incomes, a rise in the efficiency of food production and distribution techniques, and and an increase in the number of meals which are consumed outside the home. The steady growth within the fast-food industry durin~ the 1970's is expected to continue into the future. The third significant feature is the fact that comparison store and other retail expenditure categories have each shared approximately one-third of the total sum devoted to retail expenditures. The convenience store category has recently experienced a small decline which has been offset by growth in the eating and drinking category. 43 �Based on the foregoing analysis, an allocation of the year 2000 per capita retail expenditures to various retail categories was determined. As previously noted, this allocation of the year 2000 per capita retail expenditures to various retail categories is presented in Table C-2. It should be noted that the large proportion of total expenditures classified in Tables C-2 and C-3 as "Other Retail Expenditures" represents two groups of expenditures. These groups are automobile dealership expenditures and non-hardware building materials expenditures. Automobile de a l ership expenditures are not isolated for special attention because of the fact that automobiles represent such a major comparison purchase that standard methods of analysis involving considerations of limited trade areas do not apply. Thus, it is difficult to determine the need for automobile dealerships based on the concept of a five mile trade area. The need for building material supplies, like the need for automobile dealerships, is difficult to determine on the basis of a relatively limited trade area. Furthermore, the various kinds of facilities, ranging in character from lumber yards to plumbing stores, required to merchandise building material supplies vary greatly in the amount of space required to serve the need for building material supplies based on projections of dollar volume of sales. • Having determined a projection of the year 2000 per capita expenditures in various retail categories and having also determined the population of the various zones of the trade area of Delta Township's major comparison shopping facilities, it is now possible to determine the total future ret~il expenditures that will be generated within the various zones of the trade area. This determination is based upon population multiplied by per capita expenditures. The results of this multiplication are presented in Table C-4. Comparison expenditures are presented for all zones of the trade area because all zones will contribute business to the comparison shopping facilities of Delta Township. Convenience expenditures are presented only for Delta Township beca u se Delta Township's convenience facilities will be supported primarily by local residents. The third factor determining the impact of loss on the various zones of the trade area is the distance of the Delta CBD and the distance of competing facilities from the various zones of the trade area. The further away the Delta CBD is from the center of population of a trade area zone, the smaller the proportion of total retail sales generated within the trade area zone that will accrue to the Delta CBD will be. Conversely, the farther away competing facilities are from the center of population of a trade area zone, the larger will be Delta Central Business District's proportion of the trade area zone's retail sales. • Having determined the future retail expenditure pattern for the comparison and convenience trade area of Delta Township, attention will now be directed to determining the proportion of future comparison and convenience sales generated within the trade area that will be spent in Delta Township's retail facilities. This determination is quite simple with respect to convenience type retail sales. As noted earlier, convenience stores do business within their relatively limited trade areas. Therefore, it will be assumed that all convenience sales potential generated within Delta Township will be spent in Delta Township. This assumption is dependent upon the provision of sufficient properly located convenience merchandise outlets to allow full realization of their potential . 44 �.... I TABLE C-4 YEAR 2000 PROJECTED TRADE AREA RETAIL EXPENDITURES(l) Dewitt Township Watertown Township Total from Beyond Delta Township $65,031,000 $3,022,000 $1,640,000 $69,693,000 16,923,000 37,433,000 1,740,000 944,000 40,117,000 448,000 991,000 46,000 25,000 1,062,000 Apparel and Accessory 4,446,000 9,835,000 457,000 248,000 10,540,000 Furniture and Appliance 3,136,000 6,938,000 322,000 175,000 7,435,000 Other Comparison Store 4,446,000 9,835,000 457,000 248,000 10,540,000 Delta Township Total Comparison Store Spending S29,399,000 Department Store Variety Store Total Convenience Store Spending Food and Liquor City of Lansing Lansing Township R' 17,853,000 15,165,000 1,792,000 Drugs 896,000 Hardware Eating and Drinking 10,684,000 (l)Based on 1969 dollars. Source: Table by Delta Township Planning Department based on data presented in Tables C-2 and C-3. Determination of Accrual of Future Trade Area Sales to Delta Township Determination of the proportion of future trade area comparison retail sales that will accrue to Delta Township's major comparison facilities is a complicated task involving three considerations. These three considerations are (1) the existence of competitive facilities, (2) the relative attractiveness of competitive facilities, and (3) the distance of Delta Township's comparison facilities and their competitors from the various zones of the trade area. 45 �The first consideration in determining the proportion of total trade area comparison sales accruing to Delta Township's comparison facilities is the existence of competitive facilities. An investigation of retail sales outlets within the Tri-County Region led to the conclusion that there are two regional shopping centers and three community shopping centers in direct competition for the retail sales that will be generated within the trade area of the Delta Central Business District. The two regional shopping centers in competition with the Delta Central Business District are the Frandor Shopping Center and Meridian Mall. The three community shopping centers in competition with the Delta Central Business District are the Waverly Plaza, Logan Center, and Edgemont Center. The City of Lansing's Central Business District is also located within the delineated trade area and competes with the stores of the Delta Central Business District. Although the City of Grand Ledge shopping area is not located within the five mile trade area, it does have an impact on the Delta CBD. Table C-5 provides a listing of neighborhood and regional shopping centers within the Tri-County area. Although this list is not all inclusive, it does include those shopping centers which have the most impact on the Delta CBD's five mile trade area. The second primary consideration which impacts the Delta Central Business District is the relative attractiveness of the enumerated competitive facilities. Six factors must be weighed in evaluating the relative attractiveness of the competitive comparison facilities. Three of these factors are related to accessibility and circulation: 1) the ease of accessibility to the various competitive facilities as determined by surrounding street patterns; 2) the availability of convenient parking spaces; and 3) the features of internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation patterns which facilitate or hinder customer use. A fourth important consideration influencing the relative attractiveness of competitive shopping facilities will be the existence or absence of climate control advantages common in modern shopping malls. The fifth factor pertaining to the relative attractiveness of competitive shopping facilities will be the drawing power of major department stores associated with those facilities. The sixth and most basic consideration pertaining to the relative attractiveness of competitive facilities will be their total size. The Delta Central Business District and the competing comparison shopping facilities were evaluated in terms of the six criteria of attractiveness. It was determined that the three regional shopping centers were of approximately equal attractiveness when judged on the basis of all six criteria. Of course, all of the main shopping areas have distinctive features by which they are uniquely characterized. However, negative features in each shopping area tended to be balanced by equally positive features in the same area. Based on the number of shopping facilities in ~ompetition with the Delta Central Business District and on the relative attractiveness of those facilities and the distance of the Delta Central Business District and competing shopping facilities from the center of population of the various Lansing Mall trade area zones, a determination was made as to the proportion of total trade area retail sales which would accrue to the Delta Central Business District. It was determined that the Delta Central Business District 46 �-, would receive approximately 85 percent of the total retail sales generated within the Delta Township portion of its trade area, 15 percent of the retail sales generated within the Lansing-Lansing Township area, 15 percent of the retail sales generated within DeWitt Township and 30 percent of the retail sales generated within Watertown Township. TABLE C-5 NEIGHBORHOOD AND REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTERS WITHIN THE TRI-COUNTY AREA Gross Leasable Floor Area (sq. ft.)* Name Lansing Mall Number of Stores* 1,000,000 105 Frandor 550,000 100 Meridian Mall 6b,0,000 116 284,000 18 Logan Center 238,000 27 Meridian Township Meijer 220,000 1 Waverly Plaza 182,000 15 South Lansing Meijer 175,000 1 Cedar Park Center 112,000 25 Edgemont Shopping Center 110,000 12 Michigan Ave. Eberhard/Rogers Complex 110,000 3 Haslett Village Square 80,000 20 West Saginaw Plaza 58,000 7 Country Meadows Village Center 55,000 14 Bath Corners Shopping Center 37,000 8 Granger Mall 30,000 9 Willow Plaza 25,000 6 West Saginaw Hwy. Meijer, K-Mart, Dornet Village >'<The square footage of the various retail facilities and the number of stores within them are subject to constant change. The square footage figures and retail store figures include vacant units. 47 �Based on the foregoing determination of the proportion of total retail sales generated within the different zones of the trade area which are attributable to the Delta Central Business District, and upon data presented in Table C-4, a determination was made of future total trade area retail expenditures accruing to the Delta Central Business District. The proportion of total trade area retail expenditures accruing to the Delta Central Business District is presented in Table C-6. TABLE C-6 PROPORTION OF TOTAL TRADE AREA RETAIL EXPENDITURES ACCRUING TO THE DELTA CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT IN THE YEAR 2000(l) Delta Township Total Comparison Store City of Lansing Lansing Township Dewitt Township Watertown Township Total From Beyond Delta Township $24,989,000 $9,755,000 $453,000 $492,000 $10,700,000 14,385,000 5,615,000 261,000 283,000 6,159,000 381,000 149,000 7,000 8,000 164,000 Apparel and Accessory 3,779,000 1,475,000 69,000 74,000 1,618,000 Furniture and Appliance 2,666,000 1,041,000 48,000 53,000 1,142,000 Other Comparison Store 3,779,000 1,475,000 69,000 74,000 1,618,000 Department Store Variety Store Total Convenience Store Food and Liquor 17,853,000 15,165,000 Drugs 1,792,000 Hardware 896,000 Eating and Drinking 10,684,000 (l;Based on 1969 dollars. • Source: Table by Delta Township Planning Department based on data presented in Table C-4. 48 �• TABLE C-7 RETAIL FLOOR SPACE REQUIRED TO SERVE 2000 RETAIL EXPENDITURE PATTERNS City of Lansing, DeWitt, Watertown and Lansing Townships Portion of the Trade Area Delta Township Portion of the Trade Area Expendltures 1 Comparison Store Oepartment Store Variety Store Apparel and Accessory Furniture and Appliance Other Comparison Store Sales Per ~uare Foot $24,989,000 Required Floor Area in Square Feet Expend! tures 442,000 $10,700,000 Sales Per Sguare Foot Total Trade Area Requ 1red Floor Area in Sguare Feet Non-Trade Area Requ1 red Floor Area in Sguare Feet Tota 1 Trade Area And Non-Trade Area Required Floor Area In Sguare Feet 189,000 631,000 422,000 1,053,000 112,000 374,000 262,000 636,000 24,000 14,385,000 $55 262,000 6,159,000 $55 381,000 $40 10,000 164,000 $40 4,000 14,000 10,000 1,618,000 $70 23,000 77,000 34,000 23,000 76,000 53,000 129,000 27,000 90,000 63,000 153,000 3,779,000 2,666,000 3,779,000 $70 54,000 $50 53,000 I, 142,000 $50 $60 63,000 1,618,000 $60 91,000 218,000 Convenience Store 17,853,000 Food and liquor 15,165,000 $175 87,000 1,792,000 $95 19,000 896,000 $50 18,000 10,684,000 $80 134,000 Drugs 1 Required F10or Area in Square Feet .i:,- '-0 Hardware Eating and Drinking ~Based on 1969 dollars. Sales per square foot information derived from Dollars and Cents of Sho~ping Centers: 1975, Urban Land Institute . Sales per square foot figures represent an average of sales per square foot f gures for Regional, Community, and Neighborhood Shopping Centers. Source: Table by Delta Township Planning Department based on data presented In Table C-6. )) iii )) )) J �Projected Retail Floor Space Requirements Table C-7 indicates retail floor space required to serve future trade area retail expenditure patterns. This table projects required space for comparison, convenience and eating and drinking facilities in the year 2000. The projections of future required floor area for each category of commercial activity were developed by dividing projected expenditure levels by established expenditure rates per square foot of commercial space. Table C-7 also portrays the required floor area of various comparison and convenience retail facilities for the year 2000. The seventh column of Table C-7 entitled "Total Trade Area" represents the sum of the required comparison floor area for the Delta Township portion of the trade area as well as for the portion of the trade area outside Delta Township. The total commercial floor space area requirement projected in this column does not reflect the total amount of commercial facilities which could be sustained within the Delta Central Business District in the year 2000 because, as previously explained, only 60 percent of the customers will originate from within the primary trade area. The eighth column in this table, entitled "Non-Trade Area," indicates the floor area required to serve customers originatinr; from beyond the trade area. The final column in Table C-7 indicates the floor area which can be sustained by both the Central Business District trade area and non-trade area customers. The year 2000 convenience shopping space requirements are shown in the third column of Table C-7. TABLE C-8 COMPARISON OF 1977 AND YEAR 2000 REQUIRED SHOPPING FACILITIES Floor Area of Existing Facilities in Square Feet (1977) Name Total Comparison Store Floor Area Required Additional Facilities in Sq. Ft. 1,051,290 1,053,000 1,710 734,281 20,000 100,861 38,240 157,908 636,000 24,000 91,000 129,000 153,000 -98,281 4,000 -9,861 90,760 -4,908 140,937 124,000 -16,937 Food and Liquor Drugs Hardware 125,337 5,400 10, 100 87,000 19,000 18,000 -38,337 13,600 7,900 Eating and Drinking 94,229 134,000 39,771 Department Store Variety Store Apparel and Accessory Furniture and Appliance Other Comparison Store Total Convenience Store "" Projected Requirements in Square Feet (year 2000) Source : Delta Township Planning Department 50 �-, I Table C-8 compares existing commercial space in Delta Township with projected commercial space requirements for the year 2000. / III Major Findings of the Commercial Base Analysis In view of the foregoing analyses of existing and projected characteristics of Delta Township's commercial base, the following conclusions are significant in the development of the Township's Comprehensive Plan: 1. When projected year 2000 retail expenditure patterns are applied to population projections for the same period, the floor area of existing comparison commercial facilities within Delta Township nearly equals the projected need for the year 2000. The greatest need exists in the furniture and appliance store category where it is projected that an additional 90,000 square feet of additional space will be needed by the year 2000. On the other hand, existing department store space should more than satisfy Delta Township's needs for the year 2000. Within the convenience store category it is projected that Delta Township will need an additional 14,000 square feet of drug store space and an additional 8,000 square feet of hardware store space. It is estimated that a need for 40,000 square feet of additional eating and drinking space will exist by the year 2000. 2. During the late 1970's a significant amount of commercial development took place within the Delta Central Business District; foremost among these developments was the Lansing Mall expansion. The upgrading of the roadways surrounding this area will help to insure the continued viability of this area. A large share of the remaining undeveloped land in the area consists of parcels of one acre or less which lack arterial road frontage. 3. In spite of a low vacancy rate and the renovation of a number of commercial properties in the area, the commercial strip along West Saginaw Highway east of Elmwood Road evidences early signs of potential blight and decline. Existing efforts should be continued to solve local traffic ingress and egress problems, reduce the excessive number of driveways penetrating Saginaw Highway, promote the concept of a service drive paralleling the arterial roadway, regulate the profileration of signs, and provide for landscaping provisions within commercial areas. 4. Presently, Delta Township is lacking an adequate number and distribution of neighborhood level convenience shopping facilities. Despite the autooriented nature of local residents, a policy advocating neighborhood level convenience shopping areas should be adopted. 5. The way the ket 6. Portions of Waverly Road evidence the same trend toward excessive strip commercial development which has occurred on Saginaw Highway. However, it is still possible to prevent this excessive growth of commercial strip development on Waverly Road through effectuation of appropriate planning policies. existing strip commercial development along both sides of Saginaw Highshould be contained within its existing boundaries. Development of remaining vacant parcels within these areas will occur due to the mardemand for commercial properties at high traffic locations. 51 ��INDUSTRIAL BASE ANALYSIS The largest single tract of industrially zoned land in the Lansing Metropolitan Area lies within Delta Township. Located in the southeast quadrant of the Township, the industrial tract experienced a significant amount of development during the 1970's. This section begins with a discussion of the Township's existing industrial development which includes a listing of major industrial firms within the Township. The second portion of this section provides projections for future industrial development in the Township and also notes recent trends in industrial employment. I Analysis of Delta Township's Existing Industrial Base The principal industrial, wholesaling and distribution activities in the Township are concentrated within the Delta Township Industrial Tract. This 2100-acre area of land is generally bounded by Mt. Hope Highway on the north, US-27/Temporary 1-69 on the east and southeast, and 1-96 on the west and southwest. Three major facilities are situated in this tract including the Oldsmobile Diesel Engine Plant, Meijer Distribution Center and the Erickson Electric Generating Station owned by the Lansing Board of Water and Light. The industrial tract also includes the area -~ bounded by I-496 to the north, Mt. Hope Highway to the south, Waverly Road to the east and Homeland Subdivision to the west. This area includes three major industrial facilities being the General Motors Part Warehouse, Jacklin Steel and Douglas Steel. Figure I-I illustrates the location of the Delta Township Industrial Tract. The proximity of Delta Township's industrial tract to major interstate highway connections is a local manifestation of the Lansing Metropolitan Area's position as the economic hub of central Michigan. The Grand Trunk Western Railroad also plays an important role in the activities of Delta Township's industrial, warehousing and distribution operations. The General Motors Parts Warehouse and Oldsmobile Diesel Engine Plant extensively utilize the railroad for incoming and outgoing shipments. The Meijer Distribution Center receives most food goods by rail and thereafter, the bulk of the goods is trucked to Meijer retail stores throughout Michigan. The Grand Trunk Railroad line has evidenced its intention to expand services to the industrial tract by construction of new marshalling yards (1971), an auto port (1975-76), new spur tracks to the Meijer Distribution Center (1975) and new spur tracks to the Oldsmobile Diesel Engine Plant (1980). Composition of Existing Industry Delta Township's full range of industrial, warehousing and distribution activities is shown in Table 1-1. This table illustrates the number of Delta Township firms engaged in various industrial, warehousing and distribution activities. Table I-1 indicates that a major portion of Delta Township's industrial firms are engaged in some form of distribution. Included in the distribution group is the General Motors Parts Distribution Center discussed earlier along with the Meijer and Coca-Cola Distribution Centers. The other firms represented in the distribution group are comparatively small transfer and trucking operations. Most of the establishments engaged in distribution activities are affiliated with 52 ~ �-, • - I . .. FIGURE I-I DELTA TOWNSHIP INDUSTRIAL TRACT Industrial Tract Location within Delta Township ST. J E HWY. MT H PE HWY. -< ::0 0 DAVIS HWY. J Illustration of Delta Township Industrial Tract 53 LY RD. �finns carrying on operations outside the Lansing Metropolitan Area. With the exception of the General Motors Parts Distribution Center and Meijer Distribution Center, firms engaging in distribution activities employ relatively few people in their local operations. During the 197O's a significant number of new industrial firms, the majority of which were associated with distribution of materials and goods, located in the industrial tract. This trend suggests that the location and access characteristics of the industrial tract are highly desirable. Typically, firms providing common carrier and freight transportation services require highly accessible locations to both metropolitan and regional service areas. TABLE I-1 MAJOR BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS LOCATED IN DELTA TOWNSHIP's INDUSTRIAL TRACT Construction and Related Activities Distribution Ameri-Cel Structures Inc. Clark Foundation Company Douglas Steel Jacklin Steel T. R. Noyce Construction Company Rieth-Riley Construction Company Shreve Steel Company Tom's Asphalt Paving Company General Trucking Alvan Motor Freight Associated Truck Lines Blue Arrow Inc. Bruce Cartage Central Transport Inc. Interstate System Transcon Lines Tucker Freight Lines United Trucking Service Warehousing Air-Lift Company Auto-Owners Warehouse Fann Bureau Warehouse Manufacturers Service Corporation Nabisco Warehouse Sherriff Goslin Company Atlas Truck Rental and Leasing Keena Truck Leasing Ryder Truck Rental and Leasing Wholesaling Others Central Dairy Supply Flint Pipe and Well Supply Kendall Electric Company Coca-Cola Company General Motors Parts Distribution Center Hi-Klas Beverage Lansing Storage Company Meijer Distribution Center Stevens Van Lines Truck Rental Light Manufacturing Ideal Company Heavy Manufacturing Detroit News Printing Facility Oldsmobile Diesel Engine Plant Utilities and Railroads Erickson Generating Station Grand Trunk Western Railroad Grain Elevators Millett Elevator Company Ralston Purina Company Miscellaneous A-1 Auto Parts Canteen Services 54 �.... I • Industrial Tract Land Inventory Approximately fifty percent of the land within the Delta Industrial Tract has been developed or is committed to existing industries. The industrial tract consists of some 2100 acres of land area, of which approximately 1,000 acres are developed or are now being developed. Among the largest land users are the Erickson Electric Generating Station (305 acres), Meijer Distribution Complex (250 acres), Oldsmobile Diesel Engine Plant (280 acres), GeneralMotors Parts Warehouse (195 acres), Coca-Cola (30 acres) and the Detroit News (12 acres). Industrial-warehousing uses have consumed an estimated 100 acres per year of vacant land during the 1972-1980 period. Industrial Development Activity in the Lansing Metro Area During the 1970's, Delta Township attracted a significant number of industrial warehousing firms. In the 1972-1977 period, approximately 27,000 square feet of manufacturing space was constructed in the Township. During this same time approximately two million square feet of warehousing space was constructed. In the late 1970's, the following major projects were constructed within the industrial tract: Oldsmobile Plant Number Five (1,000,000 square feet), the General Motors Parts Warehouse addition (825,000 square feet), Meijer Hardlines Distribution Building (415,000 square feet), Coca-Cola Warehouse (85,000 square feet) and the Detroit News printing facility (30,000 square feet). II Projection of Future Industrial Development Potential An analysis and projection of industrial, warehousing and distribution economic potential will be carried out in four steps. First, attention will be directed to the overall structure of the Lansing Tri-County Region's economy. Secondly, consideration will be given to those special features of the Tri-County economic structure which are important to industrial, warehousing and distribution economic potential. Thirdly, regional employment trends in industrial and wholesaling trades will be analyzed. Finally, projections of future Tri-County industrial and wholesaling employment will be presented and analyzed in order to determine future development potential for Delta Township. Tri-County Regional Economic Structure The economy of the Tri-County Region is based upon three key elements: state government, higher education and automobile manufacturing. Having an economy based on three such diversified elements has benefited the Lansing area in terms of economic balance and stability that would not be possible in a more narrowly-based economy. Furthermore, this economic structure has enabled the Lansing Metropolitan Area to take advantaie of national growth trends in the three key economic sectors of government, education and industry and thereby evolve as the economic hub of central Michigan during the post World War Two period. Features of the Tri-County regional economy which have a bearing on the potential for future industrial development are primarily related to the skills and expertise which exist within the Metropolitan Lansing Area. 55 �The region has facilities and personnel required for basic research operations. Furthermore, it has a good supply of skilled craftsmen capable of participating in a broad range of manufacturing activities. These assets should assure the region steady growth over future decades. The durable goods industry of the Lansing Metropolitan Area revolves around the production o f transportation equipment. Despite conscious efforts to decentralize the automobile manufacturing industry , the Lansing area complex of transportation-affiliated industries is expected to retain its national importance as a major automobile manufacturing center. Future expansion of automobile affiliated industries in the Tri-County Region is expected to depend on national economic and population trends and local and state governmental policies. While automobile manufacturing and its ancillary industries f orm the mainstay of the Lansing Metropolitan Area manufacturing community, there are numerous non-durable industries. Key non-durables in the Lansing area are generally the ones classified as central place industries. Central place industries are characterized by strong ties to locaJ and regional markets that can be served from a central place. They are dependent upon a highly competitive market. The Meijer Distribution Center is an example of a central place industry since it operates to service metropolitan and regional retail outlets of the parent company. A feature of the Tri-County Re gion which is very important to its potential as a warehousing and distribution center is its strategic location in the lower central portion of Michigan. As already indicated, the network of modern highways that link Lansing with other parts of the state enhance this position. Air and rail transportation facilities in the Lansing Metropolitan Area also help to strengthen this potential. Having analyzed the general structure of the Tri-County regional economy and having evaluated those special features of the Tri-County Region which have a bearing on potential industrial, warehousing and distribution development, we now turn to a consideration of Tri-County regional manufacturing and wholesaling employment trends. Table 1-2 indicates that manufacturing and wholesale employment trends show small, but significant, gains in manufacturing and wholesale employment between the years 1965 and 1978. Despite these gains, the tables show that manufacturing and wholesale employment has lagged behind total non-farm employment. Manufacturing and wholesale employment grew by 11 and 33 percent, respectively, between the years 1965 and 1978. At the same time government and retail employment increased 146 and 70 percent, respectively . Evaluation of the foregoing trends in manufacturing and wholesale employment must be tempered with the realization that the time period during which they developed saF a national shift in employment away from manufacturing towards retail trade. Furthermore, during the same time period, local developments included significant expansion in the operations of both Michigan State University and state government. In view of these facts, Tri-County manufacturing and wholesale employment trends should be read for their absolute growth. The fact that manufacturing and wholesale employment failed to gain as a proportion of total employment should not be taken as an indication that these two sectors of the Lansing economy are without vitality . Indeed, the future portends slow 56 I �-, • I but steady growth in both of these areas. Projection of Manufacturing and Wholesale Employment Table 1-3 presents projected manufacturing and wholesale employment projections for the Tri-County Region developed by the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission. This projection is based upon expected changes in the structure of the national economy and on past and proposed trends in Tri-County economic development. The projected Tri-County employment shown in Table 1-3 was developed during 1977 by the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission. The entire region was divided into 465 traffic zones. Using statewide growth projections, the Tri-County allocation of state growth, and knowledge of local land development trends, land use assignments were made within each traffic zone. Employment, a key factor in traffic generation, was also developed for each traffic zone based on TCRPC employment projections and assignments to each zone. Regional employment and economic development trends do not provide sufficient detail for proper analysis of economic change within Delta Township. Using the traffic zone socio-economic data, traffic zones 91, 92, 93 and 94 represent the geographic area of Delta Township's Industrial Tract, previously discussed. Table 1-4 presents the summary of these four traffic zones as to projected manufacturing and wholesale employment which may be expected by 1985 and the year 2000. TABLE 1-2 TRI-COUNTY REGION EMPLOYMENT CHANGES 1965-1978 1965 1974 1978 1965-1978 Percent Change Manufacturing Employment 40,941 33,383 41,400 1.1 Retail Employment 16,192 24, 1 77 29,000 79 .1 Government Employment 27,653 49,550 68,100 146. 3 Other* 34,376 40,849 45,800 33.3 119. 162 147,959 184,300 54.6 TOTAL Sources: Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Michigan Employment Security Commission 1cWholesale employment estimated at 15% of the "other employment" category based on projections by TCRPC and Robert Gladstone Associates. r 57 �TABLE I-3 PROJECTIONS OF MANUFACTURING AND WHOLESALE EMPLOYMENT IN THE TRI-COUNTY AREA Manufacturing Wholesale Source: 1978 1985 2000 1978-2000 Percent Change 41,400 39,872 43,510 5.0 6,800 7,300 9,700 42.6 Final 1985 and 2000 Traffic Zone Socio-Economic Data, TCRPC, 1977 TABLE I-4 PROJECTIONS OF MANUFACTURING AND WHOLESALE EMPLOYMENT IN THE DELTA INDUSTRIAL TRACT 1974-2000 Percent Change 19 74 1985 2000 Manufacturing 758 1,865 2,865 277. 9 Wholesale 105 252 549 422.8 Source: 1985 and 2000 Traffic Zone Socio-Economic Data (1977), Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Delta Township Planning Department Since raw projection of employment provides no indication of future land consumption, it was deemed necessary to determine average employment density for manufacturing and wholesale activities, then compute raw land requirements by dividing projected employment by employment density, thereby obtaining a rough notion of land consumption. Table I-5 presents the results of this calculation. Table I-5 indicates some 200 acres of new land will be needed for industrial-wholesale enterprises in the 1981-2000 period. When compared with 1972-1977 economic expansion in the industrial tract, approximately 120 acres per year, the forecast seems highly conservative. However, 1972 through 1977 was an extraordinary period of economic expansion due primarily to the advent of the Meijer Distribution Center and the General Motors Parts Warehouse expansion. Absent these two enterprises, the rate of economic expansion whould have been significantly lower. 58 �-, • TABLE I-5 PROJECTED LAND CONSUMPTION FOR MANUFACTURING AND WHOLESALE ACTIVITIES IN THE DELTA INDUSTRIAL TRACT Employees Per Acre Employment Change Additional Acres 1974-1985 Manufacturing 15 958 63 Wholesale 10 147 15 1986-2000 Manufacturing Wholesale 13 1,149 88 9 297 33 Competitiv2 Position of Delta Township in Attracting Industry Within the Tri-County Region The industrial tract of Delta Township contains approximately 1100 acres of vacant, not yet committed, land. When compared to the estimated 200 acres of land needed for manufacturing-wholesale uses by the year 2000, this amount of land appears to be an excessive reserve, even perhaps speculative. However, several factors suggest the current boundaries of the industrial tract, as depicted in Figure I-I, should be retained; they are: 1. The strong influx of new industry during the past decade suggests the industrial tract is favorably located for transportation-distribution dependent industry. 2. The present limits of the industrial tract form a logical transition between industry and other land uses. 3. The industrial tract provides an area with land reserves sufficient to accommodate post-2000 economic expansion. 4. The Township has maintained a consistent pro-economic expansion philosophy, evidenced by sizable investments for utilities and roads in the industrial tract and creation of the Delta Township Economic Development Corporation. Continued promotion of economic growth by Township officials could result in increased land consumption for industrial uses. 5. Industrial firms have recently sought to purchase tracts larger than their immediate needs would dictate to accommodate future conditions and to ensure a measure of privacy since many manufacturing concerns have been the object of nuisance claims due t o noise, smoke, dust, vibration and the like. 59 �III Conclusions 1. The Delta Township Comprehensive Plan, 1973 Edition, recommended reservation of some 2100 acres of land for present and future industrial and related uses. The Delta Industrial Tract has evolved consistently with this recommendation. Although designation of this amount of land for future development exceeds the projected potential requirements of 200 industrial acres, it is believed that the Township should provide for industrial expansion which may occur beyond the twenty-year projection period of the Plan. Also, the future location of a limited number of very large industries within Delta Township could measurably increase the amount of new industrial development in the Township and thereby increase the amount of land required. 2. Delta Township should continue with planning and construction of utilities, roads and essential services within the industrial tract, thus maintaining its advantages in the Lansing Metropolitan area as to providing services. 3. Delta Township should receive a significant proportion of the new economic expansion occurring within the Tri-County Region to the year 2000. Favorable location, accessibility, sound utility system, comparable tax rates and incentives now offered via tax abatement and public financing all contribute to this conclusion. 4. Township officials should carefully monitor new enterprises to ensure compatibility with existing industrial activity, adequacy of utilities, proper fire protection and that needed private services are maintained. Such private services should include retail and personal services conveniently located near the industrial tract to serve the large number of employees projected. Fast-food, drive-in bankin8, personal services and certain professional services are typically found on the fringe of major employment areas. 60 ��OFFICE SPACE ANALYSIS Delta Township's competitive position with regard to the development of quality office space is favorable. The linkage afforded by I-496 to downtown Lansing and other activity centers enhances the office potential of lands accessible to I-496 such as those located at the interchange of Creyts Road and I-496 or Saginaw Highway and I-96. This section examines demand factors and market influences instrumental in the formation of the market for office space in Delta Township. The analysis begins with a discussion of the current office types and tenant characteristics of those firms located in Delta Township. This is followed by an examination of the local factors which influence the existing office market. The analysis concludes with office space demand projections for Delta Township to the year 2000. I Office Types in Delta Township Office space is separated into three types for analysis, as follows: 1 1. General Purpose: Buildings where no one tenant occupies more than 80 percent of the rentable area. The Verndale Office Building on West St. Joe Highway is an example of a general purpose office building. 2. Single Purpose: Buildings in which one tenant occupies more than 80 percent of the rentable area. Michigan Farm Bureau and the Auto-Owners Insurance Buildings typify single purpose office buildings. 3. Medical-Dental Buildings occupied by doctors and dentists, and associated labratory facilities. The West St. Joe Professional Building is an example of this t ype of office use. No significance can be attributed to the various office types or classifications in terms of land use, traffic impact or compatibility with adjoining uses of land. However, these classifications are relevant when projecting future floor space demands. II Office Development Trends In 1978 the Delta Township Planning Department conducted a survey of office space within the Lansing Metropolitan Area. It was determined that of the 2.1 million square feet of office space which existed in the area in 1977, 29 percent was constructed during the 1971-1977 period. The predominate type of office space was general purpose (57%) with single purpose office uses occupying 34 percent of the - loffice space integral with industrial facilities is not included in this analysis. 61 �space and medical/dental uses utilizing nine percent of the office space. Table 0-1 presents the distribution of office space in the Lansing Metropolitan Area as of 1977. The data indicates that as of 1977, 62 percent of the existing office space was located within the City of Lansing. The table excludes state owned office buildings. ./ TABLE 0-1 I DISTRIBUTION OF OFFICE BUILDINGS - 1977>~ I LANSING HETROPOLITAN AREA Gross Floor Area - Square Feet General Purpose Single Purpose MedicalDental Total Square Feet Percent of Total 1,020,558 246,182 82,020 1,348,760 62.0 114,052 34,144 39,140 187,336 8.6 Delta Township 59,220 328,962 17,938 406,120 18.7 Lansing Township 35,666 22,144 23,464 81,274 3.7 Meridian Township 94,300 31,574 24,400 150,274 7.0 1,323,796 663,006 186,962 2,173,764 100.0 City of Lansing ,I City of East Lansing TOTAL Source: Delta Township Planning Department using municipal building permit data. *Excluded from this survey data is office space located in residences, rer.iocl~led res idences , office space located in lofts, commercial-retail centers and the like and government owned office space. Table 0-2 depicts office space construction for the period 1971-1977 in the Metropolitan Area. While maintaining a dominant position as to the total amount of existing office floor space, the City of Lansing accounted for 33 percent of the office space constructed during the 1971-1977 period. Delta and Meridian Townships have added 36 percent and 15 percent respectively during the aforementioned period. The obvious trend toward suburban locations for new offices can be attributed to several factors including the availability of land, site access and population shifts within the Lansing Metropolitan Area. Table 0-3 indicates that 602,000 square feet of office space was constructed in Delta Township in the 1966-1980 period. The construction of these office buildings resulted in the development of 90 acres of land. It should be noted that 98 percent of the office space in the Township as of 1980 was constructed in the aforementioned fifteen year period. As of 1980, 71 62 �percent of the Township's office floor space was devoted to single purpose uses, 24 percent to general purpose uses, and five percent to medical/ dental uses. TABLE 0-2 OFFICE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY BY GOVERNMENTAL UNIT 1971-1977 General Purpose Single Purpose Medical Dental Total Square Feet Percent of Total 155,988 92,182 6,620 254,740 32.9 City of East Lansing 34,057 34,144 4,140 72,341 9.5 Delta Township 50,220 209,962 13,938 274,120 35.5 Lansing Township 35,666 6, 14Lf 15,264 57,074 7.3 Meridian Township 94,300 19,570 113,870 14.8 370,231 362,002 772,195 100.0 City of Lansing 39,962 TABLE 0-3 ACREAGE AND FLOOR SPACE DEVOTED TO OFFICE USES DELTA TOWNSHIP 1966-1980 Year Square Footage 1976-1980 1971-1975 1966-19 70 Acreage 1966 Year Square Footage Acreage Year Square Footage Acreage 1971 86,100 17.15 1976 176,800 30.00 20,200 4.11 1967 21,800 1. 32 1972 10,600 .92 1977 1968 23,700 2. 17 1973 100,900 12.27 1978 1969 2,900 .33 1974 5,800 .36 1979 75,400 7.94 1970 15,300 2.54 1975 13,100 1. 30 1980 49,700 10.55 63,700 6.36 216,500 32.50 322,100 52.60 63 �III Determination of Delta Township Office Space Market Prior office space construction activity both in terms of gross space and the location are important keys to determining likely future construction activity. Data as to existing gross floor area in the Metropolitan area together with construction activity since 1971 has been set forth herein. Projecting office space construction, and accompanying land requirements is generally determined by one of two methods, they are (1) historical averaging and obsolescence allowance and (2) projection of office space using occupations. For purposes of this analysis the historical averaging and obsolescence allowance method is used. Utilizing the information contained in Table 0-3, it was determined that, in an average year during the 1966-1980 period, approximately six acres were converted to office land uses and 40,000 square feet of office floor space was constructed. Three large office land developments, being the Auto-Owners Insurance Headquarters (172,000 sq. ft.), the conversion of the O'Rafferty High School to the Michigan National Bank Operations Center (101,000 sq. ft.) and the Farm Bureau Insurance Headquarters (76,000 sq. ft.) accounted for 58 percent of the office space constructed in this period. TABLE 0-4 PROJECTED OFFICE LAND DEVELOPMENT AND PROJECTED OFFICE FLOOR SPACE REQUIREMENTS DELTA TOWNSHIP 1981-2000 \ to 1985 1981 to 1990 1981 to 1995 38 acres 75 acres 113 acres 150 acres 200,000 Sq. Ft. 400,000 Sq . Ft. 600,000 Sq. Ft. 800,000 Sq. Ft. 1981 I \ I \ . . I Projected Land Area Required For Office Uses Projected Office Floor Space Requirements I Source: 19 81 to 2000 Delta Township Planning Department (1981) Table 0-4 contains projected office land consumpti on requirements an d projected office floor area requirements within Delta Township for the 19812000 period. Based on building activity in the Township in the 19661980 period, it has been estimated that 7½ acres per year should be reserved for office uses to the year 2000. The r e commended reservation of 7.5 acres per year includes a 25 percent increase in the annual six 64 n hr:-----==- - - - �acres office land consumption figure in order to provide for flexibility in choice. The recommended land reservation requirements are based on the following assumptions: 1. The demand for office space in Delta Township in the 1981-2000 period will be similar to the demand experienced in the 19661980 period. 2. The Township will continue to be an attractive area for office land uses. 3. During the 1981-2000 period 90 percent of the office space constructed prior to 1931 will become obsolete and will be vacated in favor of newer buildings. 4. The projected development of 7½ acres of office land per year is based on contemporary floor area to site area ratios and existing parking and landscaping requirements. In summary, it is recommended that office use areas be utilized as transition zones between residential and non-residential areas. Modern office developments are generally attractive in design, site landscaping and normally have daytime activities, and thereby are less deliterious to the peace and quiet of residental areas than are other non-residential uses. 65 ��TRANSPORTATION The objective of the transportation network is to provide essential service in moving vehicles throughout the Township, provide convenient access to private property and allow efficient work, shopping and leisure time vehicle trips. The street network is the most sophisticated and developed element of the transportation system. Other elements include the public bus system, operated by the Capital Area Transportation Authority (CATA), non-motorized facilities including sidewalks and bikeways, and airport and rail services, including passenger and freight cartage. The transportation plan element of the Comprehensive Plan provides an analysis of each facet of the transportation system giving recognition to fuel costs, increased government emphasis on public transit service and non-motorized facilities. I Historical Development of the Street System The existing thoroughfare pattern of Delta Township has evolved primarily from two basic highway development factors. First, the mile road grid pattern evident in the Township reflects development along section lines which date back to the nineteenth century survey of the Northwest Territory. This policy of providing access routes along section lines has at times produced seemingly arbitrary road alignment patterns with respect to natural features. However, construction of section line roads has also provided reasonably good access to all points within the State. The second basic highway development factor which had a great impact on the thoroughfare pattern of the Township is the Federal Interstate and Defense Highway Program. The program is aimed at developing high speed efficient transportation links between major centers of economic importance throughout the country. In Delta Township, two existing interstate highways and a proposed third interstate highway impose a strong new pattern over the old grid configuration. A north-south segment of Interstate 96 divides the Township into east and west halves. Interstate 496 divides the eastern half of the Township into northeast and southeast quadrants; the proposed Interstate 69 will divide the western half of the Township approximately into northwest and southwest quadrants. These existing and proposed interstate highways provide efficient connections to downtown Lansing as well as to other major economic centers of the state and nation. II Functional Classification of the Existing Street System Classification of streets in an urban area is intended to identify each street according to its service function. Such classification establishes the relationship of each street to the entire system servicing the urban area. Functions are identified with respect to the types of land use served and the magnitude of their traffic generation, and also according to the mix of "through" and "local" traffic on the various segments of the network. Through traffic refers to trips which begin and end outside 66 �of the immediate study area. Most of the trips on I-96, for example, are likely to have their point of origin and destination at places remote from Delta Township. The interstate highway network and major U.S. and state routes make up the principal arterial network of roads. A large portion of trips on a residential street are likely to be comprised of traffic with both origin or destination in the immediate vicinity. These streets are therefore designated as local streets in the functional system. Local streets provide the motorist with access to abutting land, whereas, arterial highways facilitate movements through an area. Figure T-I presents a classification of Delta Township's streets and roads by the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) in 1979. A description of the various classifications follows in Table T-1. The following list illustrates the basic criteria which are generally considered when classifying urban streets. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The origin and destination of trips served (intra-urban, inter-urban and rural-urban). The volume of trips served. The type of land uses served. Spacing between travel corridors. Route continuity. Physical characteristics such as parking, the number of access points, etc. The classification of streets and highways in an area such as Delta Township which is rapidly urbanizing is often complicated because land use patterns are not yet established, travel volumes are light and the existing physical condition of a roadway may discourage its use as classified. It should be noted that road classifications often change in jurisdictions which are experiencing significant growth due to increases in traffic volumes, physical roadway improvements and changes in land uses. There are approximately 160 total miles of roadways in Delta Township including expressways, section line roads and local subdivision streets and roads. Road rights-of-way, including the interchange rights-ofway, occupy over 2,000 acres or approximately nine percent of the Township's total land area. Table T-2 depicts the total mileage of the various roadway classifications in Delta Township. 67 �_...,,,,,,,..,.~· ._,p•""·~·"",t,••'~ DELTA ~,,,,....,...~ TOWNSHIP Figure T·I __.11 11111111111 '~ 111111111 MICHIGAN DEPARTMEN OF TRANSPORTATION FUNCTIONAL HIGHWAY C L ASS I F I CAT I ON ~ STATEWIDE ARTERIAL >-rj I-'• ~ (JQ C REGIONAL ARTERIAL l"i (l) _... METRO·AREA ARTERIAL 1-3 I H ~ t8 "O •~ ~~t~.f~~} k~ I . ~ ~ ~ 1!L~ .•. .. "''I"'!::"" I 0-0::, I'-- !>' ~ - !§ii,,,..,_.. ¾ t ..,,,- VI(' -1.t".I· ""' 0i:Sl LOCAL 1111111 PRINCIPLE COLLECTOR ••• SECONDARY COLLECTOR -- 'b F -I I -- www URBAN BOUNDARY AREA / / ,,,,.,, , , . . - ,,/,,::,,,,,,.,, ~,, ,,,,, / ✓ --1· / ____ ., ., ,. , ,., , . --- -----✓ / I / ARTERIAL .,,. / / / / CITY OF LANSING NORTH ~ �TABLE T-1 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF HIGHWAYS METROPOLITAN AREAS TYPICAL TRIP LENGTH (mil_es) DESIRABLE OPERATING SPEEDS PRIMARY SERVICE FUNCTION ACCESS CONTROL Statewide Arterials Through traffic Full or none 45-55 4-20 Regional Arterials Through traffic, limited land service Usually none 30-45 10 or less Metro-Area Arterials Intra-area traffic, connect other arterials, moderate level of land service Usually none 30-45 10 or less Lesser arterial service at local level, more emphasis on land access None 30-45 10 or less Principal Collectors Connect local systems to arterials None 25-40 2 or less Secondary Collectors Connect local systems to arterials and other collectors None 25-35 1 or less Residential Access to residences None 20-25 ½ or less Local Access Land service, local access None 20-25 ½ or less Industrial-Commercial Service to industrial and commercial land areas None 20-30 1 or less MDOT CLASSIFICATION {mph) Arterial System °' '° Local Arterials Collector System Local Road and Street System ) ) ~ I �TABLE T-2 DELTA TOWNSHIP ROAD MILEAGE BY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION* Classification Mileage Arterial System Statewide Arterial 13 miles Regional Arterial 6 miles Metro-Area Arterial 6 miles Local Arterials 12 miles Collector System Principal Collectors 23 miles Secondary Collectors 1 mile Local Streets Residen t ial 99 miles Local Access 0 miles Industrial - Commercial 0 miles Total *As classified by MDOT 70 160 miles �The two primary factors having an impact on the design and function of a roadway are traffic volumes and character or composition of traffic. Socio-economic factors which influence decisions as to road network design and function are numerous. They include safety, energy conservation, aesthetics, etc. Physical characteristics of a roadway, which influence traffic volumes and composition, are analyzed in Table T-3. TABLE T-3 PLANNING IMPACTS ON ROADWAYS Significance to Roadway Planning Physical Characteristic Right-of-way: 1. Affects possibility of additional roadway lanes. 2. Impacts cost of roadway expansion. 3. Affects future land uses on vacant land. Roadway Surfacing: 1. Inadequate roadway surfacing can result in transfer of vehicle trips to other roadways. 2. The type of surfacing determines the longevity of the roadway and the applicable truck operation classification. 3. Lack of hard surface can inhibit urbanization. Number of Lanes: 1. Affects traffic carrying capacity. 2. Influences future land uses on vacant land. 3. Affects motor vehicle operating speeds. 4. Impacts motor vehicle accident rate. 5. Affects availability of mass transit services. Topography: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Subsurface Conditions: 1. Important determinant in locating streets. 2. Can negate possibility of depressed roadways and necessitate elevated structures. Man-made Features: (signs, adjacent construction, etc.) 1. Affects traffic speeds, turning movements, spacing of intersections, parking, pedestri.an and mass transit service, traffic signalization and capacity of roadway. Roadway Shoulders: 1. Serves as a storage space for disabled vehicles. 2. Provides a recovery area for out of control vehicles. Determines road gradients. Affects alignment. Impacts road cross section. Affects sight distances, Impacts traffic carrying capacity of roadway. 6. Affects motor vehicle operating speeds. 71 �There are a number of factors which are unique to Delta Township which have to be considered when planning for future roadways. The following list cites examples of such factors: TABLE T-4 UNIQUE DELTA TOWNSHIP FEATURES Results Condition III Relatively flat topography: 1. 2. 3. 4. Reduces road grad i ents. Facilitates location of roads. Insures better sight distances. Aids in cost reduction. Existence of the Grand River: 1. Limits the number of possible north-south road corridors. 2. Required bridges increase costs. 3. Hampers road continuity. Suburban location of the Township: 1. Significant volumes of commuter traffic generated. 2. A very auto-oriented populace. 3. Significant volumes of through traffic are encountered. Existence of Regional Shopping Centers: 1. Generates significant amounts of non-local traffic . Truck Operation Classifications Figure T-II illustrates truck operation classifications for Delta Township roadways. Roadways which are designated as State Highways or County All Season routes are constructed and maintained to a standard which allows the roadway to carry maximun per axle loads during all weather conditions. Class B routes have more stringent weight restrictions than Class A routes. The need for all-season roadways is most important within the Delta Township industrial tract. IV Jurisdiction Over Delta Township Roads Responsibility for the construction and maintenance of streets and roads in the State of Michigan lies with one of three governmental units. The MDOT is responsible for the construction and maintenance of all state trunk lines. In incorporated areas, municipal governments are responsible for the construction and maintenance of all streets that are not part of the state trunkline system. Finally, in unincorporated areas responsibility for the construction and maintenance of roads not part of the trunkline system lies with the various county road commissions. Since Delta Township is an unincorporated portion of Eaton County, responsibility for construction and maintenance of Delta Township streets and roads lies with the Eaton County Road Commission and, in the case of state trunk lines, with the MDOT. 72 �7 I I I I : I I I I I I I I I ' ' ' I II -.. I '\ ' ' \ ' ' '' \ \ \ '' \ \ '''' ' '\ \ \I I ' \ \ I I ~ 1/. ("')-1 rn0 .. L I I ~ C') (') :lJ C') CJ) 0 0 00 C: C: )>C: )> -I -I -I z -< Figure T-II .:a z -< ~ cz -I m -< :::c )> i" i" C) l>m )> (') i" )> CJ) CJ) CJ) CJ) CJ) m )> :lJ :lJ 0 0 )> )> • C Page 73 cnn ~" :!!o C') i" )> a:, )>C: )> CJ) 0 z CJ) -I :::c ~ -< ("') "tJ -1::a -)> 0-t z0 z "T1 cc C ""'I (D C m r- -I )> -I -- -I 0 :ez CJ) :::c 'tJ �V Financing of Road Improvements While the responsibility for construction and maintenance of Delta Township streets and roads lies with the MDOT and Eaton County Road Commission, financing for such construction and maintenance may come from the State of Michigan, Eaton County or Delta Township itself. The MDOT distributes Federal Highway Funds as well as gas and weight tax collections from Michigan's Motor Vehicle Fund to the various county and municipal road commissions. Delta Township may transfer funds to the Eaton County Road Commission for the purpose of constructing or maintaining county roads within the Township or to the Department of Transportation for the purpose of constructing and maintaining state trunk lines within the Township. Act 51 of the Public Acts of 1951, as amended, establishes the mechanisms for financing streets and roads in the state. The basis for financing Michigan streets and roads is their classification as state trunk lines, county primary roads, city major streets, county local or city local streets. Figure T-III illustrates state trunk lines, county primary roads and local roads. VI State Trunk Lines Act 51 of the Public Acts of 1951, as amended, charges the MDOT with responsibility for delineating a system of state trunk lines, all portions of which are to be roads of major statewide importance. Because of their statewide importance, the responsibility for constructing and maintaining state trunk lines lies solely with the MDOT. However, Public Act 51 makes provisions for local participation in the financing of state highways under two specific conditions. First, local governments may finance enlargements for state trunk lines designed specifically to carry additional local traffic rather than through traffic. Secondly, local governments may contractually participate in the financing of state trunk lines in order to expedite improvements desired locally. VII County Primaries and Locals Act 51 of the Public Acts of 1951, as amended, charges the various county road commissions with the responsibility for classifying county primary and county local roads. The classifications developed by the various counties are subject to the approval of the MDOT. Public Act 51 specifies that county primary roads are to be those roads of "the greatest general importance." Determination of which roads are of the greatest general importance is based upon traffic volumes, primary generators of traffic served, and other important producers or attractors of motor vehicle trips such as industrial development or natural resources. The determination of a county primary system is an important task for the county road commission and the MDOT because county primary roads are financed from earmarked portions of the Motor Vehicle Fund. Threefourths of the 34 percent of the total of the Motor Vehicle Fund allocated to counties is specifically set aside for financing the county primary road system. Two county roads are located in Delta Township which are under the jurisdiction of agencies other than the Eaton County Road Commission. 74 �7 = I = = \ I I I ) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I "\ I \ I II I \ ' '\ I 0 .... -< .., 0 Ill II "'O.,, :IJ c:oo - lz 'ti :a -s:: 0 :x, --; :c )> :a -< -4 O::!\., cnz, -4 cnzcn (/) -4 )> m :a :a C: )> ;,:; 0 C z r- z m Figure T-III Page 75 :IJ:IJ)> "'O C ml>)> "T1 C C m r- (D )> (0 ... ~ ~ ~ -- 0 G')- en Ocn Z-n ("') )> - -I 0 z :ez -.,, :::c �Eaton Highway is a county local road under the jurisdiction of the Clinton County Road Commission. Waverly Road is a county primary which is under the jurisdiction of the Ingham County Road Commission from North Grand River Avenue to just south of Lansing Road where the Grand River crosses Waverly Road. The City of Lansing has jurisdiction over Waverly Road from the Grand River south to Jolly Road. VIII Financing Prerogatives As previously noted, Delta Township is empowered to contract with the MDOT for the construction and maintenance of state trunk lines and with the Eaton County Road Commission for the construction and maintenance of county roads. Delta Township may meet the obligations assumed under contracts with the MDOT or the Eaton County Road Commission with funds derived from three sources. First, the Township Board may levy a general millage tax or a special assessment for the purpose of road construction and maintenance. A three mill general millage tax may be initially levied by the Township Board on its own initiative while an additional three mill tax may be levied with referendum approval. The Township Board may issue road construction bonds for road improvements. These bonds must be retired by either general taxation or special assessments. IX Thoroughfare Cross Sections Figures T-IV through T-VIII illustrate thoroughfare cross sections for the various roadway classifications within Delta Township. Adherence to the cross sections recommended herein will benefit the Township in the following ways: 1. Will assist in insuring that adequate right-of-way exists for additional traffic lanes, turning lanes, acceleration and deceleration lanes, storm drainage and sidewalks. 2. Will help to assure compatibility between the proposed thoroughfare and existing or proposed land uses by utilizing natural vegetation strips and preserving the natural grades. 3. Will maintain the traffic carrying capacity of roadways via minimization of curb cuts, the provision of adequate pavement width and the installation of adequately sized road shoulders. X Right-of--Way Deficiencies I1inimum right-of-way requirements are illustrated in the thoroughfare cross sections. Based on these standards, any classified street with less right-of-way than that which is recommended is considered inadequate. Figure T-IX identifies roadways which in 1981 had inadequate rights-of-way. Based on the aforementioned standards, many streets in Delta Township have inadequate rights-of-way. The impact of a right-of--way deficiency 76 �7 = will vary between roadways. Right-of-way deficiencies can result in high accident rates, transportation-land use conflicts and lower than desirable levels of service. The extent to which these problems will occur is dependent upon the types of land use in the vicinity, the number of traffic lanes and the volume of traffic on the roadway. It is very difficult to obtain adequate rights-of-way in the urbanized areas of Delta Township. However, in vacant areas which are subject to development pressures the ability e xists to protect the needed rightof-way. The Delta Township Board of Trustees, Planning Commission and staff should be cognizant of the right-of-way deficiencies illustrated in Figure T-IX and attempt to secure the needed right-of-way when reviewing site plans, proposed transportation projects or any other development proposals. This will help insure that the future land use activities will be properly integrated with the transportation network required to serve them. 77 �FIGURE T-IV EXPRESSWAY CROSS-SECTION POSSIBLE LANDSCAPED PRESERVATION OF NATURAL TOPOGRAPHY BUFFER 1 2 AT 24 RURAL !PAVEMENT W I D T H ~ I r ,I 2 AT 24°-36° URBAN t- 70°-94 RURAL MEDIAN WIDTH 1 I. I j 1 26 -50 URBAN 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 3~0 -400 R U R A L - - - - - - - - - - RI GH T OF WAY 1 1 - - - - - - - - - 320 -350 UR B A N - - - - - - - - ~ 78 �7 FIGURE T-V CROSS-SECTION ARTERIAL ROAD WITH 1 I OF BOULEVARD 1 0 -94 RURA~ MEDIAN WIDTH 1 60 -84' URBAN 1 I f - - - - - - - - - - 250 R U R A L - - - - - - - - - - - - " ' RIGHT OF WAY 1 1 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 200 -350 URBAN - - - - - - - - - - - " ' Ill~ A 79 J �FIGURE T-VI CROSS-SECTION OF TWO WAY ARTERIAL STREET 1 24'-60 RURAL 1,, r PAVEMENT _'1 WIDTH 7 1 1 48 -60 URBAN 1' SIDEWALK t I t. SIDEWALK URBAN a RURAL 1 IL~d-100' RIGHT OF WAY 80 �-7 = = FIGURE T- VII CROSS-SECTION OF COLLECTOR STREET 1 1 22 ·24 RURAL !L_PAVEMENT~ ~ WIDTH /J 28-60 URBAN I OP'T, P'KI. I I l. I,; r 1 1 2 6 - 100 RURAL a URBAN RIGHT OF WAY 7 81 _J �FIGURE T-VIII CROSS-SECTION OF LOCAL 1 STREET 1 20 -28 RURAL ~PAVEMENT -J WI 0TH ----;,i 1 1 26 -34 URBAN OPT. l'KG. I I OPT. PKe. js.w.l C. 1 66 RURAL ~11----- a URBAN RIGHT OF WAY - - - ~ 82 �7 I I I I : I '' I I ''II I I I I I I I I I II I '' \ ' ' \ ' ' '- ' I I "' ' ' '' '' ' '' ' ' ' ' '' ' ' I'' \ '\ \ ' I \ I \ I I c:x, mo 'Tl)> lz :x, :x, -o C) J> 0 :0 --< :cc :i: -f QC 'Tim 'Tl :eJ>~ -<m z -f z Figure T-IX Page 83 0C -m:xJ -·"T1 (C ... C CD z- -t _ :::c m-1 >< OG) (/)0 'Tl ~ )> -< 0 m r -t )> -t 0 ~ z (J) -.,, ::i:: /\ ~ I �XI Mass Transit Service in Delta Township Transit service in the Lansing area evolved in a manner similar to that of other systems across the country. An electric inter-urban railroad and local streetcar system served Lansing and surrounding areas until 1932 when they were replaced by a more flexible and inexpensive motor bus system. Up to 1964 transit service in the area was provided by private companies. In 1964 the City of Lansing increased its involvement in the operation of the Metropolitan bus system with the City assuming complete management and operation of the system in 1970. In January of 1972, the Capital Area Transportation Authority (CATA) was formed under Act 55 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1963, through a petition by the City of Lansing. However, Delta Township never off i cially joined CATA. During the decade of the 1970's the CATA system continually experienced increases in ridership. Table T-5 illustrates CATA ridership figures for the past nine years. TABLE T-5 CATA RIDERSHIP Year Ridership 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 4,635,248 (estimated) 3,850,000 (estimated) 3,674,424 3,140,549 2,330,653 1,835,948 1,267,578 864,214 732,609 In the late 1970's Delta Township annually provided CATA with financial subsidies for transit service provided within the Township. In 1981 this method of funding transit service was altered when a service contract between CATA and Delta Township was cooperatively drafted and executed. The contract, drafted for a one-year period, specifies the amount of service to be provided and the corresponding payments. Route Number Six of the CATA system presently traverses the Township along Waverly Road and West Saginaw Highway. This route has one hour intervals between buses (headways). A total of fifteen bus trips a day are made into the Township beginning at 6:40 a.m. and ending at 9:15 p.m. Transit service is not provided to the Township on Saturdays or Sundays. In 1981 voters residing within governmental units which are members of CATA, being the cities of Lansing and East Lansing and Meridian, Delhi and Lansing Townships, approved a millage issue which provided operating funds for CATA for a two-year period. Since Delta Township is not a member of CATA, its residents are not affected by the transit millage. 84 �In 1981 Delta Township joined the Eaton County Transportation Authority (Eatran). Headquartered in Charlotte, this agency provides transit service on a demand-response basis utilizing small, sixteen passenger buses. Eatran is funded 100 percent by the federal government until September 30, 1982, funded 75 percent by the federal government from October 1, 1982, to September 20, 1983, and funded 50 percent by the federal government after October 1, 1983. Eatran service is limited to Eaton County. At the present time, a significant amount of Eatran's service miles are recorded within Delta Township. The following factors could provide a major stimulus to increasing mass transit ridership in the Township: 1. 2. 3. 4. XII Expansion of mass transit service. Continued increases in the number of multiple-family households. Increased motor vehicle parking costs at Lansing Metropolitan locations, particularly the central business district. Increased costs of motor vehicle ownership and operation. Railroad Facilities Serving Delta Township The Chesapeake and Ohio and the Grand Trunk Western are the two railroad lines with tracks running through Delta Township. The Chesapeake and Ohio track cuts across the extreme northwest corner of the Township, but does not provide direct service to the Township. Two Grand Trunk Western tracks cut across the southeast corner of the Township parallel to U.S. 27. The tracks are part of a main line route serving Chicago, Port Huron, Toronto and intermediate cities. The Lansing yard located at Snow Road and Pierson Highway is Grand Truck Western's headquarters and main marshalling yard in the Lansing Metropolitan Area. Grand Trunk Western facilities and services in Delta Township represent one of the most important transportation assets in the Lansing Metropolitan Area. The Lansing yard consists of 13 switching tracks with automated controls and is a central assembly and dispatch point for railroad cars destined for all parts of the country. Grand Trunk Western serves the following Delta Township industrial type facilities. Oldsmobile Diesel Engine Plant Lansing Board of Water & Light's Erickson Station Meijers Distribution Center Millett Elevator Company Ralston Purina Company Grand Trunk Western has indicated a willingness to provide additional spur service to new industries desiring to locate in the Township's industrial tract. The Grand Trunk Western Railroad tracks carry approximately 15 trains per day in each direction, making Grand Trmnk Western the major rail line in the Lansing area. Grand Trunk Western has eliminated the passenger service it once provided to the Township. 85 J �Since August of 1975 the Grand Trunk Western has operated an automotive compourid,kn.uwn as Autoport, which is located on Snow Road adjacent to the railroad's main line. This facility was designed as an intermodal distribution center for both American and foreign-made automobiles. Vehicles are transported by rail from either the assembly plant or the U.S. port of entry to Autoport and then trucked to dealerships in Michigan cities and surrounding out-state areas. In the first four years of operation, over 100,000 vehicles were transported through this facility. From a railroad track layout perspective alone, most of Delta Township's industrial tract could be served by the Grand Trunk. The Grand Trunk Railroad plans to extend a railroad spur from the existing Meijer lead, which traverses the middle of Section 26 in a north-south direction, eastwardly three quarters of a mile to the Autoport facility which is located in Section 25. The potential also exists to serve the eastern halves of Sections 27 and 34 off of the Oldsmobile lead. Future railroad service to Delta Township is difficult to project. Recent national railroad trends have evidenced the elimination of some passenger and freight service to various parts of the country. The most important local trends affecting freight service to Delta Township will be the pace of development in the Township's industrial triangle and in other industrial areas servedoy-the Grand Trunk Western line. Past increases in freight traffic suggest that the future will witness moderate growth. XIII ,-..._ Air Service to Delta Township Capital City Airport is located near the northeast corner of Delta Township, north of Grand River Avenue in Clinton County. The airport provides commercial passenger, freight and general aviation service to the Lansing Metropolitan area. The 1600 acre airport is served at present by three major airlines; United, Republic and Piedmont. There are also two commuter airlines serving the Lansing Metropolitan area; Simmons and Freedom. These four airlines currently have 30 regularly scheduled flights per day to such major cities as New York, Chicago, Detroit, Denver, Atlanta, Milwaukee, Cleveland and Washington, DC. In 1978 United and Republic airline flights into and out of Capital City Airport carried 448,260 passengers, an increase of 58 percent since 1972. A total of 163,032 flights occurred at Capital City Airport in 1978. General aviation activity accounted for 88% of this total or 147,205 flights. Capital City Airport general aviation activity includes business, charter, survey and patrol flights, crop dusting, instructional and pleasure flying. Besides the main terminal facility, there are office, industrial, commercial, hangar, maintenance, crash/fire/rescue and classroom buildings located at Capital City Airport. The airport serves as the air transportation hub for Michigan State government, Michigan State University and many private businesses in the Lansing area as well as Delta Township 86 �Future Expansion The rapidly increased level of aviation activity at Capital City Airport has necessitated that airport facilities be expanded. Proposed plans are for expansion to occur in two phases: Phase I, 1975-1986, and Phase II, 1986-1995. The Phase I program includes the following: - Acquisition of approximately 1,511 acres to meet the requirements for the proposed expansion. Total airport size will be 2,711 acres after acquisition is completed. - Extension and strengthening of existing runways. - Construction of a general aviation runway. - Associated taxiway development. - Expansion of the terminal complex and general aviation facilities to meet 1985 requirements. Phase II construction would begin as the airport's facilities again approach saturation. The Phase II development program includes the following: - Construction of a new air carrier runway with a full parallel taxiway and exit taxiway. - Upgrade a general aviation runway to an air carrier crosswind runway. - Construct a new terminal complex and support facilities. - Construct additional hangar space and supporting apron and taxiways. - Construct additional general aviation parking spaces. - Construct additional local and itinerant tie down aprons. The proposed expansion of Capital City Airport is not expected to have any negative impacts on Delta Township. Because of proposed runway locations aircraft will be flying over less densely populated areas thereby exposing fewer people to aircraft noise. Residents in the northeast corner of Delta Township will experience a decreasing amount of aircraft noise exposure as airport expansion plans are implemented. The proposed airport expansion is not expected to result in an increase in total airport related emissions above those existing in 1976. Thus, in the quality of air in the vicinity of the airport is not expected to be lowered as a result of increased air traffic in the future. It should be noted that a portion of the northeast section of Delta Township is within an airport approach clearance zone of the airport. Within this zone the height of buildings is restricted. This restriction is not expected to have any adverse impact on Delta Township. 87 / �XIV Non Motorized Transportation The use of bicycles as an altemative means of transportation has risen dramatically in the 1970's due to the ever-increasing cost of gasoline and the threat of reduced supplies. Bicycles represent a practical energy conservation measure while providing door-to-door convenience and efficiency as a practical mode of transportation, particularly in urban areas. As part of a large urban area, Delta Township should provide for the growing needs of bicycle users in the Township. The Planning and development of a bicycle path system in Delta Township should be regionally coordinated in order to create an efficient bicycle route system throughout the Tri-County area. Engineering standards for constructing bicycle paths as developed by federal and State Departments of Transportation Officials should be utilized to avoid conflicts in connecting bicycle paths with adjoining municipalities. There are baiscally three types of bicyclists. The first group is children who use the bicycle extensively on low traffic residential streets. The second group is the average adult rider who usually rides close to home on local streets and generally is uncomfortable traveling long distances on heavily traveled streets. The third group is the experienced bicyclist who travels high volume arterials, generally keeps up with traffic in urbanized areas at a pace of 10-15 miles per hour and frequently travels relatively long distances of 10-20 miles. Each of the aforementioned groups has unique bicycling characteristics and therefore requires clifferent types of bicycle facilities to satisfy its needs. Children who commute to schools, parks and playgrounds can often be served by low volume local streets. Average adult cyclists generally feel comfortable on low volume streets and frequently prefer off-road recreational paths. The commuter bicyclist is oriented towards utilitarian bicycle trips and generally prefers on-road routes which offer the shortest distance between travel points. Due to the fact that the majority of bicyclists now utilize the roadway, with the exception being children who generally use sidewalks, greater emphasis should be placed on reducing motorist-bicyclist conflicts. Many Delta Township streets cannot adequately accommodate bicyclists due to poor vertical and horizontal alignments, narrow traffic lanes, and inadequate shoulders. This situation is especially critical in the vicinity of schools. In planning for non-motorized transportation in the Township, consideration should be given to developing bicycle lanes in conjunction with new road construction, improvements to existing roads, and the installation of bicycle/equestrian paths along utility easements. Many bike paths could be developed via these methods without significant additional funding. Bicycle lanes could also be constructed along the Carrier Creek and Grand River green belts as designated on the Future Land Use Map. One source of funding for bicycle path construction could be the Eaton County Road Commission which was authorized in 1979 to appropriate one percent of its funds for non-motorized transportation projects by an amendment to the Michigan Motor Vehicle Fund (Act 51 of the Public Acts of 1951). 88 �7 During 1979-1980 a Bicycle Transportation Plan was prepared by the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission. This Plan contains regional bicycling goals and objectives, a description of existing bicycle fa cilities, a review of local bicycle ordinances, and an analysis of education programs and engineering studies. The report also contains an appraisal of major Delta Township streets which were examined by experienced members of the Tri-County Bicycle Association regarding the street's suitability for safe bicycling. A sidewalk network to serve pedestrians should also be considered as part of a non-motorized transportation plan for the Township. The existing sidewalk system does not meet the needs of Township residents. Sidewalks do not exist to serve students commuting to schools forcing them to use roadways and creating a dangerous situation particularly for young children. Pedestrian-auto conflicts also occur in commercial areas due to the lack of sidewalks. In planning a sidewalk network, emphasis should be on the creation of a safe means of access for pedstrians to activity centers within the Township such as schools, parks and commercial areas. Priorities for sidewalk construction should be based on pedestrian volume to these activity centers. Funding for sidewalk construction is available through such state authorized means as the creation of special assessment districts or the levying of a special millage. 89 ��WATER SERVICE The previously documented growth which Delta has experienced has resulted in increased demands for municipal services including the provision of a public water supply. Because the Township has only provided this service for the past two decades the water supply system has experienced the advantages of the improved technology of the past twenty years. In order to maintain the high quality of the municipal services presently provided, the Township must continually evaluate the water supply and distribution system in terms of its ability to meet present and future water supply demands. This chapter describes the existing water system, provides projected water consumption figures and depicts future water service areas. I Historical Information The existing water supply system was initiated during 1957 with water being purchased from Lansing Township. Water mains were installed in three subdivisions; Knolls, Clairborne Heights and Huntington Acres. The Lansing Board of Water and Light operated the system until the late 1950 1 s when Delta Township purchased these water lines from the Board of Water and Light. In 1963 the Township began to establish its own water supply system. During this time the 500,000 gallon elevated storage tank on Snow Road was constructed, 100,000 feet of water mains were installed and water wells #1 and #2 were installed. These facilities served the area generally located between Waverly and Elmwood Roads. Major expansions of the system were initiated in October of 1965 and were completed in the spring of 1966. Well #3 was added to the system during this time and minor subdivision extensions, paid for by individual developers,were installed. Well #4 was constructed in 1968. In September of 1969 the State of Michigan entered into an agreement with the Township for water service to the State Secondary Complex located in Windsor Township adjacent to Delta's southern boundary. Additional water supply wells have been constructed in order to meet increasing water consumption demands. Well #5 was put into service during the summer of 1970, Well 116 in 1973, Well 117 in 1975 and Well :/18 in 1977. Since 1969, major new additions to the water service area have taken place. In 1975, Water District 115 provided service west of Creyts Road along Willow Highway and along Canal Road between Willow and Saginaw Highway. In 1978-1979 District #4 was established which provided service along Creyts Road between 1-496 and Millett Highway. Improvements in this area also included the construction of a 1.25 million gallon ground storage structure near the Creyts Road/Millett Highway intersection. In 1982 Water District #6 was established which provided service along Creyts Road between Millett Highway and U.S. 27. II Description of Existing Water Service System Existing Distribution System The Township's water system service area lies within an area best described as bounded by Waverly Road on the east, the Grand River on the north, Interstate 96 on the west and on the south by the southern Township boundary. The major exception is service to the State of Michigan Secondary Complex within Windsor Township. The existing water system service area is illustrated on Figure W-1. 90 -- - - -- ----- �,- (c c~ Ctr V' DELTA TOWNSHIP Figure W·I EXISTING WATER SERVICE AREA (1982) ISi TRANSMISSION MAIN [Q] WATER STORAGE [Q] WATER WELL ...-l °' (1) bO t1l p.., H ::i (1) H ;:l bO ·r-1 ~ CITY OF LANSING NORTH �A majority of water mains in the distribution system have been constructed within the past ten years and were largely installed as ductile iron pipe. With only minor exception, all mains are at least six inches in diameter. The system, being comparatively new and largely constructed with ductile iron pipes, is in good physical condition and has a long-term life expectancy. The present system of feeder or transmission mains looped along section lines consists largely of eight, ten and twelve inch mains. While these larger mains have adequate water flow properties, they have been installed at one mile intervals which is wider than the one half mile spacing recommended by the American Water Works Association. The transmission mains along portions of Creyts and Elmwood Roads are presently undersized. The installation of a 16" water main in the vicinity of Creyts Road and the construction of a 1.25 million gallon water storage facility helped remedy the water pressure inadequacy by reinforcing the transmission grid. As of 1981, the water distribution system consisted of approximately 87 miles of water mains. The water distribution system provides two primary services; (1) domestic consumption water and (2) fire protection. Discussion in later passages deals with consumption requirements, present and future. Provision of adequate fire protection is dependent upon adequately sized water transmission mains and adequate initial pressure at the well supply. Fire flow requirements are based t:pon building size, spacing between buildings, type of construction and the provision of sprinkler systems. Minimum standards have been established as to the required gallons per minute (GPM) needed to fight a fire and put it out. Many buildings in Delta require 3000 GPM with a limited number as high as 6000 GPM. As the water distribution system is expanded in response to future development, Delta Township should strive to coordinate future water main construction with the goal of strengthening the present transmission network. This approach will be particularly effective in portions of the Township which are onlypartially developed. That is, transmission mains can be constructed in terms of anticipated demands of these growing neighborhoods. The last section of this chapter provides approximate locations of proposed future transmission mains together with service area boundaries. Water Supply The water system has eight wells supplying water into the distribution system. These wells tap sandstone aquifers at depths ranging from 363 to 450 feet. The estimated combined maximum capacity of the eight wells is over 4000 GPM or 5.77 million gallons per day. This production cannot be maintained at maximum levels due to water draw down effects in the aquifers and the need to maintain the wells. Total well production can generally be maintained at 3,400 GPM or 4.9 million gallons per day. Table W-1 provides data regarding the existing production wells. 92 �TABLE W-1 EXISTING WATER WELLS, DELTA TOWNSHIP Year Insta lled Depth Diameter Water Production Rating in GPM( 1) 1 1963 426' 12" 300 2 1963 450' 12" 300 3 1966 390' 12" 300 4 1968 370' 16" 600 5 1970 423' 15" 600 6 1972 363' 15" 800 7 1976 267' 16" 268 8 1976 298' 16" 840 Well No. (1},.tJell production is indicative of the amount of water each well pumps from the ground in gallons per minute (GPM). The eight water supply wells in the Township's water system tap the Parma Sandstone formation lying some 350-450 feet below land surface. Rock aquifers such as the Parma formation provide lower water yields than glacial drift aquifers, but are less susceptible to the effects of contamination from surface sources. These rock wells are deeper than wells in glacial drift and have overlying strata which slows the recharge from surface waters. Rock aquifers are often highly mineralized, containing high concentrations of iron, maganese and hardness. Wells 1-3 are connected by water mains along Michigan Avenue. Water from Wells 2 and 3 is combined with Water Well 1 at which point chlorine is added as a disinfecting agent. Sodium hexameta-phosphate is added at each well prior to chlorination to stabilize the iron found in the water. All other wells are connected directly to the water system with chlorination and iron stabilization provided a t each. Water Storage The function of water storage in a public water supply system is threefold; it provides (1) a temporary source of water during electrical power mechanical failure, (2) supplemental water supply during periods of peak water demand and (3) fire protection capacity. The water system contains two types of water storage, an elevated tower and a ground tank. Elevated storage is most commonly used because of its reliability in case of electrical or mechanical failure. Larger water systems include ground storage equipped with variable speed pumps because of lower capital investment 93 �requirements per gallon of storage, the provisions of easy access for repair, and the fact that ground storage facilities have more aesthetic appeal than elevated storage tanks. The Delta Township system has a 500,000 gallon elevated tank on the east side of Snow Road just north of St. Joe Highway. This tank has a static water pressure at its base of 59 pounds per square inch (PSI). A ground storage tank, equipped with variable speed pumps, is located on the west side of Creyts Road some 600 feet north of Millett Highway. The tank contains 1.25 million gallons of storage capacity and delivers water into the 16 inch South Creyts transmission main. The ground storage facility helps maintain 50-55 PSI in the south end of the water system serving lands south of 1-496. Water Consumption Table W-2 illustrates that water consumption in Delta Township has steadily increased during the decade of the 1970's. A consistent pattern has emerged, that being that approximately 50 percent of the total water consumed is attributed to single family residences, 25 percent is consumed by commercial/ office establishments, 20 percent is consumed by multi-family residential developments and five percent is consumed by industry. It is expected that the amount of water consumed by industrial establishments will significantly increase as additional manufacturing operations locate in the Township industrial tract. TABLE W-2 DELTA TOWNSHIP WATER CONSUMPTION 1975-1980 Year Annual Water Consumption 1975 502,177,280 gallons 1976 564,380,960 gallons 1977 589,543,680 gallons 1978 638,522,720 gallons 1979 652,324,480 gallons 1980 64 7, 782 , 960 gallons Fire Flows As suggested previously, one major problem with the water distribution system is the undersized water transmission mains spaced on one-mile intervals. Historically, fire underwriters have identified municipal fire flow requirements using empirical formulas based upon resident population in the service area. With increasing sophistication of water supply systems and fire fighting apparatus, new criteria have been adopted which recognize the types of 94 �structure and density of development. In 1977, the Township Engineering Department calculated fire flows for existing major buildings, a partial listing of which is included in Table W-3. TABLE W-3 RECO"MMENDED FIRE FLOWS Establishment Recommended Fire Flow Duration of Fire Flow Village Green Apartments 6,000 GPM 6 hours Lansing Mall 4,500 GPM 4 hours Park W€3t Apartments 4,000 GPH 4 hours West Saginaw Plaza 2,750 GPM 2 hours Michigan National Bank Center 3,500 GPM 3 hours Sea Hawk Restaurant 1,500 GPM 2 hours Waverly High School 4,500 GPM 4 hours Meijer (retail store) 3,000 GPM 3 hours Hilton Inn 4,500 GPM 4 hours The addition of the 1.25 million gallon ground storage facility and the installation of 12 and 16 inch transmission mains along Creyts Road improved the water system's fire flow capability and duration of flow. It should be noted that having fire flow capability in well production and storage does not mean that recommended fire flow can be delivered to the site of a fire. The distribution mains must be properly sized, spaced, and looped to provide such fire flows at all locations in the water service area. For purposes of providing adequate fire protection, close monitoring of daily water consumption demand versus supply capacity is needed. The existing water system is capable of providing adequate fire flow to all but a few customers. Furthermore, as service is extended to new areas, need for transmission mains and added storage must be continuously reviewed. III Future Service Area Figure W-II provides an indication of the future water system service area in increments of five years. This figure should not be construed as identifying precise lands to be served during each time period. It is intended to convey the general extent and location of service area extensions based upon projeclcd service demands. Figure W-II should be viewed in conjunction with Figure SS-II presented in the Sanitary Sewer Service chapter as to the provision of both public water and public sanitary sewer services to given 95 �areas of Delta Township . There are extensive portions of the Tovmship to which Township public water services are not contemplated during the planning period. These areas are generally described as follows: (1) All lands lying north of the Grand River between Waverly Road and the west Township boundary. (2) The portion of the Township bounded by Interstate 96, Mt. Hope Highway, the west Township boundary and the south Township boundary. The water service limits represented in Figure W-II have been derived so as to provide water service only to those areas where it is costeffective to do so. Moreover, the general strategy of providing service is to encourage fill-in of vacant land near or within existing service area limits and to service existing residential development areas west of Interstate 96. It can be reasonably assumed that when the network of wells and transmission mains west of Interstate 96 is constructed, sufficient water supply capacity will exist to serve development on presently vacant lands consistent with current land use policies. 96 �I ~ ~ {([' ./••"' DELTA TOWNSHIP Figure W·II EXISTING & PROPOSED WATER SERVICE AREA (1982) • EXISTING SERVICE ~ 1982-1985 GE] 1986-1990 fl1 llI!II 1991-1995 r--- °' (l) b[) co p.., POST 1995 IS] TRANSMISSION MAIN IQ] WATER WELL H H I ::;:: (l) µ IQ] WATER STORAGE ,,,," .,,,.,,,,. ,,,.,,..,,. ,,.,,,.,,.. ,,. - ,,,,,, "" ,,,..,,..,,. ,,.,,, ,,,,,,,, -------✓/ ✓,-1·-- --/' / ,/ // I / ,,/ CITY OF LANSING NORTH Etl:lttt .·.·.·.-.-.·.·.·-·.·.·.·.·.·.·. ;:l bO •n r,:.. ��SANITARY SEWER SERVICE The tempo and location of land development within the Township is significantly affected by the availability of sanitary collection sewers. Given the characteristics of soils within the Township, on-site disposal systems, even for single-family detached homes, are not typically suitable. Thus, availability of sanitary collection sewers often determines the existing and future service areas with respect to Delta Township's sanitary sewer collection system. Land areas to which no future service is contemplated are also delineated. Largely because of past growth and development within the Township, the treatment of wastewater effluent has become an important service provided by Delta Township. Certain operating problems, to[ether with increasing quantities of wastewater resulting from the addition of customers to the sewer system, make prominent the need to anticipate appropriate capacity to treat wastewater entering the wastewater treatment plant. Future improvements to the capacity of the wastewater , treatment plant will be based upon anticipated growth. Improvements will anticipate subsequent flow increases and thereby be cost-effective. Delta Township contains slightly over 35 square miles of land area, less than 40 percent of which is served by sanitary sewers. So as to control growth within the bounds of the Land Use Plan, allow for orderly expansion of all municipal services, and to preclude over-zealous extension of sanitary sewers to areas not now served, a series of five-year, short-term phasing projections are set forth in the latter portion of this chapter. I Historical Information Establishment of Sewer Collection and Treatment Service The Delta Township Wastewater Treatment Plant is located on the north side of Willow Highway, one-half mile east of Canal Road. The original treatment plant was constructed in 19(5 and designed to treat one million gallons of wastewater per day. At the time of construction, sanitary collection sewers were also constructed to serve developed portions of the Township. The original collection and treatment system was financed by general obligation bonds and special assessments. The original collection sewer system is known as Sanitary Sewer District #2 of 1965. An addition to the collection system was constructed two years later and is known as Sanitary Sewer District #2 of 1967. Figure SS-I illustrates the Delta Township Sanitary Sewer Service System as it existed in 1982. Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Since the original wastewater treatment plant was built in 1965, the plant has been improved both as to capacity and quality of wastewater treatment. In 1972, Delta Township contracted with the Eaton County Board of Public Works for expansion of the treatment plant to provide added capacity and 98 �' I ( C \_ / '·····~"'''''' ~....../ DELTA TOWNSHIP Figure SS · 1 EXISTING SANITARY SEWER SERVICE AREA (1982) 0 t'SJ EXISTING SERVICE TRUNK SEWE R [] WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT ~ Q) b!) (\j p., H I C/'l C/'l Q) i... ::l b!) ·r-1 I .,, .,,.,, i:,., ,,,,,...,,,,:1,, .,,.,,,,,:,,,.,,,,... I , .,, , .,, ,, //,,_] _____ ,.~,.,, ,, ' I ' - .,, / / / / CIT Y OF LAN SI NG NORTH D �secondary treatment of wastewater. Under the contract, Delta Township continues to operate, maintain and manage the treatment plant. Impact of the Federal Clean Water Act Present federal law, as set forth in the Federal Clean Water Act (Public Law 92-500), seeks to achieve a hi gh level of water quality in all of the Nation's streams, lakes and coastal waters. The importance of careful planning in striving for improved water quality has become increasingly evident. Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 affirm the importance of water quality planning and "mandate" local governmental participation in cleaning up the nation's surface waters. One such mandate is the requirement that a "201 Facility Plan" be prepared by the local governmental jurisdiction and submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency for its approval. The "Facility Plan, 111 based on the requirements of Section 201 of Public Law 92-500, proposed to develop an area-wide approach to improving municipal wastewater collection and treatment facilities and treatment methods. The basic intent of the facility plan is to demonstrate the need for any proposed facilities, to serve as a systematic evaluation of feasible alternatives, and to demonstrate that proposed measures represent the most costeffective means of meeting established water quality standards for wastewater discharge at the treatment plant. The Facility Plan represents established plannirL"!; goals and future waste-water collection treatment services. If fully implemented, the Facility Plan would ultimately move Delta Township into an area-wide sanitary sewer service system. Delta Township operates the largest treatment and collection system in the facility plan service area and was the lead local government in the preparation process of the Facility Plan. The projected sanitary sewer networks, presented herein, do not envision accomplishment of all the 201 Facility Plan features within the time frame of this Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is not area-wide in that it does not include recommendations for areas outside the Township. Also, the Township areas which are to be provided sewers within the specified time frame do not necessarily include those specified in the 201 Plan, nor do they adopt the same scheduling. However, using Township projections for population growth and development, the Comprehensive Plan recommends achievement of the standards for water quality required by Public Law 92500 within the necessary time period. It is assumed that the proposed future sanitary sewer service areas will be revised in the future in order to reflect participation by non-Delta Township areas, adjustments to population projections, as well as ·the consideration of land use trends not presently foreseen. R •·. I lThe Facility Plan was completed during December of 1975 and sets forth a regional service area. The report is entitled Delta, Windsor, Onieda, and Eagle Townships, Village of Dimondale and City of Grand Ledge Facility Plan for Regional Wastewater Treatment, Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr and Huber, Consulting Engineers. I 100 I I f-- �II Description of Existing Sanitary Sewer Collection and Treatment Facilities (; Sanitary Sewer Collection System As stated earlier, the first sanitary collection sewers were constructed in Delta Township during the 1965-1967 period and were designed to serve large areas within the northeastern portion of the Township. In 1972, Delta Township established Sanitary Sewer District #3 serving the Gettysburg Estates, Gettysburg Fanns and Gettysburg Farms West Subdivisions. This project included collection sewers within these subdivisions as well as an extension of the 36 inch Carrier Creek Interceptor. The Carrier Creek Interceptor carries wastewater from collection sewers throughout the central portion of the Township to the wastewater treatment plant. Additionally, the Carrier Creek Interceptor serves Delta's Industrial Tract and the State Secondary Complex in Windsor Township. In 1972, Sewer District #4 was initiated to provide collection sewers along the Grand River in the area south of Delta Mills. In 1975, Sewer District #5 was established to provide sewer service to three singlefamily residences on the north side of Willow Highway near Rockdale Avenue. Sewer District #7, which resulted in approximately threequcrters of a mile of sewer pipe serving customers along Creyts Road in the vicinity of Millett Highway, was constructed in 1975 and 1977. In 1982 Sewer District #8 was established which provided service along Creyts Road from Millett Highway to the south side of U.S. 27. The aforementioned sewer extensions were financed through the creation of sewer assessment districts. A number of other extensions, including those to the Verndale Complex and Delta Industrial Park, have been financed by the individual developments which benefited from the sewer extension. In 1975, the Township's Sanitary Sewer Fund financed a one-half mile extension of a 27 inch sewer interceptor from the Carrier Creek Interceptor easterly to Creyts Road within Section 27. The existing collection sewer system consists of pipes varying in size from four inches to 36 inches in diameter comprising a total of approximately 95 miles of sewer lines and five sewage pump stations. Wastewater Treatment Plant The present wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) is designed for an average daily wastewater flow of four million gallons with a maximum hydraulic capacity of eight million gallons per day. The plant presently treats an average daily flow of 2.5 million gallons of wastewater, serving 3900 customers. Problems and Issues with Respect to the Existing Collection and Treatment Facilities There are existing operational problens associated with the wastewater collection and treatment system operated by Delta Township. Furthermore, the past growth rate, Public Law 92-500 and the 201 Facilities Plan have had the effect of placing the Township in a posture of having to act 101 ~ ~ \ �promptly toward rehabilitating and improving these collection and treatment facilities. The following narrative puts issues in perspective and suggests an approach to resolution of each issue. The following is intended to provide a basis and framework for the proposed extensions to the sanitary sewer system which are discussed at the conclusion of this chapter. Infiltration The collection sewers in the Delta Township sewer system are relatively new, the oldest lines were constructed in 1965. There are, however, significant quantities of groundwater infiltration and inflow to sanitary sewer lines in the present system. It is estimated that approximately 40 percent of the wastewater received at the treatment plant is groundwater and/or stormwater. There are locations in the collection sewer system where sewer pipe is situated within the high ground water table. Also, a large number of dwellings and businesses have roof and footing drains connected to sanitary sewer lines. Some situations exist where sanitary sewer service leads have been built through an existing storm sewer. These leads may be broken or cracked causing a direct flow of storm water into the collection sewer system. This excess flow of water into the collection system overloads the wastewater treatment plant. Flow meters at the plant have recorded up to nine million gallons per day of influent to the treatment plant, far in excess of plant capacity. The excess of flow occurs primarily during periods of heavy rainfall, usually in the months of March and April. A detailed study of the present infiltration was conducted during 19751977.2 This study used daily flow records from the WWTP which were analyzed. The amount of infiltration and inflow was estimated based on methods developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It was estimated that annually 300 million gallons of excess flow enters the treatment plant. An economic study was conducted to determine a costeffective approach to dealing with the excess flow. The study revealed that itwouldnot be cost-effective to initiate a program of disconnecting footing drains, but it did indicate that it would be costeffective to remove excess wastewater flows by rehabilitating existing sewers. A decision to proceed with rehabilitation on a limited basis would eliminate approximately 15 percent of the excess flow (45 million gallons annually). The remaining 258 million gallons of excess flow would continue to be treated at the wastewater treatment plant. Quality of Treated Effluent Water quality standards promulgated as a result of Public Law 92-500 impose stringent quality requirements as to discharged effluent from the Delta Township WWTP. All present and future discharges from the WWTP must meet these standards. Delta Township is operating its treatment plant under final effluent standards. All municipal treatment plants throughout the nation operate as pro- 2Reported in the Facilities Plan, conducted by Delta Township personnel in cooperation with Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr and Huber, Consulting Engineers. 102 .. \ ~ �vided in the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issues NPDES permits to each operating treatment plant and establishes specific water quality standards as to effluent discharges. Table SS-1 presents sewage effluent standards established for the Delta Township WWTP by the Michigan Water Resources Commission, acting agent for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The WWTP is presently in need of improvements in order to address the following items: - Proposed EPA sewage effluent standards require that ammonia nitrogen be removed. - The flows of wastewater to the WWTP vary significantly during a typical day which hinders the plant from operating as efficiently as possible. - During hot, humid, windless, days the open treatment facilities at the plant presently emit a significant odor. - Excess seasonal flows of influent, attributable to infiltration, cannot be properly treated due to the limited capacity of the WWTP. The following improvements are needed at the wastewater treatment plant: 1) ammonia nitrogen removal, 2) equalization of wastewater influent, 3) odor control, 4) increased capacity, 5) auxillary power, and 6) backup sludge disposal. Delta Township is presently securing the necessary grants which, if obtained, will assist in financing a significant portion of the needed WWTP improvements. It is assumed that the construction of the proposed improvements will result in the WWTP being in full compliance with future sewage effluent standards. III Future Service Areas for the Wastewater Collection and Treatment System Projected Growth of Service The increase in demand for sanitary sewer service is directly linked with the increase in resident population. However, the extension of sanitary sewers is dependent on physical and financial constraints. This section provides projections of sanitary sewer service demand, proposed sewer service areas, and the periods of time in which the service is likely to be provided. Integration with other elements of the Comprehensive Plan is provided by utilizing population projections, land consumption rates and land use as set forth in chapters one and two. Table SS-2 presents actual rates of new customer connections for the 1973-1980 period. These rates, together with anticipated expansion of service described in a later section, form the basis for projecting sanitary sewer customers as illustrated in Table SS-3. Once the projections of future sanitary sewer customers was completed, it · was necessary to further refine the projections in terms of customer equival- 103 1/ �ents and expected wastewater flow at the treatment plant, provides the results of this evaluation. Table SS-4 TABLE SS-1 WATER RESOURCES CO:MMISSION'S EFFLUENT QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE DELTA TOWNSHIP WWTP Effluent Parameters Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD 5 )( 2 ) Suspended Solids Ammonia Nitrogen Phosphorus Dissolved Oxygen Fecal Coliform Bacteria Existing Treatment Current Standards Cl) 12 mg/L 16.5 mg/L 10 mg/LO) 8 mg/L 15.0 mg/L 10 mg/L Measurement not Required 92 % Proposed Final Standards 2 mg/L Provide 80 % or greater removal of total phosphorus contained in untreated wastewater 5 mg/L 200/100 ml 200/ 100 ml 200/100 ml PH 6.5-9.0 6.5-9.0 6.5-9.0 Flow Measurement Daily Daily Daily (1) Current standards will remain in effect at the WWTP until the proposed improvements are completed at which time the proposed final standards will take effect. (2) Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) means BOD measurement average for five days. (3) Daily discharge limitations, all other values are thirty-day average discharge limitations. 104 -... �~ TABLE SS-2 I SANITARY SEWER CUSTOMERS* 1973-1980 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 2680 2930 3220 3260 3500 3530 3860 3950 MultipleFamily Residential 100 100 100 120 130 140 190 210 OfficeCommercial 220 230 230 270 300 330 360 430 Industrial 1 1 1 6 5 5 5 11 Customer Class Single-Family Residential ~~The number of customers may actually decrease from year to year due to building vacancies. TABLE SS-3 PROJECTED SANITARY SEWER CONNECTIONS AND LAND ACREAGE CONSUMPTION 1985-2000 Class 1985 1990 1995 2000 6000 464 Ac. 6830 464 Ac. 7650 464 Ac. 8480 464 Ac. tfultiple-family Residentia1Cl) Land Consumption 170 80 Ac. 190 101 Ac. 220 101 Ac. 240 101 Ac. Office/Cornmercia1(l) Land Consumption 370 37 Ac. 410 38 Ac. 450 38 Ac. 500 38 Ac. Industria1(l) Land Consumption 13 139 Ac. 18 139 Ac. 23 139 Ac. 28 139 Ac. Single-family Residential Land Consumption (1) For purpose of computation of future wastewater influent at the WWTP, all classes of customers are converted to customer equivalents, as set forth in Table SS-4. An equivalent customer (a hypothetical term) means the wastewater from a typical household in the year 1977. Based upon actual water consumption statistics, this translates to 225 gallons/day/household or 6805 gallons/ household/month. 105 �TABLE SS-4 WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS AT THE DELTA TOWNSHIP WWTP 1985-2000 1985 1990 1995 2000 Equivalent Customers (all classes) 9,980 11,450 12,920 14,390 Wastewater Flow Rate into WWTP( 1) 2.33 2.56 2.89 3.02 Expected Infiltration/Inflow(l) 1. 59 1. 70 1. 82 1.93 Total Flow< l) 3.82 4.26 4. 71 5.35 (1) All flow rates for wastewater entering the WWTP stated in million gallons per day (HGD). Description of Lands Included in Future Service Areas Figure SS-II depicts expansion of sanitary sewer service in Delta Township during four time periods. The strategy for service can be generally described as a filling in of service provided to lands east of I-96. Given the large quantities of vacant land situated near present sanitary sewer collection lines, it was deemed logical to promote utilization of these lands prior to extension of services to more remote areas. Extension of sewers west of I-96, absent documented health hazards, is not recommended. However, Figure SS-II suggests serving existing development areas west of I - 96 in the post 1995 era. Huch of the projected extension of service will occur in Sections 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 22, 23 and within the Delta Industrial Tract. In addition, the fill-in of now vacant parcels in largely built-up areas is encouraged. As to service west of I-96, it is recommended that existing subdivisions and the nearby properties be provided service in the post-1990 period. The customer equivalent projections and land consumption rates were factored to represent provision of services to this area between 19901995. No new land consumption is computed where service is provided to an existing building or use of land. Description of Land Excluded From Future Sanitary Sewer Service Any discussion of futur-2 sanitary sewer service would be incomplete absent identification of areas not planned for sanitary sewer service within the time frame of this Plan. Areas not included in future service limits have been excluded for one or more of the following reasons: 1. A major physical barrier exists preventing the economical extension of sewer service, such as a river, wetlands or major highway. 106 ... . .. ~.--:: �2. Existing or planned use of land suggests no major transition to urban uses is desirable. This would include prime croplands, specialized farming, unusual natural environment, and lands restricted from private development such as parks and conservation areas. 3. Areas where other public facilities and services have not evolved to a point where they would be cost-effective to provide along with sanitary sewer service. 4. Established planning policies restricting the use of land to densities not requiring public sanitary sewer service. Areas which are not destined for future sanitary sewer service are described as follows: 1. All lands lying north of the Grand River and west of Interstate 96. 2. Land lying north of the Grand River and situated between Delta Mills and Saratoga Farms Subdivisions, but exclusive of Delta Mills and Saratoga. 3. The entire southwestern quadrant of Delta Township bounded by Mt. Hope Highway, I-96, the south Tm,mship line and the west Township line. 107 �~ /' ~ DELTA TOWNSHIP Figure SS·II EXISTING & PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER SERVICE AREA (19821 • EXISTING SERVICE ~ 1982 ·1985 tTj I-'· OQ i= ti (1) Cl'.l Cl'.l I H H '"ti Pl CJ LJ 1986 · 1990 1991 ·1995 ~ POST 1995 Ill TO BE SERVICED BY THE CITY OF LANSING OQ (1) ,_. 0 00 - NORTH �\ �STORM DRAINAGE The design, construction and maintenance of storm drainage facilities in Delta Township has become more important as development activities have increased. This chapter will define and describe common storm drainage design criteria, present an inventory of the existing storm drainage system, note jurisdictional responsibilities for storm drain facilities, provide an introduction to new methods of handling storm water runoff and conclude with a listing of recommended storm-drainage practices. I Storm Water Design Criteria For the purposes of this chapter, storm water runoff is defined as the water flowing over ground surfaces during and immediately following a rainfall. The runoff which passes a particular point is equal to the total rainfall in the area above that point less the amount of water which infiltrates the ground, the amount collected on the surface and the amount of water which evaporates into the atmosphere. A common method of calculating the rate of runoff is a formula expressed as Q = CIA, which is known as the Rational Formula. The term Q represents the quantity of runoff expressed in cubic feet per second (cfs). The term C represents the runoff coefficient which is a measure of the amount of land covered by a hard surface, i.e., pavement and roof areas. Runoff coefficients generally range from 0.15 for unimproved lawn areas to 0.95 for intensive uses such as shopping centers and heavy industries. The term I refers to rainfall intensity in inches per hour. The term A represents the area to be drained expressed in acres. II Inventory of Existing Storm Drainage Facilities The majority of land within Delta Township is located within a designated public storm drainage district. The drains vary from unimproved open swales in rural areas to large and complex drain systems in developed portions of the Township. Since it is beyond the scope of the Comprehensive Plan, this chapter does not include an evaluation of the existing drains as to their condition or capacity. Figure SD-I illustrates the existing public drainage system within Delta Township as of 1980. As of 1980, there were 135 drainage districts and sub-distri c t s within Delta Township. Those portions of the Township which are not within an established drainage district are generally undeveloped or have not experienced significant agricultural activities. All public drains and drainage districts are under the jurisdiction of the Eaton County Drain Commissioner. Some drainage districts, such as the BanksBriggs system serving eastern Delta and portions of Lansing Township, are classified as Inter-County Drains. These districts fall within the jurisdiction of an Inter-County Drainage Board composed of the two county drain commissioners and the State Drain Commissioner. Construction and maintenance of all public drainage districts within the State of Michigan are governed by the terms of the State Drain Code, being Act 40 of 1956. \ 109 �. . ..... _... . .......... ·, I "\ ·, I I i \ \ I \ '' '' ', '\ I ·, \'-_,.._. ' ' ' \ ,,....... \ ' \ \ ' \ \ l°' i\ "-·-,_,.._ \ / , .,., -·"' ' \ \ j \ \ i \ \ \ \ \ I ·, -·- , ., i i \ \ i ' ,. / I I I / I I \ \ j ,.,·- r· \ i ........... ,_. 'ji i I I ' ( ·-.,. \ ,·-t·- ·-·- / \ \ I ·' i i--- ·- ·- '·-· .... ____ .... ___, __ _ ~. \ , \ ,-r•-...•-•"!' ' j (""' . . I " I \ . \{ I I ,,·I j ; "'·-' ·, -i .!... I f ---- -~'\. i...-·- ,-· '\._., - ~ ) I i - --.J __ ,J ·-·-·--·-·-·_, I i i L -- · !-·- ·-·-·-·j i - ·- ·- ·-·- ·. ·-·-·--i i _I ! • I i I --\ ,; \ ,!_7 _ __ .,., _ _J \ I ,..-~\....,.- ·-·-·-·-·-·1 ·-·-i !·-; / [Z] z )> -I 1~ C: :::0 ::0 -4 :a: z )> C :::0 ~ z -I m :::0 n 0 C: :::0 CJ) m Figure SD-I ,, 0 m r )> Page 110 C cm >< :,:,,_en zj enz C ..:.. C) lZl 0 )> n r 0 CJ) m :::0 )> z :J] <Den <X>--1 00 :J] 3: "T1 cc C .., (D C m r-I :J> CJ) C -I 0 :ez CJ) :::c -.,, ~, / �III New Storm Drainage Practices Past storm water management practices have emphasized disposing of storm water in the shortest possible time via the use of an enclosed storm drain system. The cumulative effects of such practices can increase the frequency of downstream flooding and necessitate major reconstruction of existing storm drains. The detention of runoff is becoming an increasingly popular storm water management technique. "On-site detention refers to the storage of storm water runoff at or near the site of its origin, and its subsequent discharge at a predetermined release rate. 111 The use of detention techniques, rather than sole reliance on enclosed drains, often provides the following benefits: 1) smaller storm drain pipe sizes and less pipe being installed, thus resulting in reduced costs; 2) provision of recreational opportunities; improved aesthetics and preservation of natural wetlands; and 3) reduction of downstream flooding and pollution levels. The use of storm water detention ponds in urbanized areas occasionally generates concerns related to public safety and liability. Consideration of the following policies will help to insure safety and improve aesthetics: 1) the bottoms and side slopes of detention ponds should be graded so that they do not constitute a safety hazard; 2) the fencing of retention ponds, which permanently store water, should be considered on a case by case basis; and 3) shallow retention facilities, which cause undesirable weed growth, should be discouraged. There are various methods utilized to accomplish storm water detention. The following describes the most common detention practices, several of which have been utilized in Delta Township: Detention Pond: A basin is excavated based on storm drain design criteria. Drainage from the site is conveyed to the pond. The depth is generally 3-5 feet and the outlet pipe is always smaller than the inlet pipe. As the rain falls and the runoff reaches the pond, the water level gradually rises. The pond may or may not be filled as a result of every rainfall, depending on the intensity and duration of the rainfall. Retention Pond: A retention pond permanently stores water. It is often installed in order to store runoff, create lakes which will enhance aesthetics and property values, and provide fill material for other areas of a development. Water depths in a retention pond generally vary from 3-10 feet. Parking Lot: A parking area is often graded to create a saucer which stores water. A catch basin or inlet structure is placed at the low point and the outlet pipe of the structure is 1Temporary Detention Cuts Storm Flow Peaks, Civil Engineering ASCE, Decemhe r 19 80 , Ayoub Talhami, page 72 . 111 �restricted. The depth of the stored water in the saucer varies from zero at the ridges to 12 inches at the low point. In lieu of a restricted outlet pipe, a special cover with drilled holes can be placed at the top of the storm inlet structure. Surface Storage: Residential lots, parks and unimproved open spaces may be graded to create detention areas. Storage in residential back yards may cause inconvenience to home owners. When surface storage is utilized, a policing effort is necessary to insure that home owners do not regrade their back yards to rid themselves of what they may consider a nuisance. In addition to detention, the practice of utilizing natural open drainage ways as a component of storm drainage systems is becoming increasingly popular. Utilization of natural waterways requires that attention be given to antierosion techniques and provision of adequate land area to assure sufficient storm water carrying capacity. The flood plain of the natural waterway must be delineated so as to prevent encroachments into the waterway, thus preserving its capacity and storage capabilities. Extremely important in the design of natural channel waterways is the slope or amount of fall throughout the length of the system. Care has to be exercised in the design of natural drainage ways to insure that ponding within the channel does not occur. Ho~ever, excessive grades, which create a rapid movement of water thus resulting in erosion, must be avoided. IV Recommended Storm Drainage Practices As previously noted, responsibility for the management of public storm drains in Delta Township, and all of Eaton County, rests with the County Drain Commissioner. Delta Township is unique within Eaton County to the extent that considerable storm drainage construction takes place as a result of land development. The significant amount of land which was developed in Delta Township during the 1960's and 1970's necessitated public improvements to entire drainage districts. In order to insure proper design, construction and maintenance of storm drains within the Township, it is recommended that local decision-makers give consideration to the following practices: 1. Proposed storm drains should be designed in accordance with accepted design criteria. 2. Additional storm water runoff, which will result from continued urban-type development, should be continually monitored in order to assess the impact on the public drainage system. 3. Attempts should be made to limit the amount of sedimentation entering drainageways, especially during construction periods. 4. The use of acceptable alternatives to closed-pipe drainage systems, such as detention/retention methods and the utilization 112 �of natural drainageways, should be considered . 5. Procedures should be established to insure that new drains, detention/retention ponds, and easements become components of the county drainage system. 6. The proper maintainence of storm drainage facilities should be emphasized. 7. Efforts should be made to reduce the pollutants which are carried by stormwater and can result in a degradation of water quality. 8. Consideration should be given to the possibility of drafting a comprehensive storm drainage plan which could be accompanied by the implementation of a stormwater management ordinance. As previously noted, traditionally storm drainage systems were designed to remove runoff at the fastest rate possible. This often resulted in the elimination of natural storage areas such as wetlands and flood plains. In essence, the drainage problem was trnasferred to a downstream location. Over time, storm drainage problems were compounded by such actions which necessitated spending massive amounts of public dollars for major drainage projects. In summary, what is recommended is a change from single purpose, fragmented and remedial drainage projects to a comprehensive, watershed wide, preventative approach to stormwater management. 113 �/~ �SOLID WASTE Solid waste is generally referred to as materials which you usually have to pay someone to take off-site and dispose of. Table SW-1 illustrates annual solid waste generation in Eaton County for the year 1980. Of the estimated 54,493 tons of solid waste generated in Eaton County in 1980, approximately 79 percent, or 43,168 tons, were disposed of in landfills. It has been estimated that approximately 75 percent of the solid waste in Eaton County is generated by residential households. Table SW-2 illustrates solid waste estimates for Delta Township for the 1980-year 2000 period. TABLE SW-1 ESTIN..ATED SOLID WASTE GENERATION EATON COUNTY 1980 Coefficient* (lbs/day) Tons of Waste/ Year 77,402 40,965 10. 6)~* 4,248 5,223 Retail 5.75 5,238 3,49!+ Government 1.5 2, Lf89 433 10.6 31 38 6,506 4,340 Residential Manufacturing Communications/Utilities ' Significant Other 2.9 Number People (Residents/ Employees) 5.75 TOTAL 54,493 *State of Michigan, Department of Natural Resources, Resource Recovery Division, Guidebook of Solid Waste :Management, Table 4-1, pg. 4-4. **Coefficient was derived from actual waste generation figures from Oldsmobile and Fisher Body, Lansing, Michigan. Source: Proposed Eaton County 641 Plan, Tri-County Regional Planing Commission, 1982. 114 �TABLE SW-2 ESTIMATED SOLID WASTE GENERATION DELTA TOWNSHIP 1980-2000 Source: 1980 1985 2000 16,215 Tons 18,772 Tons 26,005 Tons Proposed Eaton County 641 Plan, Tri-County Regional Planing Commission, 1982. Solid waste collection is presently provided by private haulers within Delta Township. Most of the solid waste generated in the Township is presently deposited at the Granger Land Development Sanitary Landfill located in Watertown Township in Clinton County. This privately owned facility presently accepts approximately 800,000 cubic yards of solid waste per year. It is estimated that 78 percent of the waste deposited at the Granger Landfill originates in Ingham County, 12 percent in Clinton County and 10 percent in Eaton County. If the operators of the landfill are permitted to continue with present expansion plans and if the amount of solid waste does not increase appreciably in the future, it is estimated that the landfill will have sufficient capacity to operate until 1998. Solid waste disposal is also provided by landfills near Eaton Rapids and Potterville in Eaton County. The County has operated the main site which is located on Windsor Highway northwest of Potterville since 1971. This forty acre site is owned by Eaton County and licensed by the Hichigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR). It is presently estimated that this landfill has sufficient capacity to operate until 1984 and possibly as long as 1987 if the landfill is expanded to include adjacent County owned property. The recycling of solid waste is an idea which is becoming increasingly popular. In 1979 the DNR'S Resource Recovery Division published a document entitled Resource Recovery in Michigan: Potential, Costs and Impact. The following excerpt from this document defines the terms source separation and recycling and notes the benefits of these approaches. Source Separation: Recycling: Separation and collection of individual recyclable components at the point of generation or discard. When the materials collected are used to make a product (collection by itself is not recycling). Source separation and recycling should not be viewed as a panacea for solid waste management. Regardless of whether a recycling program is successful or not, it will not take care of all solid wastes. However, 115 �the concept should be looked into and considered as a solid waste management tool before becoming locked into other techniques which preclude source separation and recycling. Source separation and recycling are positive approaches to solid waste management because many benefits accrue from a properly managed program. The benefits: 1. Material is kept out of the waste stream and out of the landfill. The less material put into a landfill, the longer it will last. 2. Wasting of our natural resources is reduced and our limited domestic supplies of certain raw materials are extended. 3. Income is derived from materials you now pay to dispose of. This income may not be enough to pay for all your solid waste management costs but it could help lower these costs. 4. Reprocessing of scrap materials generally causes less pollution than does the processing of virgin materials. 5. Recycling saves energy. That fact alone makes it worth considering. Recycling aluminum results in a 95 percent energy savings over processing from raw materials. Energy savings from recycling paper range from 20 percent to 70 percent depending on the grade of paper. 6. Other waste processing facilities can be sized smaller, resulting in lower costs. In spite of the aforementioned benefits of the recycling of solid waste, it should be noted that presently most residential, commercial and industrial solid waste is still being dumped unprocessed in landfills. At the same time the number of landfill sites is decreasing due to more stringent state and federal environmental regulations, the rapid rate at which landfills are being used up and the fact that landfills are becoming increasingly expensive to construct, renovate and operate. The recycling of solid waste in the Lansing Metropolitan area is not widespread at this time due to the pick-up, collection and hauling costs involved in getting waste materials to a processing site, an inconsistent supply of waste and undependable markets for the recycled materials. In 1978 the Michigan Legislature adopted Act 641, being the Solid Waste Management Act. This Act mandated that a solid waste management plan be prepared for each county. The Act contained requirements that the plan include an enforcement program and process to assure that the nonhazardous solid waste generated or to be generated in the county for the next twenty years is collected and recovered, processed, or dispensed of at facilities which comply with State law and rules promulgated by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources governing location, design, and operation of the facilities. Each county's waste management plans must be filed with the Department of Natural Resources, cover a twenty year period and be updated every 116 �five years. Once the plan has been approved by the DNR, no loc~l ordinance, law, rule, regulation, policy, practice or plan may override the location of or development of the approved site location for solid waste disposal. The plan also is required to contain a covenant restricting the post-disposal use of a landfill site for a fifteen year period. A solid waste management plan must be approved by at least two thirds of the municipalities within the planning area. All solid waste disposal sites (sanitary landfills) must be licensed by the DNR in order to operate and a financial guarantee in accordance with the statute must accompany all applications for a license. The Eaton County Solid Waste Planning Committee was established in January of 1981 with the expressed purpose of preparing a solid waste management plan for the County, as per the requirements of Act 641, prior to the State mandated deadline of October, 1982. The Tri-County Regional Planning Commission has been acting as the "lead" agency in assisting the County in preparing the plan as well as coordinating the Eaton County plan with adjacent county plans. ' 117 ��FUTURE LAND USE The Future Land Use Component contains the Future Land Use Plan and analyses of its different land use elements. Six separate parts of the component describe and analyze residential development, commercial development, office development, industrial development, open space and recreation facilities and the thoroughfare network designed to serve the proposed land use pattern. A brief discussion is also provided regarding the relationship between land use planning and zoning. Figure LU-I is the Generalized Future Land Use Plan while Table LU-1 indicates the areas allocated to different land uses. I The Relationship of Planning to Zoning The relationship between land use planning and zoning is an important one. Planning is basically the act of planning the uses of land within the Township for the future while zoning is the act of regulating the use of these lands by ordinance. The laws of the State of Michigan require that a community engage in land use planning activities, including the preparation of a comprehensive plan, prior to the initiation of a zoning ordinance in a community. In order to provide a better understanding of the terms planning and zoning, the following definitions are offered: Land Use Planning: The process of guiding the future growth and development of a community. Generally a document is prepared known as the Comprehensive Plan which addresses the various facets relating to the growth of a community. Through the process of land use planning it is intended that a community can preserve, promote, protect and improve the public health, safety and general welfare. Additional considerations include; comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention; prevent the overcrowding of land and avoid undue concentration of population; facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water, sewage s e rv ices, schools, parks, recreational facilities, housing and other requirements and services; and conserve, develop, utilize and protect natural resources within the community . Zoning: The process of partitioning a community into districts each of which permits certain uses of land for the purpose of conserving and promoting the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the people within the community. A zoning ordinance is often adopted which contains regulations controlling land uses, densities, buildin g heights and bulk, lot sizes, yard and open spaces, setbacks and accessory uses. A zoning ordinance consists of two distinct parts, being a written text and a district map. The text sets forth the purposes, uses and district regulations for each 118 �TABLE LU-1 FUTURE LAND USE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION ACRES PERCENT OF TOTAL Very Low Density Residential 2,907 12. 7 Low Density Residential 8,728 38.l Medium Density Residential 739 3.3 High Density Residential 618 2. 7 Office Development 425 1.9 Retail Trade 645 2.8 Light Industry 599 2.6 Heavy Industry 1,913 8.4 Community Facilities 534 2.3 Parks and Open Spaces 766 3.3 Agricultural and Non-Urban 1,811 7.9 Transportation 2,302 10.0 Grand River 352 1.5 City of Lansing 576 2.5 22,915 100.0 ~ 119 $' �district and the standards for special land uses and admimistration of the ordinance. The map denotes a specific zoning district for every parcel of land within the community. Zoning is one of the instruments, along with capital improvements programming and the administration of local subdivision regulations, which implements the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. The enactment and administration of the zoning ordinance are legislative and administrative processes conducted by local units of government relating to the implementation of the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. II Residential Development The predominant land use in the Future Land Use Plan is residential development. A total of 12,992 acres or 57 percent of the Township is designated for residential use. Four general residential development densities are recommended; very low density, low density, medium density and high density. According to population projections prepared in development of the Comprehensive Plan, the year 2000 population of Delta Township will be approximately 34,000 persons. The residential density pattern has been designed to protect the character of existing neighborhoods and to provide attractive areas for the development of new housing. The majority of residential land has be en pl~nned for low density development in accordance with the character of the existing residential development pattern. Several areas have been designated for medium and high density residential development in response to the growing demand for multiple family housing within the Township. One of the land development concepts which is becoming increasingly popular is a technique known as planned unit development. Several planned unit developments have been established in Delta Township. A brief explanation of the concept of planned unit development follows the description of the various residential densities. Very Low Density Residential Development The Future Land Use Plan indicates a total of 2,907 acres or 13 percent of the Township is designated for very low density residential development. Very low density residential areas are intended to be developed at a maximum density of one dwelling unit per acre. It is anticipated that very low density areas will be developed with single-family detached residences which utilize private wells and septic tanks. Very low density residential areas are located in the southwestern portion of the Township and north of the Grand River. It is intended that these very low density areas will remain essentially non-urban in character with large individual lots due to the limited fire service which is available to these areas. Public utilities such as water and sanitary sewer service are not envisioned for these areas in the near future. The very low density residential land use indicated north of the Grand River is intended to preserve the existing nonurban character of that area which contains agricultural parcels, woodlots, flood plain areas, and a few very low density sinzle-family subdivisions. The very low density residential land use indicated for the southwestern 120 �portion of the Township is intended to preserve the largely non-urban character of this area which includes approximately three sections of land designated for agricultural and non-urban purposes. The very low density residential designation also respects the poor drainage capabilities of soils in this area. Low Density Residential Development The Future Land Use Plan indicates a total of 8,728 acres or 38 ~ercent of the Township for low density residential development. Low density residential areas are intended to be developed at a maximum density of five units per acre. It is anticipated that low density residential areas will be developed primarily with single-family detached residences although planned unit developments or other development forms which do not exceed five dwelling units per acre could be utilized. It is intended that low density residential areas will be served by public water and sewer service and hard surfaced roadways. It is recommended that certain limited institutional and non-residential uses, such as community shopping facilities, be permitted in order to provide convenient services to residential areas while at the same time preserving the overall residential character of the area in which they are located. Low density residential development areas are concentrated in that portion of the eastern half of the Township lying between the Grand River and I-496, and in that portion of the western half of the Township lying between Willow Highway and the proposed right-of-way of I-69. The low density residential area in the eastern portion of the Township is extensively developed with single family subdivisions. The low density residential land use indicated for this area is intended to preserve and round out the basic character of existing development. The western half of the Township lying between Willow Highway and I-69 contains a scattering of single-family subdivisions as well as strip residential development located along section line roads. The existing development, while not complete, constitutes an emerging pattern of basically low density residential development which is incorporated in the Future Land Use Plan. The Future Land Use Plan indicates small aceas of low density residential development north of the Grand River and adjacent to Waverly Road; in the vicinity of Delta Mills; south of 1-496 in the Marcy Road, Guenther Road and Echo Valley Estates areas; within the community of Millett; south of the Grand River in the vicinity of Locust Lane; and in the area adjacent to Jolly Road. These areas of low density residential development were all delineated to round out existing single-family developments. Medium Density Residential Development A total of 739 acres or 3.3 percent of the entire Township is designated for medium density residential development. These medium density residential areas are intended to be developed at a maximum density o·f eleven dwelling units per acre. It is anticipated that a variety of housing types will be developed in such areas. Permitting planned unit developments in medium density residential areas will allow for flexibility and innovation in the land development process. It is assumed that these areas will be adequately served by major thoroughfares and public utility services. It is recommended that certain limited institutional and non- 121 ~ r �residential uses, such as community shopping facilities, be permitted in order to provide convenient services to residential areas while at the same time preserving the overall residential character of the area in which they are located. Medium density residential areas are located in the western half of Section Ten; in the southeast quadrant of Section Sixteen; on the east side of Crey.ts Road south of I-496; in the northeast quadrant of Section Fourteen; in the northwest quadrant of Section Nine; in the southwest quadrant of Section Sixteen; and within the Verndale Development. The medium density residential areas illustrated in the Future Land Use Plan are gener~lly located in close proximity to recreational areas, have ready access to shopping facilities, are in areas in which land assemblage for multiple-family development appears feasible, and are located adjacent to arterial roadways and limited access expressways. High Density Residential Development A total of 618 acres or 2.7 percent of the entire Township is designated for high density residential development. High density residential areas are intended to be developed at a maximum density of fifteen dwelling units per acre. It is anticipated that high density residential areas will provide sites for garden apartments, townhouses and mid-rise residential structures which can benefit from the natural beauty of the surrounding landscape. Permitting planned unit developments in high density residential areas will allow for flexibility and innovation in the land development process. It is assumed that these ~reas will be adequately served by major thoroughfares and public utility services. High density residential areas are proposed in the south half of Section Nine, the north half of Section Sixteen and north and south of the Delta Township central business district in Sections Eleven and Fourteen. The high density residential areas illustrated in the Future Land Use Plan are generally located in close proximity to commercial services and are located adjacent to arterial roadways and limited access expressways. It should be emphasized that the Comprehensive Plan is a long-range document and that recommendations for medium and high density residential development at specific locations assumes that the proposed development of such facilities will coincide with the provision of adequate utilities, transportation facilities and public services. Planned Unit Development The planned unit development, or PUD as it is frequently known, is a modern zoning technique. The PUD zoning concept is employed by many communities to encourage innovative and imaginative design by providing an alternative to the traditional lot-by-lot residential development that has shaped the pattern of most of suburban America since World War II. PUD is known by many names including cluster zoning, community unit plan, or planned residential development. In 1979, the State of Michigan gave statutory recognition to the concept of PUD in amendments to the Township Rural Zoning Act being Act 184 of 1943. In order to provide a better understanding of the term, the following definition is offered: 122 �"Planned Unit Development (PUD) is a device which allows a development to be planned and built as a unit and which ••• permits variations in many of the traditional controls related to density, land use, setbacks ·; _ open space and other design elements, and the timing and sequencing of the development. PUD, therefore, is both a type of development and a regulatory process. As a development type, PUD permits flexibility in site design that allows buildings to be clustered; mixtures of housing types such as detached houses, townhouses, or garden apartments, combining housing with such other ancillary uses as neighborhood shopping centers; better design and arrangement of open space; and retention of such natural features as flood plains or steep slopes. It offers greater opportunities for providing low-cost housing along with conventional housing." (Michael J. Meshenberg, the Administration of Flexible Zoning Techniques, Planning Advisory Service Report No. 318 (Chicago : ASPO, June 1976), p. 19.) Innovative Housing Concepts Single family home ownership is still the preference of the majority of Americans. However, as the costs associated with land acquisition, financing, maintenance, energy, and building materials continue to escalate, increasing numbers of prospective homeowners are selecting a variety of housing styles including manufactured and underground housing, solar assisted housing and the previously mentioned cluster housing. It is recommended that Township codes and ordinances be amended to recognize and accomodate new housing trends while insuring that such housing will be located and developed so as to be compatible with the surrounding residential development. Non-Residential Uses in Residential Areas It is recognized that it is necessary to provide for the establishment of certain non-residential land uses within residential areas subject to the implementation of measures which are designed to insure compatibility. Such non-residential uses commonly include religious and educational institutions, recreational uses such as parks, golf courses and playfields, public utility facilities and home occupations. Regulations should be adopted addressing such items as traffic generation, noise, lighting and trespass in order to mitigate the possibility of negative impacts on residential neighborhoods. III Residential Neighborhood Module Concept It is recommended that future residential development occur in well defined neighborhood modules or units rather than in haphazard accumulations of subdivisions or through the in-filling of strip residential development. A neighborhood module or unit should be a protective nucleus of residential development in which extraneous automobile traffic is minimized. Traffic in residential neighborhoods should be limited primarily to local residents. An individual neighborhood module should normally be bounded by arterial streets. Other community facilities as well as convenience commercial facilities which serve two or more neighborhoods should be located on arterial streets at the periphery of neighborhood modules. 123 r �IV Neighborhood Unit Delineation The residential land use pattern has been organized into twenty-eight individual neighborhood units. These twenty-eight neighborhood units are indicated in Figure LU-II. The delineation of neighborhoods was based on the following factors: Location of natural or man-made devisive elements Distinct changes in land use Population patterns School district boundaries Existing land uses Sewer and water service areas Census tract boundaries A brief description of each neighborhood follows. Neighborhood One This neighborhood is unique in the Township in that it is located within the Lansing School District and is also served by the City of Lansing utility system. The 1975 Sanitary Sewer Service Agreement, which was entered into by the City and Delta Township, limits the density in this area to approximately five dwelling units per acre. The northern portion of Neighborhood One is positioned between a very low density residential subdivision to the west, being Saratoga Farms, and a higher density residential development to the east in the City of Lansing, being Mount Vernon Park. Residential development in this area should provide for a transition between the high density residential areas to the east and the lower density residential areas to the west. Delta River Drive bisects this neighborhood in an east-west direction. This roadway has been designated as a Natural Beauty Road by the Eaton County Road Commission in compliance with Act 150 of 1970. Due to the winding nature of Delta River Drive and the fact that sight distances are limited in this area, developments within this neighborhood should utilize Waverly Road as their primary access point. A significant amount of the southern portion of this neighborhood lies within the one-hundred year flood plain. Development in this area should be regulated so as to utilize and preserve the natural amenities of this area and to complement Grand Woods Park which is located on the south side of the Grand River in Sections One and Two of Delta Township. The extreme northern portion of this neighborhood lies within flight zones of the Capital City Airport to the northeast. However, it is expected that the airport flight zones will not impose a major impact on residential land uses in the area due to the fact that the Capital City Airport Master Plan recommends that future air traffic utilize landing strips further to the north. This neighborhood is bordered by Watertown Township to the north. The Clinton County Comprehensive Plan illustrates parks and open space uses along the northern border of Section One of Delta Township. A low density residential land use pattern is recommended for this neighborhood due to the readily available access to an arterial road, the 124 �(( ' ( ( ,11111111111111111p111111111111111111111111,11•1111111tt_11_111111111111111111~111111111111111111 1 DELTA TOWNSHIP Figure LU·II DELINEATED NEIGHBORHOOD UNITS 0 NON-NEIGHBORHOOD AREAS If) I N .-l Q) oO :,: tll I p.., H H I ::::> ..:I Q) I-< ::, .oO.., ,,/ Ji< ~~ (\\\'''''''''\ /~(~~',,----~ .,,,,. ....\,,')..,, / ~\~\)~.,,, ~.._"\_\'\..,,, - - // / ,,,-1----(..,~~v ,,, ,,,,,,,,,, --- \ / UU1.!JUI!TJ.f.DTI!![1.!J[i~,,,,,,, / / / 28 c,n o, ~AIIIINI NORTH �current availability of utilities as per the 1975 Sewer Agreement, the proximity of the area to existing low density residential areas, and the "close-in" location of the area to the Lansing urbanized area. Neighborhood Two This area is characterized by large tracts of vacant land and high quality, country-estate type homes along Delta River Drive and in the Saratoga Farms, Island Park Highlands, and White Oaks Subdivisions. These residential areas are primarily composed of large lots with detached single-family homes. For the most part this neighborhood is located within the Grand Ledge School District. The Delta Mills Elementary School, which is scheduled to be closed during the summer of 1982, is located in the western portion of the neighborhood. At this time a final decision has not been made as to what to do with this facility. The extreme easternmost portion of this neighborhood, specifically the Saratoga Farms Subdivision and a portion of the Island Park Highlands Subdivision is located within the Lansing School District. Public sanitary sewer service is presently lacking in this area. It appears that the first areas within this neighborhood which would be served would be the existing subdivisions in the eastern portion of the neighborhood as well as the Delta Mills Area. There have been documented cases of septic tank failures in these areas in the past. It appears that the central and western portions of this neighborhood will not be served by sanitary sewer service until some time in the distant future. The lack of public water service in the area presents problems regarding fire service. The remoteness of the interior of this neighborhood also results in difficulties in providing fire and emergency vehicle access. The existence of a significant amount of land within the one-hundred year flood plain in the southern portion of this neighborhood could provide possible recreational opportunities. The Hawk Meadow Sanctuary, an 81 acre Township park, is located on the north side of Delta River Drive in the center of the neighborhood. This facility is planned to be left in a natural state and utilized as a nature area. This neighborhood is bordered by Watertown Township to the north. The Clinton County Comprehensive Plan illustrates a mixture of agricultural and parks/open space uses along the northern border of neighborhood Two. Further north in Watertown Township, between Grand River Avenue and the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad tracks, a significant amount of land is classified for industrial development. A low density residential land use pattern is recommended for the Delta Mills area due to the planned provision of sanitary sewer service within the next ten years, the existence of a significant number of single family homes on platted lots, and the fact that support services such as a church and several businesses are located in the area. A very low density residential land use classification is recommended for the renainder of the neighborhood due to the lack of public utility service to this area for the foreseeable future, the existence of a very low 126 �density residential land use pattern, and the fact that the area is lacking arterial road access. Neighborhood Three The area which is designated as neighborhood three is almost completely developed with the exception of two vacant parcels, one of which is on the westernmost portion of the neighborhood and the other being on the southernmost portion. A low density residential development land use pattern has been firmly established in this area. Some of Delta Township's highest quality single family subdivisions are found in this neighborhood. Neighborhood Three is bordered by Grand Woods Park to the north. This 139 acre facility borders the Grand River and is owned and maintained by the City of Lansing. Grand Woods Park offers hiking trails, playground equipment, softball fields, a canoe launch and a shelter building. Sharp Park, a 55 acre recreational complex owned and operated by Delta Township is located in the southwestern portion of this neighborhood and features an amphitheater, physical fitness trails, a fishing pond, tennis courts and softball fields. A proposed fire station site, consisting of approximately two acres, is located immediately south of the St. David's Church property along Elmwood Road. This facility should provide much improved fire fighting service to the eastern portion of the Township. One of the major concerns in this neighborhood is the through traffic which traverses residential areas in this neighborhood enroute to the Delta Township central business district. The proposed east-west collector road is intended to address this transportation related problem. Another transportation related concern in this neighborhood is the Elmwood Road/Willow Highway intersection. This intersection is presently hampered by poor sight distances and a lack of adequate traffic control devices. Any development in the vicinity of this intersection should be carefully reviewed to insure that safe traffic circulation patterns result. The entire neighborhood is located within the Waverly School District with the school district boundary line serving as the western border of this neighborhood. The Elmwood Elementary School serves this neighborhood. A low density residential classification is recommended for this neighborhood since a low density single-family residential pattern has been established and supportive services and facilities such as recreational areas and retail businesses are located in close proximity. The existing street system in the area is also adequate to support low density residential development. 12 7 �Neighborhood Four The residential developflent that exists in this neighborhood is of a low density single family chR~acter. A significant amount of vacant land exists in the northeast and central portions of the neighborhood. Approximately 100 acres of vacant land between Willow Highway and the Grand River in this neighborhood is presently in agricultural production. The Great Lakes Bible College Campus is located in the center of this neighborhood. The proposed east-west collector street will traverse the center of this neighborhood. Provisions should be made to insulate this roadway as much as possible from the Melody Acres Subdivision to the south and from anticipated residential development to the north. This entire neighborhood is located within the Grand Ledge School District with the Waverly/Grand Ledge School District boundary serving as this neighborhood's eastern boundary. The majority of this neighborhood lies within the Watson and Watson Drainage District. Some portions of this district, particularly the Garfield Avenue Branch, have experienced persistent flooding problems in the past. The Watson and Watson Drain generally lies within the Creyts Road right-of-way and empties into the Grand River. Sanitary sewer and water service is generally available throughout this neighborhood. A sanitary sewer pumping station is located on the north side of Old River Trail within the Delta Mills Subdivision. Water Well Number Six is located southeast of the intersection of Creyts Road and Willow Highway. A water well is presently planned on the north side of Willow Highway, west of Rockdale Avenue. A low density residential development classification is recommended for this neighborhood in order to preserve the character of existing residential areas and also due to the fact that the existing utility systems and roadway facilities in this area are adequate to serve this type of development. Neighborhood Five The majority of this neighborhood presently consists of vacant land with the exception of the Willow Woods, Robbins Acres and Armstrong Hills Subdivisions and dispersed single-family housing along Willow Highway, Canal Road, and Old River Trail. The existing land use pattern in the developed portions of this neighborhood is low density residential development. Delta Mills Park is located in the northeast portion of this neighborhood. This 32 acre facility was Delta Township's first park facility and offers a picnic shelter, softball fields, tennis courts, a basketball court, fishing and canoe launching. Sanitary sewer service is generally not available to the westernmost portion of the neighborhood at this time. The easter:i.most portion of the neighborhood is presently served by sanitary sewer service. Water service is generally available in this area. The extension of a water 128 �l i n e approximately one-quarter mile north of Willow Highway would provide service to both sides of Canal Road which is presently not served. A Townsh ip well site is located northeast of the intersection of Canal Road and Willow Highway. The Delta Towns hip Wastewater Treatment Plant is located on the north s ide o f Willow Highway within this neighborhood. This facility, loca ted on a 25 acre site, presently provides secondary treatment of sewage . Planned improvements to the plan include flow equalization, odor c ontrol and tertiary treatment. A low density residential classification is recommended for the neighborhood due to the established low density residential land use pattern and the general availability of utilities in the area. Neighborhood Six Neighborh ood six is characterized by vast amounts of vacant land and single-family residences along Creyts and Canal Roads. The only existing subdivisions in this neighborhood are the Earlington Estates Sub division in the extreme eastern portion of the neighborhood and the Riverdale Ac res Subdivision in the northwest corner of the neighborhood . Th e Willow Creek residenti a l condominiums are located on th e south side of Willow Hi ghway imme diat e l y west of Carrier Creek. The proposed east-west collector road will traverse the center of this neighborhood. Proposed development in the center of Section Ten should be r equired to execute the necessary documents to reserve the needed righ t-of-way for the proposed facility. Efforts should be made to provide for a non-motorized transportation corridor adjacent to the Carrier Creek which could commence at Willow Highway and continue southwardly. This nei ghborhood is primarily served by the 36 inch Carrier Creek Sanitary Sewer Interceptor which traverses the center of the neighborhood in a nor th-south direction. Thus, lands within Section Nine, located west of Canal Road, are presently without sanitary sewer service. Sewer lines within Creyts Road serve the easternmost portion of the neighborhood. Public water service is generally available throughout the neighborhood. 129 �The majority of this neighborhood is located within the Moon and Hamilton Drainage District and would be served by the Benjamin Drain and the Moon and Hamilton Drain (Carrier Creek). The Benjamin Drain is presently under sized and in poor physical condition and thus, should not be expected to accommodate urban-type developments until improvements to the drain are forthcoming. It is anticipated that Section Ten will experience a significant amount of development activity in the 1980's due to the existence of public utilities, the adjacent arterial roads, the amenities offered by the Carrier Creek, and the fact that large tracts of land which can be serviced by all of the aforementioned facilities are becoming increasingly scarce in the northeast portion of the Township. A low density residential land use pattern is recommended for the eastern half of Section Ten due to the existing single family residential land use pattern which has been established in the area. A medium density residential land use pattern is recommended for the western portion of this neighborhood. The following justifications support the medium density residential land use pattern: 1. The area is in close proximity to the recreational and aesthetic amenities provided by the Carrier Creek. 2. Convenient access to 1-96 and 1-496 is available via Highway Interchange. 3. Planned utility extensions will adequately serve the area. 4. A significant amount of vacant land exists in the area which indicates that land assemblage for medium density developments could be accomplished. 5. Supportive services, such as commercial land use and police and fire service, are a short distance away. the Sa.ginaw Neighborhood Seven This entire neighborhood, with the exception of the westernmost portion, is already developed with multiple family dwellings in the form of townhouses and two-story and mid-rise apartments. The Village Green and Elmwood Park Apartment complexes were constructed in the 1970's. The majority of the senior citizen housing units in Delta Township are located in this neighborhood. The proposed east-west collector will border the northern portion of this neighborhood. Provisions should be made to minimize possible negative impacts such as noise and diminished aesthetics which the proposed facility might impose on adjacent residential areas. Approximately twenty acres of Township owned land exists in the northeast corner of this neighborhood. The Delta Township Parks, Open Space and Recreation Plan recommends that a community center be located in this area in order to address an existing deficiency. This facility 130 �could serve many different needs in one area such as community meeting rooms, recreation program areas, senior citizens area, swimming facilities, and possibly a fire station. The higher density residential developments in this area are served by adjacent retail businesses, Sharp Park and the CATA bus system. A high density residential land use pattern is recommended for the remaining vacant areas in this neighborhood due to the established land use pattern and the general availability of supportive physical facilities and services. Neighborhood Eight There is very little vacant land left in neighborhood eight which is primarily composed of low density single-family residential areas. The majority of the homes in the Bretton Woods and Sunshine Gardens Subdivisions were built in the 1930 1 s, the Irvingdale Acres homes were primarily built in the 1940's, while the Knolls Subdivision was developed in the late 1950's. Although some of the residential lots in these areas are small by today's standards, the area has been well maintained and thus is a very stable and desirable residential area. All of neighborhood eight is located within the Bank-Briggs Inter-county Drainage District. A 1977 document entitled Preliminary Study and Report of the Bank-Briggs Intercounty Drain notes that, " ... the area has suffered extreme flooding in the last few years because of rapid urban expansion westerly from the City of Lansing. This urban expansion is a combination of residential and commercial development creating vast areas of impervious surfaces (buildings, drives, parking lots, pavements, etc.) and generating quantities of runoff far in excess of the capacities of the existing pipes. (pgs. 2 and 3) In nearly all cases it was found that the existing sewers are too small to serve the ultimate need. In many cases the sewers are old, have bad alignment, separated joints, root intrusion and are generally in poor condition." (pg. 14) The proposed east-west collector road should alleviate the existing problem of through traffic traversing such local roads as Maycroft Road, Bretton Road, Robins Road and Clark Road. The existence of a traffic signal at the Robins Road/Saginaw Highway intersection insures that a significant amount of traffic will traverse Robins Road due to difficulties experienced in making turning movements on Saginaw Highway. The St. Gerard's Church and elementary school exist on the northern portion of the neighborhood adjacent to Willow Highway. The former Bretton Woods Elementary School, a portion of which presently serves as the Waverly Branch Library, exists in the center of the neighborhood. This entire neighborhood is located within the Waverly School District. A low density residential classification is recommended for this neighborhood due to the established low density single-family residential land use pattern in the neighborhood. It is expected that "in-fill" housing will be constructed on the remaining vacant lots in this nei~hborhood. The following additional justifications are given for the low density residential land use pattern which is recommended adjacent to Waverly Road. 131 ~ �1. This area is a stable and desirable residential neighborhood due to the unusually large depth (approximately 600 feet) of the lots within Irvingdale Acres. 2. This area is located in close proximity to such residential supportive services and facilities as the CATA bus service, retail businesses and the greater Lansing Metropolitan area. 3. A low density residential land use pattern has been firmly established in this area; residences in this area are generally well maintained and only several vacant lots remain. Neighborhood Nine This neighborhood is composed almost entirely of single family residences. The majority of the residences in this neighborhood are located in three subdivisions being the Meadowlawn Subdivision, which was platted in 1925 and the Oak Park and Homedale Subdivision, both of which were platted in 1929. The majority of the homes in these areas were constructed in the late 1930's and early 1940's. Neighborhood nine is located entirely within the Waverly School District. The Colt Elementary School, located on the north side of Michigan Avenue approximately one-half mile west of Waverly Road, lies within the center of this neighborhood. All of this neighborhood, with the exception of the extreme westernmost portion, is located within the Bank-Briggs Intercounty Drainage District. As noted in the neighborhood eight narrative, this drainage district has experienced flooding in the past. Annual flooding has been documented at the point where Iris Avenue intersects with Michigan Avenue. The most pressing transportation-related problem being experienced in this neighborhood is the existence of a significant amount of through, shopping oriented traffic which is traversing north-south residential streets in this area. The proposed Elmwood Drive realignment/reconstruction between Michigan Avenue and Saginaw Highway is intended to provide a convenientaacess route to the Delta Township central business district, thus relieving traffic volumes on local residential streets. The fact that north/south residential streets in the neighborhood connect to Saginaw Highway, which is lined with strip commercial development in this vicinity, insures that there will probably always be some shopping oriented traffic utilizing these residential streets. A low density residential classification is recommended for neighborhood nine due to the fact that a low density single family land use pattern has already been firmly established in the area. Residential uses in the area could be adequately served by schools in the area, adjacent retail businesses and the existing street system. Neighborhood Ten Neighborhood Ten is primarily composed of multiple family apartment complexes although two-single family subdivisions, being Frank n' Dot Meadows and Stone Ridge Estates, are also located within this area. A significant amount of vacant land still exists in this neighborhood. 132 �A number of transportation-related improvements are neighborhood including the extension of Ivan Street South and the reconstruction of Creyts Road. These improve traffic circulation in the area and provide the Delta Township central business district. planned for this to Mall Drive improvements should better access to r - Public sanitary sewer and water service is generally available throughout the neighborhood with the exception of the property on the west side of Mall Drive South. The majority of this neighborhood is located in the Michigan Avenue Storm Drainage District although the northwestern portion of the neighborhood lies within the Watson and Watson Storm Drainage District. This neighborhood lies within the Grand Ledge and Waverly School Districts. The boundary line between these two school districts is in the vicinity of Mall Drive South. A high density residential land use classification is recommended for this neighborhood for the following reasons: 1. A high density residential land use pattern has already been firmly established in this neighborhood in that over 1,000 multiple family dwelling units are located therein. 2. Public utilities and transportation facilities are generally adequate in this area to support high density residential land uses. Although only limited mass transit service is presently available to this neighborhood, the provision of transit service to this area on a regular basis should be a high priority. ( 3. Supportive services, such as commercial facilities, are located in close proximity to neighborhood ten. 4. A significant amount of vacant land exists in the area which indicates that land assemblage for higher density residential development could be accomplished. Measures should be taken such as the installation of ~uffer strips, the provision of adequate setbacks, and careful planning of traffic circulation facilities to insure that the high density residential land uses in this area will not negatively impact adjacent low density areas such as the Frank "n Dot Meadows, Stone Ridge Estates, and the Dornet Village Subdivision. Neighborhood Eleven Very few vacant parcels remain in this neighborhood which is primarily developed with low density single family residences. Exceptions to this development pattern include commercial/office land uses adjacent to Michigan Avenue, Waverly Road and St. Joe Highway and the multiple family complex located southwest of the intersection of Dibble Street and Michigan Avenue. 133 �This neighborhood consists of two subdivisions, being Castle Hills Subdivision on the east which consist of approximately two hundred platted lots and the Huntington Acres Subdivision on the west side of the neighborhood which has approximately two hundred and thirty platted lots. The Castle Hills Subdivision was platted in 1929 with the majority of the homes being constructed in the area in the late 1930 1 s and 1940's. The majority of the lots in the Huntington Acres Subdivision are significantly larger than those to the east in the Castle Hills Subdivision. Public sanitary sewer and water service is generally available in the area with the exception that there is no water line along Waverly Road. The entire neighborhood lies within the Banks-Briggs Intercounty Drainage District. The Preliminary Study and Report of the Banks-Briggs Intercounty Drain, which was prepared in 1977, documented the need for storm drainage improvements in this area. A low density residential classification is recommended for neighborhood eleven due to the fact that a low density single family residential land use pattern has been established in the area. Residential land uses in this area can be adequately served by adjacent arterial streets, existing public sewer and water service and the retail businesses which are located in close proximity to the neighborhood. Neighborhood Twelve Neighborhood Twelve is expected to receive a significant amount of residential development in the 1980's due to the availability of vacant land and the general adequacy of utilities in this area. Three developments, being the Fairfield Subdivision, Park Meadows Subdivision and Townhouse complex and the Westwind Apartments, were constructed in the area in the 1978-1981 period. The neighborhood is served by the Waverly High School and Junie~ High complex which is located immediately to the west. Close attention should be given to any proposed developments on the east side of Snow Road to insure that such developments will not impose any signficant negative impacts such as excessive traffic, high noise levels, etc., upon the adjacent school complex. In spite of the number of schools which are located in close proximity to this neighborhood, sidewalks are practically nonexistent . in the area. At a minimum, sidewalks should be provided adjacent to St. Joe Highway and Snow Road in order to serve the Colt and Winans Elementary Schools, Waverly West Junior High and Waverly High School. 134 �Several major transportation improvements are proposed for this neighborhood. The first improvement involves the reconstruction of Snow Road between Michigan Avenue and St. Joe Highway. The second needed improvement is the hard surfacing of Stoll Road which is one of the last graveled roads which still exists in the urbanized portion of Delta Township. Public sewer and water service in this area is generally adequate to serve most forms of residential development. A Delta Township water storage tank is located on the western periphery of the neighborhood. Storm drainage in the area presents a problem in that property on either side of Stoll Road is not within a designated county storm drainage district. The Michigan Avenue Drain, and its branches which serve the neighborhood, no longer has adequate additional capacity to serve urban types of development in this area. Thus, absent improvements to these drains, some form of on-site storm water detention will be necessary. A low density residential land use pattern is recommended for this neighborhood for the following reasons: 1. A low density residential land use pattern is firmly established in the area. 2. Low density residential areas generally generate more school-age children than higher density residential areas. Given the close proximity of the Waverly School complex it is logical to encourage low density residential development in such a manner that children can walk to school. 3. Facilities and services which support residential areas are a short distance away. These facilities and services include retail businesses, playground areas and arterial roadways. Neighborhood Thirteen The predominant features in this neighborhood are the Waverly Schools complex on the east, the Homestead Acres Subdivision in the center, and approximately 150 acres of vacant land on the western portion of the neighborhood. There are approximately 125 acres of land in this area which is in agricultural production. Public water service is generally available throughout the neighborhood. A water well is located in the vicinity of the Mall Drive South and Michigan Avenue intersection. Public sanitary sewer service is available to the area except for the fact that there are no sanitary sewer lines adjacent to St. Joe Highway. All of this neighborhood is located within the Michigan Avenue storm drainage district except for the westernmost 80 acres which is located within the Tower Drainage District. A 48 inch storm drain is located within the Kenway Drive right-of-way and flows northward to the Grand River. On-site detention of storm water runoff will be required in this area to insure that the drains in the area are not overloaded. 135 �The most significant transportation improvement which is planned for this area will be the construction of Mall Drive South between Michigan Avenue and St. Joe Highway. Precautions should be taken in the planning and design of this roadway to insulate it as much as possible from the Homestead Acres Subdivision to the east. This neighborhood is served by the Waverly School District. The Waverly School complex, consisting of Winans Elementary School, Waverly West Junior Highand Waverly High School, is adjacent to the eastern border of this neighborhood. The installation of sidewalks adjacent to such major thoroughfares as St. Joe Highway should be encouraged in order to promote non-motorized travel in the area. Consideration should also be given to providing signalized crosswalks for pedestrians across the main roads in this area. A low density residential land use classification is recommended for this neighborhood for the following reasons: 1. A low density residential land use pattern has been firmly established in the area. 2. Public utilities in this area are adequate to serve low density residential development. Neighborhood Fourteen Neighborhood Fourteen consists primarily of low density single-family residences with the exception of several multiple family complexes on the eastern and western portions of the neighborhood. The only large vacant parcels of land which exists in this neighborhood are located adjacent to Snow Road. The entire neighborhood is located within the Waverly School District. Public sanitary sewer and water service is generally available throughout the neighborhood. A number of county drainage districts are found in this neighborhood. The majority of the area is located within the Banks-Briggs Intercounty Drainage District, the central portion is within the Maplewood Drainage District, and the western portion is in the Tower Drainage District. Since this neighborhood borders the 1-496 freeway on the south appropriate measures should be taken to mitigate possible negative impacts of the roadway on future residential development. These measures could include the installation of earthen mounds adjacent to the freeway rightof-way and the planting of landscape materials on top of these mounds. Although there are presently commercial and office land uses located adjacent to St. Joe Highway, a low density residential land use pattern is recommended. The existing office land uses, being the Verndale Development and the West St. Joe Professional complex, are high quality office plaza type developments. The process of converting residences along St. Joe Highway to commercial/office land uses or the construction of small free-standing office buildings should be discouraged. 136 �The low density residential land use pattern recommended for the majority of this neighborhood is due to the single-family residential character which has been firmly established in the area. This low density residential land use is intended to preserve and round out the basic land use pattern of existing development. Neighborhood Fifteen Neighborhood Fifteen is presently composed of single-family detached residences with the exception of the Carrier Creek Condominium complex. Several hundred acres of vacant land, most of which is in agricultural production, still exist in this neighborhood. A number of transportation related improvements are planned for this neighborhood including the construction of Michigan Avenue between Creyts Road and Canal Road, and the reconstruction of Creyts and Canal Roads between Saginaw Highway and St. Joe Highway. The lack of sidewalks in this area is a critical problem, particularly in light of the fact that the Delta Center School is located in close proximity to several residential subdivisions. Public water service is presently not available to the southern and western portions of this neighborhood. The existing Gettysburg Estates and Gettysburg Farms Subdivisions are served by private water wells. Sanitary sewer service is generally available throughout the neighborhood. The lack of water service in the area will forestall urban-type development in the near future due to the need to comply with minimum fire flow requirements. The majority of this neighborhood is located within the Michigan Avenue Storm Drainage District. The Moon and Hamilton Drain (Carrier Creek) traverses the center of this neighborhood in a north-south direction. The southeast portion of the neighborhood is located within the Tower Drainage District. On site detention of storm water runoff will be necessary in order to insure that the storm drains in the area are not overloaded. A significant portion of this neighborhood presently consists of vacant land. However, some of this land is not suitable for urban type development due to the location of the Carrier Creek, and the corresponding 100 year flood plain, and the existence of several large pockets of soils which present severe limitations for buildings and structures. Efforts should be made to preserve the natural amenities associated with the Carrier Creek. The preservation of open space areas adjacent to the Creek could accommodate non-motorized pathways and provide possible opportunities for active and passive recreation. A low density residential land use classification is recommended for this neighborhood for the following reasons: 1. A low density single-family residential land use pattern has been firmly established in the area. 137 ( - �2. The area is very desirable for low density residential land use due to the existence of the Delta Center Elementary School, the close proximity of retail businesses along Saginaw Highway and at the Creyts Road/St. Joe Highway intersection, and the fact that the Carrier Creek traverses the center of the neighborhood and provides various recreational opportunities. Neighborhood Sixteen The majority of the land in this neighborhood is presently vacant with the exception of the Sherwood Forest Apartments on the northern portion of the neighborhood and several single-family residences along Canal Road. The entire neighborhood is located within the Grand Ledge School District. Public water service is presently limited in this area in that the water line along Canal Road extends no further to the south than Creekside Drive. Sanitary sewer service is generally available to the majority of this area. The majority of the neighborhood is located within the Lazell Drainage District. The extreme southeast portion of the neighborhood is located within the Moon and Hamilton Drainage District. The Delta Center Elementary School is located immediately to the east of this neighborhood but unfortunately sidewalks do not exist along Canal Road. The fact that the area abuts 1-96 to the west could necessitate some type of screening in order to buffer prospective residential uses from the freeway's possible negative impacts. The proposed extension of Michigan Avenue to Canal Road should provide improved access to this area. It is anticipated that increasing traffic volumes in the vicinity of the Canal Road/St. Joe Highway intersection will necessitate improvements such as traffic signalization and additional lanes in this area. The following justifications are given for the medium density residential land use pattern which is recommended for this area: 1. The area will be provided transportation facilities and services in the future, such as improvements to Canal Road, the extension of Michigan Avenue and the provision of mass transit service which can adequately support this type of development. 2. A sufficient number of large parcels exist in this area to facilitate land assemblage for multiple family developments. 3. Medium density residential land uses are already found in this neighborhood. 4. The area is located in close proximity to thB 1-96/M-43 Interchange. Neighborhood Seventeen Neighborhood seventeen consists primarily of vacant land with the exception of the Gettysburi Farms Subdivisions and several single-family residences located along St. Joe Highway and Canal Road. Two institutional 138 �uses, being the Delta Center Cemetery and the Trinity United Methodist Church, border the northern boundary of this neighborhood. Public water service is presently not available to this neighborhood. The Gettysburg Farms Subdivisions are served by private water wells. Further urban-type development in this neighborhood should be prohibited absent public water service which is necessary to comply with minimum fire flow requirements. Sanitary sewer service is generally available to this area via sewer lines within the Canal Road and St. Joe Highway rights-of-way as well as the Carrier Creek Interceptor. The majority of this neighborhood is located within the Michigan Avenue Storm Drainage District. The Moon and Hamilton Drain (Carrier Creek) traverses the center of this neighborhood in a north-south direction. The easternmost forty acres of neighborhood seventeen is located within the Tower Drainage District. The Carrier Creek's 100-year flood plain covers approximately fifty acres in the center of this neighborhood. A natural water body which is approximately ten acres in size lies immediately south of the Gettysburg Farms West Subdivision. As previously mentioned, the intersection of Canal Road and St. Joe Highway is presently handling a significant amount of traffic, especially at peak hours. What with projected increases in traffic volumes at this intersection it will be imperative that improvements be made at this intersection which could include the installation of a traffic signal and/or the installation of additional turning lanes. A low density residential land use pattern is recommended for this neighborhood for the following reasons: 1. A low density single family residential land use pattern has already been firmly established in the area. 2. The roadways in this area would probably not safely accommodate the amount of traffic generated by higher density residential developments. Neighborhood Eighteen The majority of the land in neighborhood eighteen is vacant with the exception of the Echo Valley Estates Subdivision and several single-family residences along Mt. Hope Highway. Although the Echo Valley Estates Subdivision was platted in 1965, it has yet to be completely developed due to the fact that many of the lots have not passed septic tank percolation tests. The entire neighborhood is located within the Grand Ledge School District. The eastern portion of Neighborhood Eighteen is served by the Carrier Creek sanitary sewer interceptor. The proposed Hamilton Sanitary Sewer Service District would serve the western portions of this neighborhood. No portion of this neighborhood has public water service. This neighborhood is not within an established county storm drainage district at this time. Measures are presently being taken to have the 139 �majority of this neighborhood included in the proposed Delta Industrial Drainage District. A twenty acre storm water detention pond is envisioned in the center of Section 22 for the purpose of storing storm water runoff generated within the industrial tract so that flooding does not occur downstream during peak water runoff periods. Transportation improvements planned for this area include the reconstruction of Mt. Hope Highway, between Canal Road and Creyts Road, to Class A, All Weather status. This project will provide improved access to the Delta Township Industrial Tract to the south. A low density residential land use pattern is recommended for Neighborhood Eighteen for the following reasons: 1. A low density residential single-family land use pattern has already been established in this area due to the presence of the Echo Valley Estates Subdivision. 2. The provision of a low density residential area adjacent to the industrial tract will insure a variety of housing types in the area. The fact that this neighborhood is bordered by I-496 to the north and the industrial tract to the south will most likely necessitate the installation of screening devices in order to mitigate the possible negative impacts of the aforementioned facilities on future residential developments. The recommendations for residential development for this area presupposes that adequate public utilities, roadways, and storm drainage facilities exist to serve any proposed development. Neighborhood Nineteen The majority of the land in neighborhood nineteen is vacant with the exception of the Homeland and Meadow View Subdivisions and the singlefamily detached residences along Mt. Hope Highway and Creyts Road. The Homeland Subdivision, which borders both sides of Marcy Road, was platted in 1929 and consists of 81 platted lots. The Meadow View Subdivision, which borders both sides of Guenther Road, was also platted in 1929 and consists of 56 platted lots. Public water service is available throughout the Meadow View Subdivision as well as the westernmost portion of the neighborhood. The interior of the neighborhood, including the Homeland Subdivision, lacks water service due to the fact that a water main is not located within the Mt. Hope Highway right-of-way. The entire area is presently lacking sanitary sewer service. The easternmost portion of the neighborhood is located within the Underhill extension drainage district while the westernmost portion of the neighborhood is located within the Holly Drainage District. The majority of neighborhood nineteen is located within the Waverly School District. The westernmost sixty acres of the neighborhood is located within the Grand Ledge School District. Delta Township owns approximately l½ acres of land on the north side 140 �of Mt. Hope Highway, west of the GM Parts Warehouse, within Section 24 which is being reserved for a future fire station. Although not located within Neighborhood Nineteen, the proposed fire station should provide improved fire service to the general area. Given the fact that this neighborhood is positioned between industrial areas to the east and south and an interstate freeway to the north, there will probably be a need to provide screening treatments, such as landscaped berms and buffer strips, to insure an orderly transition in land uses. A low density residential land use pattern is recommended for the eastern portion of Neighborhood Nineteen for the following reasons: 1. A low density single family residential land use pattern exists in the area due to the existence of the Homeland and Meadow view Subdivisions. 2. The proposed open space corridor along the south side of Mt. Hope Highway will provide for a proper transition between residential uses on the north side of Mt. Hope Highway and industrial uses on the south side of Mt. Hope Highway. 3. The provision of a low density residen tial area adjacent to the industrial tract will insure a variety of housing types in the area. A medium density residential land use pattern is recommended for the Western portion of Neighborhood Nineteen for the following reasons: 1. This area is located adjacent to the Creyts Road/I-496 Interchange which affords easy access to the Greater Lansing Area. 2. The land ownership pattern in this area is such that land could be assembled for multiple family developments. 3. Medium density residential development in this area should provide ample housing opportunities for employees in the adjacent industrial tract. Neighborhood Twenty Neighborhood Twenty consists of a mixture of land uses of which singlefamily residential uses are the most common. There are nine platted subdivisions in the neighborhood. Approximately a half dozen commercial businesses exist along Lansing Road. Public sewer and water service is presently not available to this neighborhood. There have been cases of septic tank failures documented in this area by the Eaton-Barry County Health Department. The fact that U.S. 27 and the Grand Trunk Western Railroad border Neighborhood Twenty on the north presents obstacles to providing fire service to the area. A volunteer fire station is located on Lansing Road but due to the fact that this facility is unmanned, it can provide only limited service. r I 141 �) The majority of this neighborhood is located within the Underhill Extension Drainage District. The easternmost portion of the neighborhood is within the Maplewood Drainage District; the central portion is within the Saier Drainage District and the Graham Drainage District serves the westernmost portion of the neighborhood. There are a number of vacant commercial style structures in this area which were occupied by viable businesses when the community of Millett was thriving several decades ago. Most of these structures are now in need of major rehabilitation, the sites generally have insufficient lot area and public utilities such as sewer and water service and storm drains are non-existent. The structures are often located in close proximity to road rights-of-way and single-family residences. It is recommended that commercial uses along Lansing Road be discontinued due to the aforementioned factors. A low density residential land use pattern is recommended for Neighborhood Twenty for the following reasons: 1. Very little vacant land remains in this area, thus it is expected that infill housing will occur on the few renli.ining vacant parcels. 2. A low density single-family residential land use pattern is firmly established in the area. 3. The area is afforded quick and easy access to the Greater Lansing Metropolitan Area from U.S. 27. 4. Recreational opportunities are available to residents in the area due to the close proximity of the Woldumar Nature Center, the Anderson Nature Park and the Grand River. Neighborhood Twenty One Neighborhood Twenty One is composed primarily of vacant land with the exception of a dozen homes along Locust Lane, Waverly Road and the Grand River. The neighborhood is located entirely within the Lansing School District. This area is served by the City of Lansing Sanitary Sewer System as per a 1975 Sewer Agreement which was executed between the City and Delta Township. This agreement limits the number of dwelling units which may be constructed in this area through the use of density regulations. Delta Township does not provide public water service to this area nor does an agreement exist with the City of Lansing to provide water service. At the present time those who wish to develop land in this area m_u st enter into a contract with the Lansing Board of Water and Light to provide water service to the area. The Long Range Street and Highway Plan for the Tri-County Region, which was prepared by the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission in 1979-1980, stated that Waverly Road in the vicinity of Neighborhood Twenty One is presently experiencing high traffic volumes. This document notes that by the year 2000, this segment of Waverly Road will experience traffic volumes which exceed the existing capacity of the roadway. These high 142 �volumes of traffic, and the resulting noise, aesthetics and vehicle emissions could necessitate screening treatments along Waverly Road in order to mitigate these possible negative impacts. A low density residential land use pattern is recommended for this neighborhood for the following reasons: 1. A low density residential land use pattern is firmly established in the area. 2. The stipulations contained within the Sanitary Sewer Service Agreement for this area limit the density to less than five dwelling units per acre. 3. Supportive services and facilities such as retail businesses exist in close proximity to this area. Neighborhood Twenty Two This neighborhood, which lies entirely within the Holt School District, is characterized by single family residences along Jolly Road and a significant amount of vacant land in the western portion of the area. The 100-year flood plain associated with the Grand River covers approximately ten acres in the northwestern corner of the neighborhood. Sanitary sewer and water service is not provided to this area at this time. If and when sewer service is available, such service would be provided in conjunction with the 1975 agreement between the City of Lansing and Delta Township to serve the area with city sewers. The majority of Neighborhood Twenty Two is served by the Keller Drainage District. At this time the western portion of the neighborhood is not located within a designated drainage district. Access to this neighborhood is limited to Jolly Road which is a gravel surfaced local street. Several adjacent land uses could impact development within Neighborhood Twenty Two in the future. These land uses include the Waverly Park apartment complex to the south and the Canterberry Commons residential development to the north, both of which are located in the City of Lansing, as well as the commercial development adjacent to Waverly Road. This neighborhood is bordered by Windsor Township on the south. The Windsor Township Comprehensive Development Plan depicts low density residential development for Section One which abuts Neighborhood Twenty Two. The plan depicts recreational and open space uses for that portion of Windsor Township west of Williams Road. A low density residential land use pattern is recommended for this neighborhood for the following reasons: 1. A low density single-family residential land use pattern has been established in the area. 2. The sanitary sewer service agreement for this area limits the residential density to less than five dwelling units per acre. 143 ( �3. The condition of roadways in the area, the remoteness of the area from fire station facilities, and the significant amount of land which is already divided into small parcels merits a low density residential classification for the area. Neighborhood Twenty Three Neighborhood Twenty Three is characterized by a significant amount of vacant land and a number of single family residences on relatively large lots . It is estimated that approximately 500 acres of land in this neighborhood is presently in agricultural production. A number of residences have been built in this area in the past decade on parcels ten acres in size or less. The Grand Ledge School District serves Neighborhood Twenty Three. This neighborhood presently lacks public sewer and water service. At this time it is estimated that public sewer service will not be available prior to 1990. The majority of land which is located north of North River Highway is within the Waldo and Waldo Number Two Drainage District. The area which is located south of North River Highway is not within an established county drainage district. Access is provided to this neighborhood via Eaton Highway which is under the jurisdiction of the Eaton County Road Commission in this area. North River Highway serves the interior of the neighborhood. The fact that there are no roadways which cross the Grand River west of I-96 isolates this area. The extension of Nixon Road to the north would provide a continuous north-south corridor in this area. However, this project would be very costly due to the necessity of constructing a bridge. The Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad traverses the northwest corner of this neighborhood. However, since there are no access points to the rail line its importance to the area is relatively insignificant. This neighborhood is bordered by Watertown Township to the north and Onieda Township to the west. The Clinton County Land Use Plan illustrates agricultural and open space uses for that area of Watertown Township which borders Neighborhood Twenty Three. The Eaton County Development Plan illustrates parks and open space uses for that portion of Onieda Township which borders this neighborhood. A very low density residential classification is recommended for Neighborhood Twenty Three for the following reasons: 1. A very low density residential land use pattern has been established in the area. 2. The area lacks certain services and physical facilities, such as public sewer and water service, close proximity to fire services, and a quality roadway system to support higher density residential developments. 3. A very low density residential land use pattern will be compatible with adjacent land uses in neighboring townships. 144 �Neighborhood Twenty Four Neighborhood Twenty Four is composed almost entirely of vacant land of which approximately 400 acres is presently in agricultural production. The neighborhood is composed of the majority of Sections Nine and Sixteen located west of 1-96. The entire neighborhood is located within the Grand Ledge School District. / Public sewer and water service is presently not available to this neighborhood. At this time it is estimated that public sewer service will not be available to the area prior to 1990. The majority of the neighborhood is served by the Lazell Drain which is an open ditch agricultural-type drain. Major storm drain improvements would be required in this area in order to accommodate urban development. A medium and high density residential land use pattern is recommended for Neighborhood Twenty Four for the following reasons: 1. The area is located such that good access to the Greater Lansing Metropolitan Area would be provided by West Saginaw Highway and the I-96 interchange. 2. The neighborhood is located in close proximity to Township services, such as police and fire protection as well as to commercial services along the West Saginaw Highway corridor. 3. Although not presently available, the area could be adequately served by the Township sewer and water systems in the future. 4. It is still possible to assemble land in the area to accomodate high density residential development due to the existence of large parcels. 5. The physical conditions of the land, such as soils and topography, appear tobecapable of supporting higher density residential development. Although a medium and high density residential land use pattern is recommended for this area such development should not take place absent adequate public utilities, roadways and schools. Neighborhood Twenty Five The majority of the land in Neighborhood Twenty Five is presently vacant. It is estimated that approximately 900 acres within the area are currently in agricultural production, There are a number of residential subdivisions in this area including Belaire Hills, Silver Ridge Estates, Lea Verde Estates, Dawn Haven and Greenfield Acres. The Greenfield Acres Subdivision was platted in the 19S0's and 1960's. These subdivisions were platted prior to the adoption of stringent land development regulations by Delta Township and the State of Michigan. All of the homes in these subdivisions are singlefamily detached and the majority of the lots are one-quarter to one-third of an acre in size. / 145 �This neighborhood presently lacks public sewer and water service. At this time it is estimated that public sewer service will not be available to this area prior to 1990. There have been documented septic tank failures in several of the aforementioned subdivisions. There are a number of lots in the Belaire Hills Subdivision which are presently vacant due to the fact that the lots will not pass septic tank percolation tests. The majority of this neighborhood is served by designated county drainage districts. The easternmost portion of the neighborhood is served by the Lee and Lazell Drainage Districts; the central portion by the Greenfield Acres Drainage District; and the westernmost portion by the Miller Drainage District. The Grand Ledge School District serves this entire neighborhood. The Hayes Middle School is located within the neighborhood in the southwest corner of Section Eight. Lootens Park, a 74 acre Township park, is located in the center of the neighborhood adjacent to the Hayes School site. The Delta Township Parks, Open Space and Recreation Plan notes that it is anticipated that recreation needs will intensify in the northwest portion of the Township in the future. Present plans indicate that the combined Hayes School-Lootens Park could best serve the recreational needs of the areas residents. The Neighborhood's northern boundary is the Grand River. The Miller Creek traverses the center of the neighborhood in a north-south direction. These natural features provide recreational and aesthetic amenities to residents of the area. Onieda Township borders the neighborhood to the west. The Eaton County Development plan illustrates low and medium density residential development for the western portion of Section Twelve of Onieda Township. A low density residential land use pattern is recommended for this neighborhood for the following reasons: 1. A low density single-family residential land use pattern has already been established in the area. 2. The area is provided with relatively good transportation access via section line roads and Willow and Saginaw Highways. 3. A community school and park facility exists to serve the neighborhood. Neighborhood Twenty Six Most of the land in Neighborhood Twenty Six is vacant with the exception of the Nixonburg Hills, Miller Farms, Pine Manor, Stoney Brook Farms, and Home Acres Subdivisions. It is estimated that approximately 400 acres of land within this area is presently in agricultural production. The Grand Ledge School District serves the entire neighborhood. This neighborhood presently lacks public sewer and water service. 146 At �this time it is estimated that public sewer and water will not be available to this area prior to 1990. There have been documented cases of septic tank failures in several of the subdivisions in this neighborhood. The entire neighborhood is served by designated county drainage districts. The easternmost portion of the neighborhood is served by the Lazell Drainage District. The central portion is served by the Hazel Drainage District, the Miller Drainage District, the Delta Section 16 and 17 Drainage District and the Myers and Henderson Drainage District. The western portion is served by the Miller Drainage District and the Delta Section 17 Drainage District. This neighborhood is bordered by Onieda Township to the west. The Eaton County Development Plan depicts parks and open space uses for most of Section 13 within Onieda Township, while a small portion of the area is designated for low density residential land uses. The Miller Creek traverses this neighborhood in a north-south direction. A significant amount of land within the northwest portion of Section 17 is located within the 100-year flood plain. This neighborhood is bordered by West Saginaw Highway on the north. There will inevitably be pressure exerted from land developers to establish strip commercial developments adjacent to Saginaw Highway. The commercial development section within the Plan denotes several justifications for discouraging strip commercial development along arterial roadways. A low density residential land use pattern is recommended for this neighborhood for the following reasons: 1. A low density single-family residential land use pattern has been established in the area. 2. Low density residential land uses in this neighborhood would be compatible with land uses in adjacent neighborhoods. 3. The fact that this neighborhood is not located in close proximity to supportive services and facilities such as retail businesses and mass transit service could make it difficult to support higher density development in the area. Neighborhood Twenty Seven The majority of land in this neighborhood is vacant with the exception of the Countryside Estates and Evergreen Heights Subdivisions. Both of these subdivisions were platted in several phases in the 1960's. It is estimated that approximately 800 acres of land in the neighborhood is presently in agricultural production. This neighborhood is located entirely within the Grand Ledge School District. This neighborhood presently lacks public water and sewer service. At this time it is estimated that public sewer service will not be available to this area prior to 1990. The majority of this neighborhood is served 147 �by the Myers and Henderson Drainage District while the central portion is served by the Decke Drainage District and the southwest area is served by the Munton Drainage District. This neighborhood is bordered by Onieda Township to the west. The Eaton County Development Plan illustrates parks and open space uses for the majority of land in Section 24 of 0nieda Township while a small area is classified as rural non-agricultural uses. The proposed construction of I-69 from its present terminus to Charlotte will impact this area in terms of land acquisition, traffic volumes, and transitions in land use. A freeway interchange is planned on Nixon Road south of Mt. Hope Highway. During the construction of I-69, it is planned to extend Broadbent Road from its existing terminus approximately three-quarters of a mile to the south to connect with Mt. Hope Highway. The construction of the Broadbent Road extension should provide improved access in this area via the provision of a new north-south corridor between Willow Highway and Davis Highway. Very often commercial land uses are advocated for those areas adjacent to a freeway interchange. It is recommended that commercial land uses not be established adjacent to the I-69/Nixon Road interchange for the following reasons: 1. It is assumed that the construction of the interchange will precede the availability of public utilities in the area. 2. At this time it does not appear that there is a large enough population within this area to support retail businesses in this area. 3. The establishment of commercial uses Jn this area could impose negative impacts such as excessive traffic volumes and incompatibilities in land use upon adjacent residential uses. A low density residential land use pattern is recommended for Neighborhood Twenty Seven for the following reasons: 1. A low density single family residential land use pattern has already been established in the area due to the existence of the Countryside Estates and Evergreen Heights Subdivisions. 2. There are several areas in this neighborhood where soil conditions would not be conducive to the construction of commercial or multiple family buildings. 3. This neighborhood is located several miles from existing and proposed fire service facilities. Therefore, land uses which require significant fire flows should be discouraged in this area. Neighborhood Twenty Eight The majority of land in this neighborhood is vacant with the exception of several single-family residences located along section line roads. It is estimated that approximately 2400 acres of land within this neighborhood are currently in agricultural production. All of the 148 �neighborhood is located within the Grand Ledge School District. This neighborhood presently lacks public sewer and water service. The extension of public water and sewer service is not planned for this area in the near future. The entire neighborhood is served by designated county drainage districts. The easternmost portion of the neighborhood is served by the Dann Drainage District, the Mccalpin Drainage District and the Moon and Hamilton Drainage District. The western portion of the neighborhood is served by the Munton Drainage district, the Thornapple Extension Drainage District, the Decke Drainage District and the Fox Drainage District. Most of the soils in this area are very conducive to agricultural uses. These soils also present severe limitations for urban type development due to poor septic tank percolation, poor compaction and load bearing capacity and the fact that they are susceptible to frost action. The Delta Township Parks, Open Space and Recreation Plan recommends that a community park site be obtained somewhere in this neighborhood in order to serve the long range recreation needs of residents in the southwest portion of Delta Township. Delta Township owns twenty acres of land on the north side of Millett Highway adjacent to I-96 which is planned to be used as a future cemetery site. This neighborhood is bordered by Onieda Township to the west and Windsor Township to the south. The Eaton County Development Plan depicts parks and open space uses within Sections 25 and 36 of Onieda Township. The Windsor Township Comprehensive Development Plan depicts agricultural land uses for those areas within Sections 4, 5 and 6 which abut Neighborhood Twenty Eight. An agricultural land use classification is recommended for those portions of Sections 29 and 30 which are located south of the proposed I-69 freeway and for all of Sections 31 and 32 for the following reasons: 1. The soils in this area are most conducive to agricultural activities. 2. An agricultural land use pattern has been firmly established in this area. 3. Public utility service is not planned for this area in the near future . A very low density residential classification is recommended for the remainder of Neighborhood Twenty Eight for the following reasons: 1. A very low density single-family residential land use pattern has been established in this area. 2. The relatively flat topography within t;he eastern portion of Neighborhood Twenty Eight presents problems in adequately handling storm water runoff generated by urban type development. 3. Public utility service is not planned for this area in the near future. 149 I �4. The section line, gravel surfaced roadways in this area could not safely accommodate the higher volumes of traffic which are associated with higher densities of residential developments. V Office Development Two large office development areas are described in the Future Land Use Plan. The first is located north and south of West Saginaw Highway between Canal Road and Carrier Creek. The second is located in the vicinity of the Creyts Road/I-496 Interchange. The West Saginaw Highway office development area contains approximately 125 acres while the Creyts Road office area contains approximately 210 acres. Both proposed office development areas are directly adjacent to interstate highway interchanges and are effectively linked with the entire Lansing metropolitan area as well as other portions of the State of Michigan. These two office development areas should provide sites which are particularly attractive to companies desiring state and regional headquarters office complexes. The two office development areas, as delineated, are large enough in size and of appropriate shape to permit the design of integrated office parks or campus-like developments with internal circulation and parking systems as well as attractive on-site landscaping. Because of the location of the office facilities in close proximity to residential housing areas and their ready accessibility to the interstate highway system interchanges, congestion during peak traffic hours in the vicinity of these developments should be minimized. Office development is also recommended adjacent to Waverly Road between Saginaw Highway and St. Joe Highway. The area bounded by Saginaw on the north, Waverly Road on the east, Michigan Avenue on the south, and Dibble Boulevard on the west is experiencing a gradual transition in land use. Although there are a number of residences in this area, a non-residential land use pattern is recommended for the future due to the following factors: 1. A mixed land use pattern presently exists in this area consisting of commercial/office uses and low density to high density residential uses. Encouraging office development in the area would establish a single land use pattern and prevent conflicts between competing uses. 2. Public office equate office drains 3. The lots in the Parkview Acres Subdivision which front on Waverly Road generally have 350 feet of depth. Thus, these lots are large enough to accommodate physical improvements necessitated by office land uses such as buffer strips, service drives, parking areas, storm drainage detention areas, etc. 4. The area is no longer desirable as a residential neighborhood due to the high traffic voluraes on Waverly Road and the resultant negative impacts such as noise, aesthetics and vehicle emissions. In spite of the fact that a significant number of vacant parcels sewer and water service in this area is adequate to serve land uses. Storm drains in this area are presently inadto serve office land uses and thus it is recommended that land uses not be authorized absent improvements to the or the utilization of on-site detention measures. 150 �exist adjacent to Waverly Road, a single family residence has not been constructed with frontage on Waverly Road for more than fifteen years. 5. Such factors as a close-in location to the greater Lansing metropolitan area, frontage and visibility on an arterial street, and the existence of an interstate freeway interchange less than one and a half miles away make this area attractive to office land uses. 6. A stable single-family residential neighborhood exists in the Clairborne Heights Subdivision immediately to the west of the aforementioned area. The establishment of office land uses along Waverly Road will serve as a transitional area between Waverly Road and the low density residential area to the west. The three block area which is bordered by Michigan Avenue on the north, St. Joe Highway to the south, Waverly Road to the east, and Hume Boulevard to the west consists of a mixture of commercial, office and singlefamily residential uses. Although there are a number of single-family residences located in this area, an office land use pattern is recommended for the following reasons: 1. This area is not a viable residential neighborhood for the following reasons: a. The lots in this area generally consist of approximately 6600 square feet which presents difficulties when attempting to locate a 1,000-1,200 square feet residence on these properties. b. The high traffic volumes on Waverly Road make it extremely difficult for residents to ingress and egress from properties in this area in addition to the roadway's negative impacts such as noise and poor aesthetics. c. The existing mixed land use pattern in the area has resulted in inevitable incompatibilities and conflicts between land uses. 2. Designating an office land use pattern in the area would permit developers to assemble enough parcels together to form sites which would be large enough to accommodate office development. Parcels at least a third to a half acre in size would be required due to front setback requirements on Waverly Road, and the need for transitional buffer strips and storm water deten t ion areas. 3. The area is attractive for office land uses due to the visibility and access provided by arterial roads such as Waverly Road, lf.ichigan Avenue and St. Joe Highway. This area is also located in close proximity to the 1-496/Waverly Road interchange which affords excellent access to the greater Lansing metropolitan area. The recommendation for office land uses in these two areas is made with the following qualifications: 151 �1. This recommendation is for a specific area along Waverly Road and does not apply to all areas within Delta Township which have Waverly Road frontage. 2. The development of office land uses in this area should not precede the provision of necessary physical improvements which are required to support such facilities. These facilities could include adequate storm drainage provisions and construction of a service drive parallel to Waverly Road. 3. It is intended that future office development in this area be new construction rather than converted single-family residences and also that land be assembled in such a manner that office parks or complexes will be established rather than strip development along Waverly Road. 4. Access to Hume Street and Dibble Boulevard by office land uses should be prohibited whenever possible since these roadways serve as local residential streets. 5. Landscaped buffer strips should be installed in order to properly screen the proposed office land uses from the existing residential neighborhoods to the west. The practice of using secondary spaces such as converted residences and basements for office uses should be discouraged due to the fact that the following circumstances could result: VI 1. Converted residences and individual lot-by-lot development of office buildings would represent a poor transition in land uses between residential and non-residential uses and could result in strip development. 2. Individual office developments often require physical facilities such as extensive parking lot lighting, trash dumpsters, signs, etc., which can negatively impact adjacent residences. 3. A proliferation of access points to arterial roadways would result which would significantly decrease the traffic carrying capacity of the roadway and could contribute to unsafe turning movements. Commercial Development The commercial land use pattern illustrated herein has five primary objectives: 1. To encourage the continued viability of the Delta Central Business District which consists of the retail businesses within the Lansing Mall, Domet Village, Granger Mall and Meijer and K-Mart complexes. 2. To improve the aesthetics within and the access to the strip commercial areas which lie east and west of the Delta Central Business District along Saginaw Highway. 3. To prevent the proliferation of strip commercial development. 152 �4. To provide planned neighborhood shopping centers convenient to residential areas. 5. To discourage the conversion of single-family residences to retail uses. The Delta Central Business District The Delta Central Business District is generally bounded by Mall Drive West to the north, Iris Street to the east, Ivan Street to the south, and Mall Drive South to the west. The Lansing Mall, Dornet Village, Meijer, K-Mart and Granger Mall complexes are located within the Delta Central Business District. It is assumed that in-fill development will occur on the remaining vacant commercial properties in this area during the next two decades. The Comprehensive Plan recommends that peripheral access around this shopping district be improved via the extension of Ivan Street and the construction of a roadway connecting the proposed east-west collector to Mall Drive West. The provision of additional landscaped areas throughout the Delta Central Business District would improve the visual appearance of the area. It is recommended that the owners of the individual shopping centers in this district instigate a parking area landscape program to provide landscaped islands containing trees, shrubbery and flower plantings which would break-up the existing expanses of asphalt. Consideration should be given to the street improvement recommendations which were contained in the Street Improvement Plan for the Delta Township Commercial Core Area which was prepared in 1978 by a traffic consulting firm. Special attention should be directed to specific problems in this area such as the high accident rate on Saginaw Highway, the inadequate storm drainage facilities, the poor maintenance of privately owned service drives and the problems negotiating left hand turns. The Delta Central Business District provides convenient commercial facilities to higher density residential areas which border it. The majority of the medium and high density land surrounding the Delta Central Business District is developed but it is anticipated that in-fill development will occur on the remaining vacant lands. Commercial Areas to the East and West of the Delta Central Business District The strip commercial development located to the east of the Delta Central Business District stretches along Saginaw Highway from Waverly Road on the east to Mall Drive East on the west. The majority of the businesses in this area are of a convenience nature and are located on individual lots with generally two access points per lot to Saginaw Highway. Most of the businesses in this area were constructed between 1955 and 1975. Strip commercial development exists from the Delta Central Business District west to Creyts Road. The commercial development pattern in this area is still emerging due to a number of residential dwellings which 153 �are located along the north side of Saginaw Highway and the existence of a significant amount of vacant land along the south side of Saginaw Highway. A wide variety of retail land uses presently exist in this area. Although strip commercial development is not a desirable form of land development, it is recognized as the dominant land use in the afore-mentioned areas. It is recommended that existing, as well as future, development in these areas attempt to implement the following measures, thereby upgrading the general condition of these retail areas: 1. Further attempts should be made to control the size and quantity of advertising signs. The existing signs generally have a negative impact on aesthetics. 2. Access to the retail establishments should be improved. A solution could be the construction of a service drive parallel to Saginaw Highway which would eliminate some of the access points to this roadway. 3. Many of the existing businesses have made no provisions for screening such items as parking lots and refuse dumpsters from adjacent residential properties. Landscaped buffer strips should be installed along all proerty lines which abut residential land uses. Planned Neighborhood Shopping Centers A neighborhood convenience shopping center offers consumer convenience goods such as foods, drugs and sundries, as well as personal services such as laundry and dry cleaning, barbering and shoe repairing, for daily living needs of an immediate neighborhood. Generally, a food store is the principal tenant in a neighborhood convenience shopping center. The amount of gross leasable area in a neighborhood convenience shopping center may range from 20,000 to 100,000 square feet with an average gross leasable area of 50,000 square feet. The site area for a neighborhood convenience shopping center should range between two and five acres and the support population will range from 6,000 to 10,000 persons. Neighborhood convenience shopping facilities normally serve a grouping of adjacent residential neighborhoods and are usually located adjacent to an arterial or collector street for convenient accessibility. Certain neighborhood convenience shopping centers can serve specialized functions such as a center proposed within the industrial corridor to serve workers in the area. Similarly, neighborhood convenience shopping facilities, located within proposed office development areas in the Plan, could serve office workers during normal business hours and residents of surrounding neighborhoods at all times. Planned neighborhood shopping centers are proposed for a number of locations throughout the Township. The locations, which are illustrated on the Future Land Use Map, were selected on the basis of accessibility, proximity to other retail trade areas, and the projected popu- 154 �lation which would be served by such a facility. The sites illustrated on the Future Land Use Map should be considered as suggested general locations for the spacing of neighborhood convenience shopping centers, not as specific locational recommendations. It should be noted that several existing retail areas within the Township, such as the lands surrounding the Creyts Road/St. Joe Highway and Canal Road/Saginaw Highway intersections, serve as neighborhood shopping centers even though these areas were not specifically planned and developed as neighborhood shopping centers. There are also a number of retail stores located within the Saginaw Highway strip commercial development which serve day to day shopping needs. Planned neighborhood shopping centers should not be established in close proximity to existing retail facilities which, although not officially designated as planned neighborhood shopping centers, essentially serve the convenience shopping needs of residents and employees in the area. Recognizing the increasing cost of transportation, the provision of planned neighborhood shopping centers in close proximity to residential neighborhoods is a very logical land use procedure. Such facilities can be located in a manner which will encourage non-motorized access and decrease dependence on the automobile. When properly designed, neighborhood shopping facilities should pose only minimal impacts to adjacent residential areas while catering to the day to day shopping needs of the residents. However, such facilities should only be authorized when adequate accessibility exists, when similar competing facilities are not found within a radius of several miles, when compatibility with adjacent residential neighborhoods is demonstrated and when an adequate support population of residents and/or employees exists within a radius of one mile. It is recommended that proprietors of proposed planned neighborhood shopping centers demonstrate that a need exists for the proposed facility via the use of market analyses, population projections, etc. Limiting Strip Commercial Development Strip commercial development can be defined as "A ribbon of uses fronting both sides of an ar,terial roadway and extending inward for half a block." (Source of definition: The Language of Zoning, Michael J. Meshenberg, American Society of Planning Officials, Planning Advisory Service, Report No. 322, November 1976, pg. 33.) The most common retail stores found within strip commercial areas are fast-food restaurants, gas stations, motels, and an assortment of automobile sales and service operations. A report entitled Access Control Study prepared by the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission in 1980, describes the common characteristics of strip development. "Inherent characteristics of strip development include: "A business's reliance on single purpose automobile trips for patronage. "The need for on-site circulation an<l storage of automobiles. 155 �- "The desire for visibility and easy access to the motoring public. - "Each developed parcel functions as a free-standing traffic generator. "These characteristics of strip development create conditions which severely impair the traffic carrying capacity of an arterial street, such as: "Direct traffic conflicts between turning or maneuvering vehicles entering or leaving a driveway, and 'through' arterial traffic. - "Disparity in vehicle speeds resulting from vehicles slowing to turn, change lanes, merging and demerging. - "Advertising signs, buildings, utility poles and traffic control signs which eventually clutter a strip development create distractions and reduce effective sight distance. "Manuevering traffic, frequent stops or speed changes increase travel time, increase fuel consumption and degrade air quality. - "Traffic conflicts caused by disparity in relative vehicle speed, turning movements and land change maneuvers increase accidents and impair safety of arterial streets. "Thus, the end result is an arterial street which operates at much less than optimum capacity or efficiency because of the cumulative effects of traffic interference and 'marginal friction' resulting from the conflicting service functions of lane access and traffic movement." (Source: Access Control Study, Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, authored by Jeff Kern, June, 1980, pg. 4.) Strip commercial development is firmly established in Delta Township along Saginaw Highway between Waverly Road and Elmwood Road. It is recommended that the strip commercial development along both sides of Saginaw Highway be contained within its existing boundaries. It is also recommended that strip commercial development be discouraged from establishing along arterial roads such as Waverly Road, St. Joe Highway, Michigan Avenue and Creyts Road. Adoption of the following practices will assist in discouraging strip commercial development from establishing along arterial roadways: 1. Insure that a sufficient amount of commercially zoned land is available at locations which do not result in each lot having direct access to an arterial street. 2. Incorporate regulations in Township Ordinances which encourage the consolidation of commercial land uses in attractive park-like settings. 3. Encourage planned neighborhood convenience shopping centers to be 156 �located close to groupings of residential neighborhoods. 4. Direct more attention towards land use planning along arterial roadways. This could include the possible adoption of regulations limiting the number of access points to arterial roadways, increasing the minimum lot width requirements adjacent to arterial roads and possible prohibitions on left hand turns in selected areas. Converting Residences to Retail Uses The practice of converting single-family residences to retail uses should be discouraged. Residential dwellings are generally not positioned on a lot so as to provide proper commercial setbacks, afford adequate parking and a good on-site circulation pattern. Sufficient space often . does not exist to accommodate landscaped buffer strips which are necessary to properly screen retail uses from residential uses. Problems often result in attempting to retrofit residential buildings to comply with state of Michigan barrier free design laws as well as attempting to comply with the floor loading requirements of the Uniform Building Code. Finally, a common residential driveway is generally inadequate to safely accommodate retail land uses. VII Industrial Development The industrial development pattern in the Future Land Use Plan has been designed to optimize the Township's potential as a manufacturing and warehousing center. The proposed industrial corridor is generally bounded by Mt. Hope on the north, US-27 on the southeast, Davis Highway on the south and Interstate 96 on the west. A distinction is made in the plan between a light industry/warehousing development area and a heavy industry development area. There are three light industrial development areas designated in the Future Land Use Plan. The first is bordered by I-496 to the north, US27 and Waverly Road to the east, Mt. Hope Highway to the south and the Homeland Subdivision to the west. This area is almost entirely devoted to the General Motors Parts Warehouse facility. The second is located between the Grand Trunk Western Railroad tracks and US-27. The third is located south of Mt. Hope Highway, west of Canal Road, east of 1-96 and north of the Delta Industrial Park. Light industrial areas have been designated for several different locations in order to; 1) provide sufficient room for plant expansions, 2) offer rail service to light industrial uses, and 3) insure that an adequate amount of land will exist so that there will not be future shortages and resulting high prices. A heavy industrial classification is recommended for the remainder of the industrial tract. Although the land area designated for industrial development exceeds the projected figure of 200 acres of required industrial land, it is felt that the Township should provide for industrial expansion which could occur beyond the year 2000. Past experience with the Oldsmobile and Meijer developments has demonstrated that the loca- 157 �tion of a few large industries within an area could significantly increase the amount of industrial development in that area and thereby increase the amount of land required. It is recommended that the Township encourage the establishment of planned industrial parks within industrial areas. "With the exception of very large plants and those that require free-standing sites because of their need to be close to raw material sources or because of their incompatibility with other plants, industrial parks provide the most advantageous locations because they are designed to meet the requirements of modern industries. Operating efficiencies can be gained and conflicts with neighbors can be avoided when an area is especially planned to accommodate industrial development. Interdependent plants can take advantage of opportunities to cluster in close proximity. If an industrial park in an urban area is sufficiently large and intensively developed, it will be able to obtain transit service which can result in significant cost savings both directly for employees and indirectly for employers." (Source: The Practice of Local Government Planning, International City Management Association, 1979, page 265.) In addition, industrial parks generally result in fewer curb cuts and identification signs on arterial roads than do individual lot by lot developments. Since the businesses in industrial parks are concentrated, it is often easier to cooperatively provide for such needs as storm water detention and rail service. VIII Parks, Open Space and Recreation Facilities Development In 1978 the Delta Township Parks and Recreation Commission prepared a Parks, Open Space and Recreation Plan for the Township. The plan contains an inventory of existing park facilities, notes deficiencies in the parks system based on accepted recreation standards, contains a goals statement, and concludes with a parks and recreation master plan. The Parks and Open Space Plan and the Comprehensive Plan are well coordinated in that they utilize the same population projections and neighborhood units. Rather than attempt to duplicate the contents and recommendations contained within the Parks and Open Space Plan, the Land Use Plan depicts the future parks and open space sites which are illustrated on the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Figure LU-III depicts private and public park facilities in the Township as well as designating four green belts. The four major green depicted serve two purposes. First, the green belts reflect one hundred year flood plain areas and attempt to preserve these areas in their natural state as much as possible. Secondly, these green belts are intended to be used to screen intensive industrial uses from less intensive residential uses The Carrier Creek Green Belt The Carrier Creek Green Belt begins at the Grand River and continues three miles to the south to Mt. Hope Highway. This area has the potential to 158 �"--.., --- /~/' ') \_( \.l j. ~ TOWNSHIP DELTA PARKS AND PUBLIC GREEN BEL TS PARKS ANDERSON 2 DELTA MILLS 3 ERICKSON 4 GRAND WOODS (Cltyof Lansing) 5 HAWK MEADOWS Q"I .... l/') Q) bO cu p., 6 LELAND 7 LOOTENS 8 SHARP H H H C:=J / /✓ :::// £,, ,,,,,,. .,,,."' ---- / I / .,,..,,, I p H Q) H ;j PRIVATE RECREATIONAL AREAS 9 INGHAM COUNTY CONSERVATION LEAGUE 10 WOLDUMAR NATURE CENTER H>>d GREEN BELTS / ,, / / A CARRIER CREEK 8 MT. HOPE HIGHWAY C NORTH GRAND RIVER D SOUTH GRAND RIVER NORTH FIGURE LU I I I bO •r-f µ., �offer a myriad of recreational opportunities, ranging from a casual picnic lunch for adjacent residents or office workers to an all-day hiki.ng or bicycling outing. It is anticipated that the majority of the open space, which will be preserved adjacent to the Carrier Creek, will lie within the 100-year flood plain due to the fact that the Township Zoning Ordinance prohibits permanent structures within such areas. It is recommended that a minimum distance of 50 feet from either side of the Creek be preserved for the open space corridor. The 100 feet wide open space corridor should provide adequate space to accommodate bicycle paths and pedestrian walkways in the area. Fences and other structural facilities which obstruct access to the open space area should be discouraged. It should be noted that the Carrier Creek, between the Grand River and I-496 is established as the Moon and Hamilton County Drain and is under the jurisdiction of the Eaton County Drain Commissioner. Since the Carrier Creek serves as a county drain, its primary purpose is to provide a storm water runoff outlet for properties within the storm drainage district. There will be a need to periodically clean and maintain the drainage channel which could impact the natural vegetation in the area. It is hoped that land owners and developers adjacent to the Carrier Creek will voluntarily enter into open space agreements with the Township to assure the preservation of the area in its natural state. It would be cost prohibitive for the Township to attempt to purchase land adjacent to the Carrier Creek for the purpose of reserving the land as open space. North Grand River Green Belt The second major open space area runs north and south of the Grand River between Royston Road on the west and Webster Street on the east. This area has excellent potential for development of day use facilities and water oriented recreation. The Carrier Creek green belt and the north Grand River green belt are linked at a common point and could provide the opportunity for continuous hiking and bicycling. South Grand River Green Belt The third major green belt is located between Lansing Road and the south course of the Grand River and contains the Anderson Nature Park and Woldumar Nature Center. The short-range improvements which are planned for Anderson Nature Park include fencing the perimeter of the site, upgrading existing nature trails, improving Wardell Road and the installation of an off-road parking area. Long-range improvements include the construction of a building to accommodate the propos ed nature interpretation program. Continued efforts should be made to coordinate Anderson Nature Park's development and programming with the Woldumar Nature Center. Mt. Hope Highway Green Belt The fourth major green belt is located along the south side of Mt. Hope 160 �Highway between 1-96 and U.S. 27. The purpose of this green Belt is to provide an effective separation between the planned industrial uses on the south side of Mt. Hope Highway and the residential uses to the north. It is recommended that the green belt have a minimum width of 50 feet and that it be landscaped with trees and shrubbery. Due to the relatively narrow width of the green belt, it is assumed that the area will serve passive recreational pursuits rather than active recreational uses. Consideration should be given to the installation of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway in this area which could serve workers who live in close proximity to the industrial tract. Private Development of Open Space Areas It is anticipated that portions of each of the recommended green belts will be developed and maintained as private or commercial recreation facilities. Such facilities could include golf courses, sportsmen's clubs, nature study preserves and various kinds of commercial recreation facilities which will maintain the natural beauty of the green belt areas while not disrupting their continuity. IX Proposed Thoroughfare Improvements Fi gure LU-I V illustrates improvements proposed for Delta Township's thoroughfare network. The thoroughfare improvements illustrated in Figure LU-IV are designed to either correct deficiencies in the existing thoroughfare network or to serve the land development pattern contained in the Comprehensive Plan. Table LU-2 contains a description of each proposed thoroughfare improvement and a summary of the primary purposes the proposed improvement is intended to fulfill. Cost estimates have not been provided due to the volatile nature of road construction costs. Funding for many of the proposed projects is expected to be provided by federal monies, specifically Federal Aid to Urban Systems Funds, and non-federal sources such as the MDOT and Eaton County Road Commission. The road improvement projects do not appear in order of priority. 161 �C z :c <( z a:~ ~o cna: co. a. LLJ (.) LLJ LLJ en 3: 0 I- -::::>> ..J < I..J w C en ~~ ...::::, ·-LL • U,<( LLJ Cl) 03: C) Oc, 0. ::c: a:- 0. ::c: I- () w -, 0 er: Q. 0 w en 0 Q. ii 0 er: Q. I I I \ I \ I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I ' I II ' ' ' \ \ I \ / \ I \ I \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I -- I I I I I) I Figure LU-IV Page 162 I / �TABLE LU-2 PROPOSED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NAME LENGTH (MILES) PROPOSED IHPROVEMENTS LOCATION New construction/reconstruction, realignment, widen to four lanes, install turn lanes. PRINARY PURPOSE (S) Eliminate through traffic from a residential neighborhood, improve circulation •5 Saginaw Hwy to Hichigan Ave. Willow Highway 3.5 Waverly Rd. to Canal Rd. Interstate 69 2.0 Royston Rd. to 1-96 Construction of an expressway, interchange at Nixon Rd., overpass at Royston Rd. and Broadbent Rd. Provides connection to major midwestern metropolitan areas and the State Capitols of Michigan and Indiana Creyts Rd./ 1-496 interchange Widen bridf,e structure to four lanes, install two loop ramps. Improve traffic circulation and traffic carrying capacity, facilitate left turns Creyts Rd. to Canal Rd. Reconstruction, correct vertical alignment, additional lanes at selected points Improve traffic circulation and traffic carrying capacity Elmwood Dr. Creyts Rd./ 1-496 interchange St. Joe Hwy. 1.0 Resurfacing, drainage outlet, additional lanes at selected points 163 Improve condition of existing roadway surface �TABLE LU-2 PROPOSED ROAD IHPROVE}IBNTS (continued) PROJECT NAME East-West Collector St. (Willow St. extension) LENGTH (MILES) Davis Hwy. extension PRIMARY PURPOSE(S) Willow Hwy. to Elmwood Rd. New construction 1.0 Elmwood Rd. to Creyts Rd. New construction 1.0 Creyts Rd. to Canal Rd. New construction Bridge structure Snow Rd. intersection Realignment of intersection, ROW acquisition, radius improvements Improve turning movements Willow Hwy. to Eaton Hwy. New construction, bridge structure Provide a needed north-south corridor with a river crossing in the western portion of the Township . Canal Rd. east to existing terminus New construction Provide improved access within Industrial Tract .5 Mt. Hope Hwy. Nixon Rd. extension PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS LOCATION 1.0 . 25 164 Provide alternative east-west access other than W. Saginaw Hwy., eliminate through traffic from residential neighborhoods �TABLE Lu-2 PROPOSED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS (continued) PROJECT NAME Creyts Rd. Royston Rd. extension LENGTH (MILES) LOCATION PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 1.0 U.S. 27 to Millett Hwy. Acceleration/deceleration lanes, intersection improvements, drainage outlet. 1.0 Millett Hwy to Mt. Hope Hwy. ROW acquisition, drainage outlet, acceleration/deceleration lanes, additional lanes at selected points. •5 Mt. Hope Hwy. to I-496 ROW acquisition, widen to four lanes, drainage outlet, shoulder improvements. .5 1-496 to St . Joe Hwy. ROW acquisition, widen to four lanes, extend length of right turn lane . •5 St. Joe Hwy. to Michigan Ave. ROW acquisition, additional lanes at selected points, improve vertical alignment. •5 Michigan Ave. to Saginaw Hwy. ROW acquisition, additional lanes at selected points, drainage outlet. St. Joe Hwy. to Willow Hwy. New construction 2.0 165 PRIMARY PURPOSE(S) Improve traffic circulation and traffic carrying capacity. Provide improved north-south traffic movements in the western portion of the Township �TABLE LU-2 PROPOSED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS (continued) PROJECT NAME Arterial Service Drives Snow Rd. Canal Rd. LENGTH (MILES) PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS LOCATION PRIMARY PURPOSE(S) 2.0 North side of West Saginaw Hwy. between Waverly and Creyts New construction 2.0 South side of West Saginaw Hwy. between Waverly and Creyts New constriction 1.0 West side of Waverly Rd. between Saginaw Hwy. and St. Joe Hwy. New construction Michigan Ave . to St. Joe Hwy. Reconstruction, realignment, service drive, intersection improvements. Improve traffic circulation and traffic carrying capacity. St. Joe Hwy. to Willow Hwy. Additional lanes at selected points, improve vertical alignment, intersection improvements. Improve sight distances, improve traffic carrying capacity. .5 2.0 166 Improve traffic circulation and traffic carrying capacity on arterial roads, provide for improved ingress and egress to retail properties, provide for safer traffic conditions. �TABLE LU-2 PROPOSED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS (continued) PROJECT NAME Mall Drive South Michigan Ave. Extension Mall Drive North Millett Hwy. LENGTH (MILES) PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS LOCATION PRIMARY PURPOSE(S) .s Michigan Ave . to St. Joe Hwy. New construction Improve traffic circulation and eliminate through traffic from a residential subdivision. 1.0 Creyts Rd. to Canal Rd. New Construction Bridge construction Improve traffic circulation, provide an alternative east-west route other than West Saginaw Hwy. Mall Drive west to Willow St. extended New construction Improve traffic circulation in the Delta Township central business district. Creyts Rd. to Canal Rd. ROW acquisition, increase roadway width, drainage outlet, Class A shoulders, acceleration/deceleration lanes, improve vertical alignment. Improve sight distances, provide adequate roadway width, improve ingress and egress to the roadway at selected points. .s 1.0 167 �TABLE LU-2 PROPOSED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS (continued) PROJECT NAME LENGTH (MILES) Mt. Hope Hwy. 1.0 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS LOCATION PRIMARY PURPOSE(S) Creyts Rd. to Canal Rd. ROW acquisition. all weather cap, Class A shoulders, drainage outlet, additional lanes at selected points, improve vertical alignment. Convert roadway to Class A all-weather status, improve sight distances, improve ingress and egress to the roadway at selected points. Ivan St. Extension •5 Extended to Mall Drive South New construction Provide improved access to the Delta Township central business district, eliminate through traffic from residential neighborhoods. Broadbent Rd. Extension .5 Extend to Mt. Hope Hwy. New construction Improve northsouth access in the Township. 168 �/ �COHMUNITY FACILITIES The Community Facilities Component of the Comprehensive Plan consists of five parts. In Part I Township offices and departments are analyzed and a brief description is given of major Township buildings. Part II contains a review of police protection services which are contractually provided to the Township by the Eaton County Sheriff's Department. The discussion examines the level of existing police service and describes future law enforcement needs. Part III consists of an evaluation of Township fire protection needs. Existing fire facilities are analyzed and future needs are reviewed. Part IV consists of a r e view of existing library service provided to Township residents. Finally, Part V contains an analysis of existing and future school facility needs of the Waverly and Grand Ledge School Districts. I Governmental Offices and Departments Table CF-1 contains a listing of ings. The listing only includes does not include such facilities structures or other buildings of the major Delta Township owned buildthe larger Township structures and as well houses, lift stations, park less than 1,000 square feet. The Delta Township Administration Building is the most prominent Township owned structure. The building contains the offices of the Township Clerk as well as the Building, Accounting, Engineering, Planning, Parks and Assessing Departments. The Administration Building is almost fully occupied at the present time. It is anticipated that additional space will be needed to house Township administrative offices within t h e next ten years. It is recommended that a Township space needs study be undertaken in the future. The purpose of the study would be to conduct an inventory of existing Township floor space, analyze manpower needs, and provide a projection of future space requirements for Township governmental functions. II Police Protection The Police Department is responsible for the safety and security of the Township. The Department regularly patrols Township thoroughfares as well as commercial, industrial and residential areas. Other responsibilities of the Police Department include the serving of warrants, subpoenas and other forms of legal process, execution of court orders and transport of offenders to the Eaton County Sheriff's Department . Table CF-2 illustrates the workload of the Delta Patrol Division for the period of 1975-1981. 169 �TABLE CF-1 INVENTORY OF MAJOR DELTA TOWNSHIP OWNED BUILDINGS Square Footage Primary Use Building Administration Building Houses the majority of Township departments Parks Department Building Date of Construction 10,600 1970 Parks maintenance equipment is stored and repaired here 1,900 1,400 1973 1977 Water Department Building Houses Water Department offices, well controls and monitoring equipment, and maintenance equipment 3,300 1970 Wastewater Treatment Building Contains the Wastewater Treatment Department offices, laboratory and monitoring equipment and an incinerator 8,000 1971 Fire Station One Houses Delta Township Fire Department 3,700 1956 Fire Station Two Houses fire fighting equipment 2,600 1979 Sheriff's Department Sub-Station Houses the Eaton County Sheriffs Department's Delta Patrol Division 2,900 1982 TABLE CF-2 DELTA PATROL DIVISION ACTIVITIES 1975-1981 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 6,269 7,199 6,982 7,554 8,590 7,927 7,631 Total Accidents 842 853 924 1,141 1,206 836 869 Total Arrests 862 719 495 322 575 876 856 2,458 2,821 1,981 3,164 2,748 3,594 4,409 Total Calls for Service Total Traffic Tickets 170 �Existing Service Delta Township has contracted with the Eaton County Sheriff's Department for police protection since 1970. There are six patrol cars and twentyone employees which are permanently assigned to the Delta sub-station. In 1982 the police force moved into a new 2900 sq. ft. building on Administrative Drive. At the present time there is one lieutenant, two sergeants, one secretary and seventeen patrol deputies employed at the Delta Township substation. Additionally, a detective is based in Charlotte. The police department presently does not man the sub-station on a twenty-four hour basis. All calls at all hours are dispatched through the Eaton County Sheriff's office in Charlotte. Future Needs Police service is generally proivded by dividing the geographic area of the community into patrol districts. The factors determining the size of districts include cirme rates, overall size, geographic conditions, traffic conditions, population densities and response times. The Delta Patrol Division has divided the Township into four service districts. There are no uniform "need for services" standards available for police service because these factors vary significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The national average for police service is presently 1.6 officers per 1,000 residents. The present ratio in Delta Township is approximately .8 officer per 1,000 residents. Although additional manpower was added to the Delta Township Patrol Division in 1982, continuing demands for police service preclude little specialization in order to cover investigation activities. More personel is needed for a wide variety of required specialties such as juvenile officer, traffic specialists, full time worthless document investigator and additional command/administration personnel. 171 �III Fire Protection Personnel Prior to 1970 the Fire Department was staffed by a fire chief and volunteers. At the present time the Fire Department staff consists of a fire chief, a dispatcher, nine full-time fire fighters and twentyfive volunteers. Three full-time fire fighters are available at all times at Station One. When a fire alarm is received the full time fire fighters take the fire engines to the scene and the volunteers, who are alerted by radio, respond to the scene. In 1979 the voters of Delta Township approved a millage issue of onehalf mill for the operation of a paramedic unit within the Township. A paramedic staff of three trained individuals now operates under the direction of the Township Fire Chief. Presently one trained paramedic is available at all times. A fully equipped ambulance was purchased in 1979 which is utilized primarily for paramedic activities. Service Table CF-3 illustrates Fire Department responses and Township fire losses for the period of 1975-1981. This table does not include such departmental activities as building inspections and mutual aid requests. TABLE CF-3 DELTA TOWNSHIP FIRE DEPARTMENT RESPONSES AND FIRE LOSSES 19 75-1981 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 88 37 76 28 57 86 36 63 61 21 50 57 21 50 56 15 51 61 39 54 Vehicle Fires 39 41 49 48 30 32 37 Ambulance Assists 48 14 30 35 49 101 91 60 106 16 17 68 1 7 4 155 66 15 6 35 8 2 14 107 1.5 15 6 Fire Alarms Single Family Dwellings Multiple Family Dwellings Businesses * Estimated Fire Losses (Thousand Dollars) Single Family Dwellings Multiple Family Dwellings Businesses Vehicles 97 * 3 6 *Totals for Multiple Family dwellings are included in the single family dwelling column. ** Total 1981 estimated loss all categories -- breakdown unavailable. 172 117** �Existing Facilities Station One is located northwest of the intersection of Canal Road and Saginaw Highway. The station consists of 3,700 square feet and occupies a 32,000 square foot site. The facility contains a kitchen, a living room, and bedroom which are utilized by the full-time firemen. The equipment which is housed at Station One includes two pumper trucks, a ladder truck, a mini-pumper truck, a water tank truck, a compressor/ generator truck, two ambulances, the fire chief's car and a jeep which which is utilized for grass fires. Fire Station One is well located with respect to the proposed Township development pattern. Access is available to both Canal Road and Saginaw Highway from Station One. The fact that the Station One site consists of less than three-quarters of an acre limits future building expansion. Station Two is located on the south side of Lansing Road immediately south of Millett Highway. The station consists of 2,600 square feet and occupies a 1.2 acre site. This facility is presently unmanned . The equipment which is housed at Station Two consists of two pumper trucks. The location of Fire Station Two provides protection to that portion of the Township lying between the Grand Trunk Western Railroad Tracks and the south course of the Grand River. Host of this area is within a one mile travel distance of Station Two . Apparatus stationed at this facility occasionally experiences difficulty entering U.S. 27. Traffic on the Grand Trunk Western Railroad Tracks impedes movement of fire apparatus to the Township's industrial tract at crucial moments. Fire Facility Location Criteria The Insurance Services Office has developed criteria for the location of fire stations. Locational criteria are based upon fire flow requirements for various types and densities of development. Fire flow requirements are the minimum number of gallons of water per minute (GPM) that would be required to extinguish fires. Fire flow requirements for most types of development range from a low of 500 GPM for single family residences separated from other buildings by a distance of 100 feet or more to a high of 12,000 GPM for very large, high hazard industrial facilities. Certain types of industrial or warehousing facilities such as oil refineries or lumber yards might have fire flow requirements in excess of 12,000 GPM. Precise computation of fire flow requirements for various types of development is a complex procedure which involves an evaluation of many details of building construction siting as well as on-site fire protection equipment. Generally, fire flow requirements increase in direct proportion to increases in the intensity of land use. In selecting fire station locations, consideration should be given to access problems created by topographical and man-made barriers. In 173 �Delta Township, expressways and railroads form important man-made barriers which will affect the effective deployment of fire fighting equipment. The Grand River forms a natural barrier which will also affect the deployment of fire fighting equipment. I-96, 1-496 and the planned 1-69 expressways make it necessary to select fire station locations in close proximity to the arterials which cross these expressways. Proposed Fire Station Locations Figure CF-I indicates the general location of the seven fire stations proposed to serve the development pattern contained in the Future Land Use Plan. Fire Stations Number One and Two are shown in the same area in which they are presently located. Plans for the development of Fire Station Number Three are already underway. The Township should acquire property at the other five locations as soon as practical to ensure the balanced distribution of facilities needed to provide a high level of fire protection. Construction of facilities should be paced to coincide with Township development. Furthermore, facilities should not be constructed absent assurances that the necessary personnel will exist to properly staff such facilities. The numbers which identify each of the following proposed facilities do not indicate a priority for the construction of the fire stations. Fire Station Number One It is recommended that Fire Station One continue to operate at its present location. Although the small size of the site limits expansion, the location of this facility should provide excellent protection for the Township Administration Building, the office areas located on Saginaw Highway east of Canal Road and the high density housing areas located to the north and south of Saginaw Highway. This facility should provide good secondary protection to the entire northern portion of the Township as well as to the southern portion of the Township adjacent to Canal Road. Fire Station Number 'l\.rn It is recommended that Fire Station Two continue to operate at its present location. The existing structure has been designed so that it will accommodate a full range of modern facilities. Sufficient room exists on this site to train firefighters and provide for building expansion. Fire Station Two should provide excellent protection for the area between Lansing Road and the Grand River. This facility will also provide a secondary means of fire protection for the eastern portion of Delta Township's industrial tract. Fire Station Number Three Delta Township presently owns a one and one-half acre site on the north side of Mt. Hope Highway, immediately west of the General Motors Parts Warehouse, which is envisioned as a future fire station site. Providing improved fire protection to the industrial tract should be a high Township priority. Fire Station Three will provide good protection to 174 ~ r;: �Q w en 0 -:cu, C. Cl. 0 a: C. Oen z ~ 0 I- cc - zz <~ 0 C!J< ZI- LL C, -en C LL WLL w cc ~ en en >< UJ enw a, ~ z ...:::, I- 0 I- ..J Cl) en z I- -a: ><- ~ • en z 0 ~ cc ~ en C • 11 UJ en 0 a. 0 a: a. 0 I I \ I \ I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I I II '' ' ' \ \ I \ / / \ I \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I: - ---· - -1-------+--------------I Figure CF-I Page 175 I �the northeastern portion of Delta Township's industrial tract, most of which would lie within a one mile travel distance. Good protection would also be provided to the multi-family residential and commercial development proposed for the area adjacent to the interchange of Creyts Road and 1-496. Fire Station Three would provide secondary protection to the low density residential areas between Michigan Avenue and I-496. Fire Station Number Four Delta Township presently owns seventeen acres of land on the east side of Elmwood Road directly south of the Plum Hollow Subdivision. Only a small portion of the site would be needed to accommodate Fire Station Four. A two acre alternative site is owned by the Township on the west side of Elmwood Road immediately south of the St. David's Church site and adjacent to Sharp Park. Either of these sites would provide excellent protection for the Delta central business district, most of which is located within a one mile travel distance. The sites would also provide good protection for the strip commercial development on Saginaw Highway east of the central business district. Station Four would provide secondary protection to most of the northeast portion of the Township. Fire Station Number Five It is proposed that Fire Station Five be located adjacent to Willow Highway in close proximity to Looten's Park. Such a location would allow Fire Station Five to provide good protection to the low density housing areas located between Willow Highway and the Grand River. Such a site would also provide good protection to the Hayes School complex located at Nixon Road and Willow Highway. Fire Station Five should provide good protection to most residential areas north of Saginaw Highway and west of I-96. Fire Station Number Six It is proposed that Fire Station Six be located near the intersection of Nixon Road and St. Joe Highway. Such a location would provide good protection to all single family residential areas located between Saginaw Highway and I-69. Fire Station Six woul<l also provide good protection to the low density areas located south of the proposed I-69. Fire Station Number Seven It is proposed that Fire Station Seven be located in the vicinity of the Canal Road/Millett Highway intersection. This location would place most of the southwestern portion of the Township's industrial tract within a one mile travel distance of Station Seven. Fire Protection Deficiencies While the indicated distribution of seven fire stations should provide the Township with excellent fire protection, there are three primary areas which are not ideally protected. The most important of these is Delta Mills and the low density residential area penetrated by Delta 176 �River Drive. It is believed that development densities in this area will not justify the provision of a fire station north of the Grand River. The Delta Mills area will receive fire protection from Fire Stations One and Four, both of which are approximately two miles in travel distance. Other portions of the Township not ideally protected by the proposed fire station distribution are the extreme northwest corner which is cut off from the rest of the Township by the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad tracks, and the extreme southeast portion of the Township isolated by the Grand River. Existing mutual aid agreements with neighboring fire departments will assist in providing adequate fire protection to these isolated areas. IV Library Facilities With an expanding population, growth in leisure time and an emphasis on continuing education, the importance of the public library is increasing. The concept of the library as a facility to serve children or scholars is no longer valid. Libraries are now widely recognized as a source of information for both laymen and professionals. Existing Library Facilities Prior to 1975, library services were provided to residents in the eastern portion of the Township via an Ingham County Branch Library in the Windemere Park School within Lansing Township. Residents residing in the western portion of the Township were served by the Grand Ledge Public Library. In January of 1975, the Waverly Branch of the Ingham County Library District was established in the former Bretton Woods School. This facility is located northwest of the intersection of Robins Road and Elizabeth Road. The Library presently houses approximately 25,000 volumes and has access to more than 100,000 volumes in the Ingham County System. During 1981 and 1982, extensive remodeling of the Waverly Branch Library was undertaken. An expenditure of $80,000 for renovations included demolition of the 4,400 square foot west wing of the former Bretton Woods Elementary School, enclosure of an open corridor connecting the northern and southern portions of the building, removal of a number of windows and replacement with solid walls, installation of eight new parking spaces on the site and resurfacing of the existing parking lot, and extensive interior painting and remodeling. At this time it is assumed that the remodeled Waverly Branch Library will adequately serve the Township's library needs through the 199O's. Delta Township presently contracts for library services from Ingham County. Penal fines, which primarily consist of traffic fines, are utilized to defray some of the costs of library services. Financial support for the Waverly Branch Library is provided primarily by Delta Township with Lansing Township also contributing a small portion. The use of the Waverly Branch Library has significantly increased during the past several years. Circulation of books has continually increased to the point where approximately 2,500 books per week are presently checked out. 177 �(( (\ 0 . . .,. . . ~~·· ~'!) DELTA ,,f!,•······ TOWNSHIP Figure CF·II EXISTING SCHOOL FACILITIES SCHOOL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES 0 EXISTING FACILITIES CX) r-....-1 Q) 1 Hayes Middle & Elementary School 2 Elmwood Elementary 3 Delta Center Elementary 4 Colt Elementary 5 Winans Elementary 6 Waverly High 7 Waverly West Junior High 8 Waverly School Admi nist rat i o n GRAtD LEDGE SCHOL DIST ICT / / / / ✓✓::✓ /,,,,.✓ ,,,,,,,, L // /✓-1·----// I ' , ' J // / r / / ., " / / ! I.! J r. . . . . . . . . . . : I i CITY OF LANSING NORTH ;;--- .. ___ --··-- . . RICT 1 ~ p.., H ~ µ. u ~ ~ ~ �Township residents are also presently served by the Grand Ledge Public Library and the Lansing Public Library. The Grand Ledge Library is located on Jefferson Street in Grand Ledge and the Lansing Library is located on South Capitol Avenue in Lansing. V School Facilities Delta Township is served by four school districts as illustrated in Figure CF-II. The Grand Ledge and Waverly School Districts serve the major portion of the Township while the Lansing and Holt School Districts serve relatively small areas. Grand Ledge School Facilities The Grand Ledge School District, which serves the western portion of Delta Township, encompasses a large, primarily rural, service area. The district covers approximately 125 square miles distributed over several townships and three counties. Providing service to students distributed over such a large area necessitates daily bus runs of approximately 3,500 miles. Because of the extensive bussing necessitated by the size and population density of the district, school attendance areas have not been rigidly delineated. Instead, bussing has been utilized as a flexible tool which allows balanced classroom sizes throughout the school district. TABLE CF-4 ENROLLMENT IN THE GRAND LEDGE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM 1971-1981 Year 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 Enrollment 5,646 5,766 5,929 5,995 5,978 5,884 Year Enrollment 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 5,838 5,711 5,652 5, L18 l 5,220 Table CF-4 illustrates student enrollment trends in the Grand Ledge School District for the 1971-1981 period. Student enrollments increased annually from 1971 until they peaked in 1974 after which time they have annually declined. Waverly School Facilities The Waverly School District, which covers the eastern portion of Delta Township, serves a primarily suburban service area. The entire district covers approximately 22 square miles, more than two-thirds of which is 179 �located in Lansing and Delta Townships and the remainder of which is distributed between Watertown and Windsor Townships. The school district bus runs cover approximately 840 miles a day. The school district has attempted to develop a pattern of neighborhood schools where practical and to rely on bussing where rural densities exist. Table CF-5 illustrates student enrollment trends in the Waverly School District for the 1971-1981 period. Student enrollments declined annually throughout this ten year period. TABLE CF-5 ENROLLMENT IN THE WAVERLY PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM 1971-1981 Year Enrollment Year Enrollment 1971 1972 19 73 1974 1975 1976 5,047 4,884 4,753 4,614 4,454 4,332 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 4,142 4,079 3,852 3,650 3,539 Waverly School District facilities located in Delta Township serve Delta Township students as well as students located in other portions of the District. Further, some Delta Township students are served by facilities located in Lansing Township. The Waverly High School serves all district high school students. The Waverly East Junior High School, located in Lansing Township, serves all 6th and 7th graders. The three Waverly elementary schools located in Delta Township serve primarily Delta Township residents. Delta Township residents are also served by elementary schools located in the Lansing To\mship portion of the school district. 180 �Projected Student Enrollments Since the Comprehensive Plan affects population densities, housing types, the staging of development and the installation of public improvements, it influences the need for schools. The quality of local school systems is often an important factor considered by prospective residents. Several factors including student enrollment trends and birthrate data were analyzed in order to project future student enrollment in the Waverly and Grand Ledge School Districts. The student enrollment projection methodology which was utilized is summarized below: 1. Cohort survival rates are the relationships between the number of children in each grade level in a certain year and the number of children in the next higher grade the following year. Calculations of the cohort survival rates between all grades within the two school districts was done for a ten year period beginning with the 1972 first grade class/1973 second grade class and ending i1ith the 1980 kindergarten class/1981 first grade class. In the 54 class changes which took place during this period, the Grand Ledge Schools averaged a .26 percent decrease in individual class sizes from year to year. During this same period the Waverly Schools average.d a 1.23 percent decrease in individual class sizes from year to year. Thus, if the aforementioned trends continue, class sizes will decrease as they progress through the school system. 2. Beginning with the year 1982, actual kindergarten class enrollment figures had to be estimated. At the suggestion of demographers from Uichigan State University, a methodology was established to determine what percentage of county births end up in the Waverly and Grand Ledge kindergarten classes five years later. A review of the ten year period between 1967 and 1976 revealed that 34.57 percent of the Eaton County births were enrolled as Grand Ledge kindergarten students while 23.57 percent of the births were enrolled as Waverly kindergarten students. It should also be noted that during this same period, 5.63 percent of the Ingham County births were enrolled as Waverly kindergarten students five years later. The annual county births for the 19 7 7-1980 period were then applied to the aforementioned percentages to arrive at projected kindergarten classes for the 1982-1985 period. The year to year class declines were then applied to the 1981 Waverly and Grand Ledge classes, being .26 percent and 1.23 percent respectively, to determine how many juniors will be in the 1983 senior class and what survival rates would be for the eleven other classes. Use of the above methodology revealed total student enrollments through the 1985-1986 school year. Based on utilization of the cohort survival method, it is projected that student enrollments for the Grand Ledge and Waverly Schools will continue to decline during the 1982-1985 period. Thus, projected enrollments can be adequately accommodated within the existing schools and there will be no need for additional physical facilities to be constructed during the 1982-1985 period. It appears the most significant problems will be responding to the enrollment declines via the closure of school facilities, the reduction of staffs, the passage of 181 �millage issues and the curtailments in financial assistance from the State of Michigan. A number of evolving trends and general factors became apparent during formulation of the student enrollment projections. These items are noted below: 1. The Eaton County birthrate declined annually from 1971 to 1975 but has increased annually from 1977 to 1980. Such fluctuations in the birthrate make it difficult to accurately ·predict future kindergarten class sizes. The Comprehensive Plan's enrollment projections for the 1982-1985 period utilize actual birthrate information rather than relying on estimations of future county births. 2. The methodology which has been utilized only provides enrollment projections through the year 1985 thus, it is recommended that periodic updates and revisions to the plan include school enrollment projections in order to determine the possible need for new school facilities. 3. Total enrollment in the Grand Ledge Schools increased every year from 1969 to 1974. Beginning in 1975 enrollment decreased every year from 1975 to 1981. During the 1975-1981 period the district experienced an annual decrease of 2.74 percent in enrollment. 4. Total enrollment in the Waverly Schools decreased every year from 1971 to 1981. The school district experienced an annual decline of 3.47 percent during the 1971 to 1981 period and more importantly, a 4.61 percent annual decline during the 1978 to 1981 period. 5. Both the Waverly and Grand Ledge School Districts currently have underutilized buildings within their systems. Thus, both districts could accommodate some enrollment increases without a corresponding need to construct new physical facilities. 6. Factors such as the availability of public utilities and roads, the cost of construction, major variations in the economy and mobility of population significantly impact residential development in the Township which in turn impacts future school enrollments. 7. When reviewing requests for large residential developments, Township decision makers should obtain information such as the size, number and type of dwellings in order to ascertain the impact of such developments on local school districts. Indications of the phasing of residential projects should also be required in order to determine the quantitative impacts of several developments over time. 182 ��IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN In order for the Comprehensive Plan to serve as an effective guide to the development of Delta Township, it must be implemented. The Delta Township Board of Trustees in conjunction with the Planning Commission and Township staff utilize a number of methods to effect implementation of the Plan. These methods include ordinances, programs, and administrative procedures which are described in the following paragraphs. I Zoning Ordinance Zoning represents a legal means for the Township to regulate private property to achieve orderly land-use relationships. The zoning process consists of an official zoning map and a zoning ordinance text. The present Delta Township Zoning Ordinance (No. 239) and official Zoning map were adopted in September of 1974 under authority of Michigan Act 184 of 1944, Act 285 of 1931 and Act 359 of 1947. Several zoning ordinances for Delta Township have previously been adopted by the Township Board of Trustees. The effective dates of these prior adopted zoning ordinances are July 18, 1946, February 11, 1952 and April 8, 1970. The official Zoning Map sets forth zones or districts within which certain uses are permitted and certain others are not. The Zoning Ordinance Text notes what uses are permitted in each zone and establishes the minimum development standards. Both the Zoning Ordinance text and official Map are based upon the 1973 Comprehensive Plan and should be revised to reflect any amendments to the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The Zoning Administrator is charged with administration of the Zoning Ordinance. II Subdivision Ordinance The Delta Township Subdivision Regulations, Ordinance No. 219, was adopted by the Delta Township Board of Trustees in August of 1973 under authority of Michigan Act 288 of 1967 being the Subdivision Control Act which is commonly referred to as the "Plat Act." The Subdivision Regulations set forth requirements and procedures which control the subdivision of vacant land for development purposes. The Regulations also establish minimum design standards for lo-t identification, street, utility, lighting, and landscaping installation and also procedures for the preparation and filing of plats. The Township Board of Trustees and the Planning Commission are involved in reviewing subdivision plats. The Engineering and Planning Departments are responsible for administering the Subdivision Regulations. III • Sign Ordinance The Delta Township Sign Ordinance was adopted in 1974 under Michigan Act 359 of 1947 and has been amended a number of times since then. The Sign Ordinance regulates the size, placement and character of signs and billboards within the Township. The Ordinance also establishes permit requirements and fee structures. The Township Building Official administers the Ordinance . 183 r �IV Capital Improvements Program The Capital Improvements Program (CIP) for Delta Township is prepared annually by the Planning Commission for a six-year period and is prepared pursuant to Michigan Act 285 of 1931. The implementation of the Comprehensive Plan is closely tied to the CIP. The Comprehensive Plan establishes the desired future land use pattern for the Township and anticipates the needs of people for public improvements while the CIP provides a program to meet those needs. The program describes public improvement needs of the Township, the estimated costs of these improvements and develops logical priorities for their provision. The CIP is supplemented by a capital improvements budget which covers the first year of the Capital Improvements Program and focuses upon the current operating budget in the expenditure of funds. Both the CIP anu the capital improvements budget represent sound planning and management techniques which improve the efficiency and economy of government. These techniques establish a budget cycle which addresses the future expenditure of funds for public services in advance of the need for these services. V Administrative Procedures Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan w_ill be aided by administrative procedures of the Planning and Building Departments to process all rezoning petitions, variance appeals, conditional use permit applications and building and sign permits. In addition, procedures have been adopted which coordinate and expedite departmental review of building site plans so these plans will comply with all Township Ordinance requirements. Both the Planning and Building Departments periodically review their respective ordinances and make recommendations to the Board for revisions as changing Township conditions warrant. VI Program Coordination Delta Township is involved with other local municipalities and several state agencies to coordinate programs relating to community development and public services. Coordination of these programs allows for exchange of information between agencies and fosters a regional approach to plan implementation. Delta Township is a member of several committees sponsored by the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission. One of these committees is the Capital Area Regional Transportation Study (CARTS) which addresses a variety of transportation related matters. Other committees are the Bicycle Transportation Planning Committee and the Task Force on Housing. VII Federal and State Grants-In-Aid The Comprehensive Plan cannot be successfully implemented unless appropriate funding is available. For this reason the Township Board, Planning Commission, and departmental supervisors should pursue federal and state matching grants or revenue sharing monies to supplement the funding of implementation procedures. 184 �VIII • Economic Development Corporation In 1976 the Delta Township Board of Trustees created the Delta Township Economic Development Corporation (EDC) under Michigan Act 338 of 1974. The EDC is responsible for promoting the development of commercial, industrial, and office facilities within the Township through tax exempt bond financing for construction of these facilities. The EDC process is coordinated with the land use development pattern recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. IX Planning Advisory Services The Township's Planning Department should provide day-to-day assistance to property owners and residents of the Township and to land developers in interpreting the policies of the Comprehensive Plan and in working out detailed solutions to specific land development problems. X Mapped Improvements Ordinances • The Mapped Improvements Act of 1943 enables the Township Planning Commission, in cooperation with the Board of Trustees, to adopt detailed descriptive maps identifying specific public improvements anticipated on a short-range, five to seven year period. Included in the Mapped Improvements Ordinance are streets, parks and other public use facilities which are anticipated. The Township Board, upon reconnnendation of the Planning Commission, may provide for a building moratorium for the areas specifically identified. Whenever issues arise which may have major impact on a particular area or group of persons, the Planning Commission should make every effort to fully inform and discuss the issue in open forum . XI Public Information Services The Township Planning Commission, assisted by its Planning Department, should maintain an up-to-date Township informational file. This information can be disseminated to realtors, developers, market firms, the news media and other interested parties. The Planning Department staff should also be available for public speaking engagements to explain and promote the planning activities of the Township. XII Revisions to the Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan should be reviewed on an annual basis and revised as necessary. It is suggested that the review of the_ plan be included as a component of the Planning Commission's annual report which is prepared in April of each year. At a minimum the review should include an examination of rezoning actions, the cumulative effect of such items as utility extensi ~ and new road construction and evolving trends in land development. An updating of population projections, existing land use information and data relating to the commercial and industrial base analysis should also be conducted • • • 185 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Wyckoff Planning and Zoning Collection Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Planning & Zoning Center (Lansing, Mich.) (Organization) Wyckoff, Mark A. Description An account of the resource Municipal master plans and zoning ordinances from across the state of Michigan, spanning from the 1960s to the early 2020s. The bulk of the collection was compiled by urban planner Mark Wyckoff over the course of his career as the founder and principal planner of the Planning and Zoning Center in Lansing, Michigan. Some additions have been made to the collection by municipalities since it was transferred to Grand Valley State University. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Michigan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1960/2023 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Subject The topic of the resource Michigan Comprehensive plan publications Master plan reports Zoning--Michigan Zoning--Maps Maps Land use--planning Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-240 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Delta-Twp_Comprehensive-Plan-Amendments_1983 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Delta Township Planning Commission, Eaton County, Michigan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1983-04 Title A name given to the resource 1983 Amendments Description An account of the resource The 1983 Amendments were prepared by the Delta Township Planning Commission as part of the Delta Township Comprehensive Plan in April 1983. Subject The topic of the resource Comprehensive Plan publications Delta Township (Mich.) Eaton County (Mich.) Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/98e34f553c5f7c10d02dac5acec16090.pdf d2d5713de5764c256a577d590607f6a4 PDF Text Text 1/ FROM THE LIBRARY OF ·Planning & zoning Center, Inc. , / r"i . I / / THE DELTA TOWNSHIP COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1984 REVISIONS prepared by: DELTA TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSJO~ 7710 WEST SAGINAW HIGHWAY LANSING , MICHIGAN 48917 �1984 Revisions Delta Township Comprehensive Plan Adopted December 10, 1984 Attached are the 1984 revisions to the Delta Township Comprehensive Plan which were adopted by the Delta Township Planning Commission on December 10, 1984 following a public hearing. The Plan, which was originally adopted on July 12, 1982, was also revised on April 11, 1983. The present plan replaced the Township's first Comprehensive Plan which was adopted in July of 1973. The following revisions: summary notes the most significant of the 1984 1. The existing land use map (Figure GD-III on page 23) was reviewed on a section by section basis and updated as needed. The corresponding existing land use chart (Table GD-1 on page 21) was also revised. 2. The population information contained in the chapter entitled Population Analysis and Projections was revised based on new data from the 1980 U.S. Census as well as population projections prepared by the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission in June of 1984. 3. The Commercial Base Analysis Chapter was completely rewritten based on new inputs pertaining to population, median incomes, per capita spending patterns and projected retail expenditures. 4. The maps illustrating the existing water and sanitary sewer systems (Figure WI on page 91 and Figure SSI on page 99) were revised to illustrate recent extensions. Modifications were also made to the maps depicting projected water and sanitary sewer service areas. 5. Minor revisions were made to the descriptions of the various neighborhoods in the Township which are contained in the Future Land Use Chapter. 6. A number of amendments were made to the Future Land Use Map, the most prominent being the expansion of the retail trade classification at the southwest corner of the Mall Drive South/M-43 intersection, the establishment of a high density residential classification at the northwest corner of the Mall Drive South/Michigan intersection and the expansion of the retail trade classification at the northwest corner of the Creyts/M-43 intersection further to the west. Any questions concerning the Delta Township Comprehensive Plan should be directed to the Delta Township Planning Department at 627-4037. �- This page revised Dec. of 1984 DELTA TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION July, 1982 DELTA TOWNSHIP BOARD OF TRUSTEES July, 1982 Ronald Ratajczak Chairman Joseph E. Drolett Super.visor Terry G. Bladen Vice Chairman Barbara Barrett Clerk June Johnston Secretary Robert Richards Treasurer Ronald Brabant Member Lyle Brown Trustee Barbara Israel Member Philip Chisholm Trustee Edward Jaye Member Daniel Stump Trustee Robert LaMoreaux Member Gerald Winans Trustee Janice' Vedder Member Jerome Wittkoski Member The Comprehensive Plan for the Charter Township of Delta has been prepared pursuant to Act 285 of 1938, the "Hunicipal Planning Commission Act," and became effective on July 12, 1982 by unanimous approval of the Charter Township of Delta Planning Commission. This plan was revised on April 11, 1983 and December 10, 1984 �- This page was revised Dec. of 1984 ., CONTENTS PAGE GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. I. II. III. IV. v. VI. VII. IX. VIII. 1 Community Goals • • . Residential Development. Commercial Development • Industrial Development . • . • . . Community Facilities and Services. Transportation Facilities Development . . Open Space and Recreation Facilities Development. Energy . . . . . The Environment. 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 GEOGRAPHIC DETERMINANTS . . I. II. III. IV. v. VI. VII. IX. VIII. 12 Location of Delta Township. Historical Growth of Delta Township • . Climate. . . • . • . • . . Geology and Topography . . • . . . • Soil Conditions in Delta Township . . Ground Water • • . . • . Surface Water. . . . . . . ... Existing Land Use Pattern. . . . ••• Delta Township Land Use Trends (1972-1980) 12 12 14 15 16 17 17 19 19 POPULATION ANALYSIS AND PROJECTIONS. I. II. 24 Population Growth in Delta Township . • Population Projections . . . . . COMMERCIAL BASE ANALYSIS . . I. II. III. 34 Characteristics of Existing Commercial Development Projection of Future Commercial Development . . Major Findings of the Commercial Base Analysis • . 34 36 51 INDUSTRIAL BASE ANALYSIS I. II. III. 52 Analysis of Delta Township's Existing Industrial Base. Projection of Future Industrial Development Potential Conclusions • . Office Types in Delta Township Office Development Trends . . . . Determination of Delta Township Office Space Market . . . 52 55 60 .... OFFICE SPACE ANALYSIS. I. II. III. . 24 32 . . . . . o • • ii • • • 61 61 61 64 �This page was revised April of 1983 Dec. of 1984 PAGE TRANSPORTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . • 66 Historical Development of the Street System............. Functional Classification of Existing Street System..... Truck Operation Classifications......................... Jurisdiction Over Delta Township Roads.................. Financing of Road Improvements.......................... State Trunk Lines . . . . . . . . . . • . . • • • . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . • . . County Primaries and Locals............................. Financing Prerogatives.................................. Thoroughfare Cross Sections............................. Right-of-Way Deficiencies...................... . . . . . . . . . Mass Transit Service in Delta Township.................. Railroad Facilities Serving Delta Township.............. Air Service to Del ta Township. . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . Non-Motorized Transportation. . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • . . . . . • • . . • . . 66 66 I. II. III. IV. v. VI. VII. VIII. IX. x. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. WATER SERVICE . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. II. III. 72 72 74 74 74 76 76 76 84 85 87 88 90 Historical Information. . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Description of Existing Water Service System ............ Future Service Area..................................... 90 90 96 SANITARY SEWER SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Historical Information.................................. Description of Existing Sanitary Sewer Collection and Treatment Facilities................................ Future Service Areas for the Wastewater Collection and Treatment System.................................... 98 I. II. III. 102 102 STORM DRAINAGE •.••••.••.......•....•...•.•.•.•.. : . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . 109 Storm Water Design Criteria............................. Inventory of Existing Storm Drainage Facilities ......... New Storm Drainage Practices............................ Recommended Storm Drainage Practices .................... 109 109 111 I. II. III. IV. SOLID WASTE FUTURE LAND I. II. III. IV. v. VI. VII. VIII. IX. x. 112 114 USE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Relationship of Planning to Zoning .................. Residential Development ................................. Residential Neighborhood Module Concept ...•............. Neighborhood Unit Delineation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Office Development...................................... Commercial Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Industrial Development .................................. Parks, Open Space and Recreation Facilities Development.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proposed Thoroughfare Improvements .................... • . Community Facilities.................................... iii 118 118 120 123 12 4 150 152 157 158 161 161 ~, �PAGE COMMUNITY FACILITIES . . . . • . . • . . . . • . . • . . . • . . • • . • . • . . • . • . . • • . • • • . . 169 Governmental Offices and Departments; .....•..•••.....• Police Protection •..••.••••.•..••.•.•••........•••.••• Fire Protection ••••••••••••.••••••..•••...•...•.•....• Library Facilities ••••..•.•.••••....•.•••...•.....••.• School Facilities •••......••••..••.••••.•.•....••.•••• 169 169 179 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN........................ 183 Zoning Ordinance ••.••.......•••......•....•..•.•.•••.• Subdivision Ordinance •..•..•..•.....••....•.•...•••••• Sign Ordinance ...•.••••.•••••••••...•.••..•..•••.•••.• Capital Improvement Program •..••••..••...•..••...••••• Adminis tra tive Procedures .•..••.•.••••..•...•••..••..• Program Coordination •.•••••.•.•••.•••.....•••.....•••• Federal and State Grants-In-Aide •..•.••..•..•.•••.•••. Economic Development Corporation ••...•....•..•.••••..• Planning Advisory Services ••..•.•......•.............• Mapped Improvements Ordinances ••...••........••..••.•. Public Information Services .....•••..•.......•..•••.•• Revisions to the Comprehensive Plan •••••••••••••••••.• 183 183 183 184 184 184 184 185 185 185 185 185 I. II. III. IV. v. I. II. III. IV. v. VI. VII. VIII. IX. x. XI. XII. iv 172 177 �TABLES Table GD-1 P-1 P-2 P-3 P-4 P-5 C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 C-5 C-6 C-7 I-1 I-2 I-3 I-4 I-5 0-1 0-2 0-3 0-4 r- T-1 T-2 T-3 T-4 T-5 T-6 W-1 W-2 W-3 SS-1 SS-2 SS-3 Title Page Existing Land Use, 1980-1984 Comparison •.•.••••......•..•••••......••• Comparative Population Trends .••.• ••••• .•• •.• •.••••• •..•• •• ••..•••.• . . Incremental Population Increases .•...••••••••......••.•••••.•.•.•••.•• Population Age Groups, Del ta Township ••..••••••••.••.•••.•.•...•.•.•.. Population Per Household, Delta Township, 1960-1980 •.•.•..•..•..•••••• Population Projections to the Year 2000 •....•..•.•••.•.••...•.....•.•. Five Mile Trade Area Population Projections •..••......•.•..•••.•..•••. Year 2000 Tri-County Projected Per Capita Retail Expenditure Patterns •..••........•..••......•..•......•... Year 2000 Projected Trade Area Retail Expenditures .... ....... ...•..... Neighborhood and Regional Shopping Centers within the Tri-County Area .•..•.•.•...••.••••...••.••.•..•••••....•••••• Proportion of Total Trade Area Retail Expenditures Accruing to the Delta Central Business District in the Year 2000 •...•.••...••.••.........••........••••...•.•••.• Retail Floor Space Required to Serve Year 2000 Retail Expenditure Patterns .•..•••..............••.......•.•.•.•.•...... 21 Comparison of 1984 and Year 2000 Required Shopping _ Facilities •.....••• Major Business Establishment Located in Delta Township's Indus trial Tract •............•...•.....•.•........•..• Tri-County Region Employment Changes •...••.....•....•..••.••••...••••. Projections of Manufacturing and Wholesale Employment in the Tri-County Area ........•.••......•..•...•..•.•...•..•.•.•. Projections of Manufacturing and Wholesale Employment in the Delta Industrial Tract ........... ..•....•• .••.•........... Projected Land Consumption for Manufacturing and Wholesale Activities in the Delta Industrial Tract ...•.•....••.•. Distribution of Office Buildings - 1977 Lansing Metropolitan Area ••...•.................••...•••.....•....•...... Office Construction Activity by Governmental Unit 1971 - 1977 ........••••.•.•...•......•....•..........••.•••• Acreage and Floor Space Devoted to Office Uses Del ta Township 1966 .;. 1980 ..••....•......................••.....• Projected Office Land Development and Projected Office Floor Space Requirements Delta Township 1981 - 2000 .•........•.. Functional Classification of Highways-Metropolitan Areas ...........•.. Delta Township Road Mileage by Functional Classification ...•• ..• ...... Planning Impacts on Roadways ...•...................................... Unique Del ta Township Features ...•.................................... EATRAN Ridership ••..•..........•...•........................•... . ...•• Passenger Activity Capital City Airport ...••....•............•.......• Existing Water Wells, Delta Township ...... ...•...••.. .....•.•... .. •... Delta Township Water Consumption •.•.•....•.........••............•..•. Recommended Fire Flows .•.•.....•.................•.......•...•........ Sanitary Sewer Assessment Districts .....•......•.••.•.....••........•. Sanitary Sewer Customers 1975 - 1983 ..•. .•....•......•...••......... •. Projected Sanitary Sewer Connections and Land Acreage Consumption 1985 - 2000 .•...•.•.......•.........•..•..... 49 V 26 26 30a 31 32 40 42 44 46 47 48 54a 57 58 58 59 62 63 63 64 69 70 71 72 84 87a 93 94 95 100 103 103 �TABLES (continued) Table SS-4 SW-1 SW-2 LU-1 LU-2 CF-1 CF-2 CF-3 CF-4 CF-5 Title Wastewater Flow Projections at the Delta Township WWTP 1985 - 2000 ...•...................•............•• Estimated Solid Waste Generation Eaton County, 19 80 ........•......•........•.......•.•••.....••. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Delta Township, 1980 - 2000 ............................•..•.... Future Land Use •.......••...••...•.•........•...........••.....•.••• Proposed Road Improvements ....•......................•...•.........• Inventory of Major Delta Township Buildings .......................•. Delta Patrol Division Activities 1975 - 1981. ......•...•..•.....•... Delta Township Fire Department Responses and Fire Losses 1975 - 1981 ..................................... , •. Enrollment in the Grand Ledge Public School System .........•......•• Enrollment in the Waverly Public School System •.......•...........•• vi Page 104 114 115 119 163 170 170 172 179 180 �FIGURES Figure Title GD-I GD-II GD-III P-I P-II P-III P-IV P-V C-I Location of Delta Township in the TriCounty Region •.•••...•.. . . • .. Soil Associations •••••.••••.•• • ••.••.•••••••••••••••.••.•• • • • • • •.• Existing Land Use Map ••.••••.....•.••••.••.••••••..••.•••.....•.•• Location of Comparative Geographic Areas •..•••. • .••.....••.•••.••• Comparative Population Trends ••.. • ••••. .• .....•...•••.••.. . .•...•. Population Distribution Five Township Area 1960 - 1980 • . .•..• • .••. Age-Sex Pyramids •..•..•... • ..•.•••• • • • .•.•.........•.• . .•••... . ••. Delta Township Population, 1930 - Year 2000 .......•......••..•... Five Mile Trade Area Delta Township Central Business District ........•........•...•.•• • . . . • .. • . • •. •• •.••. Delta Township Industrial Tract ..•.•• • .•...•.•.•..• • •...••..• • .... MDOT Functional Highways Classification ... •.. .•....•..••..••..••.• Truck Operation Classifications .•••.•.•... • .••••••••..•••.•.•.••.• Road Classifications for Financing Purposes .•...... . .••.•••.•••.•• Expressway Cross-Section •..•••..•..•.• • •..•••...•...•••••..•.•••.• Cross-Section of Arterial Road with Boulevard ....•....••...•••..•• Cross-Section of Two Way Arterial Street .•..•...••..•.•.....•...•. Cross-Section of Collector Street .........•.•.••.•.•••...•.•••••.. Cross-Section of Local Street ...........•.••....•.......•. • •••.••• Road Right-of-way Deficiencies ••.......•..•.....••.•.••..•••.••••. Existing Water Service Area ( 1984) ......••......•.••.•••••.•....•• Existing and Proposed Water Service Area (1984) .......•...•..••••. Existing Sanitary Sewer Service Area (1984) •.•.•.•.... • ••.••..••.• Existing and Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service Area (1984) •.••.••.•• Existing Storm Drains ( 1980) •..•. . •..••.••......•••.••••• . ••••..•• Generalized Future Land Use Plan •...•...••....... . See binder pouch Delineated Neighborhood Uni ts •.•......•.•......•.••..•.••.•••..••. Parks and Green Bel ts ••......•...•.........•.•.•....••...•...••.•. Proposed Street and Highway Projects •........•..•....•....•.••.••• Existing and Proposed Fire Stations •.....................•.•...••. Existing School Facilities ••.........•.•.....•......•....••.. • ..•. I-I T-I T-II T-III T-IV T-V T-VI T-VII T-VIII T-IX W-I w-II SS-I SS-II SD-I LU-I LU-II LU-III LU-IV CF-I CF-II vii Page 13 18 23 25 27 28 30 33a 37a 53 68 73 75 78 79 80 81 82 83 91 97 99 106 110 125 159 162 175 178 �~ ~ ~ DELTA TOWNSHIP Figure GD·II SOIL ASSOCIATIONS D Marlette· Capac: Nearly level lo genlly undulating, well drained lo aomewhat poorly drained, loamy 10111 on 1111 plain,. []) Houghton-Gilford-Adrian: Naarly leval, very poorly drained, mucky and loamy 10111 In glacial drainage ways. '-.::I f-'• OQ i:: ti (1) I D g Marlette-Capac -Owosso: Nearly level lo hilly, well drained lo somewhat poorly drained, loamy 10111 on moraines and 1111 plains. I H H 'd Pl D OQ (1) ..... (X) ,. ,. ,. ,. gently undulating, somewhat poorly drained, loamy 10111 and nearly level, poorly drained and very poorly drained , loamy 10111; on 1111 plains and low moraines. ,. ,,✓ ::>/ L_ ., / , / ,. ,. ,,- / / I I I / Capac - Parkhill: Nearly level to .,,' ./(\)' _ .. - 100 Year Flood Plain /~--) ;. iii �l This page revised Dec. of 1984 in the southwest portion of the Township is southwesterly toward the Thornapple River. Delta Township's watercourses, particularly the Grand River and the Carrier Creek present an excellent potential for the development of recreational facilities and high value residential areas. To realize this potential, the problems of flooding and water pollution must be addressed. Water pollution is primarily a regional problem, the resolution of which Delta Township can promote by taking a lead in implementing high standards of wastewater treatment. Flooding is also a regional problem which Delta Township can best help solve by prohibiting development -within the natural flood plains. Figure GD-II illustrates the general location of the one hundred year flood plain within Delta Township. VIII Existing Land Use Pattern Delta Township may be characterized as a community experiencing a major change in personality. The emerging land use pattern suggests the community is developing an independent economic base, major comparison shopping facilities, and a wide variety of housing types. No longer a sparsely developed, surburban bedroom community, the 1980 land use survey reveals that vacant land in Delta Township is being converted to urban uses at the rate of over one hundred acres per year. During the 19721980 period twenty one new subdivis-ions were platted, four apartment projects were constructed, and three condominium developments were constructed. Major commercial and office uses developed during the 19721980 period including the Waverly Plaza, additions to the Lansing Mall, Auto Owners Insurance Company headquarters and the Hilton Inn. Major new industrial-warehouse uses include Oldsmobile Plant Number Five, the Meijer Distribution Center, General Motors Parts Warehouse addition, Central Transport, Blue Arrow Trucking, Interstate and Associated Motor Freight Companies, Lansing Storage Company, Flint Pipe and Well Supply Company, Clark Foundation, the Detroit News, Shreve Steel and Coca-Cola. Figure GD-III presents the spatial distributio~ of the existing land use pattern. A comparision of Figure GD-III with its 1972 counterpart on page 23 of the 1973 Comprehensive Plan provides the reader with insight regarding the extent of land development in the Township in the 19721984 period. IX Delta Township Land Use Trends: 1972 - 1984 Delta Township's land use pattern can be characterized as being in a dramatic state of change. Since the 1972 land use survey was conducted as background for the 1973 Comprehensive Plan, approximately 1,000 acres of land has been converted from an agricultural or vacant classification to urban uses. Table GD-1 illustrates the change in the 1972-1984 period which has taken place as to the land use pattern. 19 ~ �BLANK PAGE 20 �( This page revised Dec. of 1984 7ABLE GD-1 EXISTING LAND USE 1980-1984 COMPARISON 1980 Acreage Percent of Total 1984 Acreage Percent of Total Single Family* Two Family Multiple Family 3152 29 162 14.01% .13% . 72% 3389 35 251 15. 06% .16% 1.11% Office Commercial Retail Commercial Services Warehousing Industrial Utilities/Transportation 65 211 12 7 347 66 2334 .29% .94% .56% 1.54% .29% 10.37% 97 280 164 487 157 2411 .43% 1.24% .73% 2.16% .70% 10. 71% Public/Semi-Public Lands Parks/Open Space 486 533 2 .16% 2.37% 465 557 2.07% 2.48% 8076 335 6582 35. 89% 1.49% 29.25% 7712 335 6165 34.27% 1.49% 27.39% Residential Agriculture Water Areas Vacant Lands 22,505 22,505** *Single family homes on large parcels were assumed to have two acres devoted to residential uses and the remainder devoted to agriculture or classified as vacant. **This figure does not include approximately 450 acres of City of Lansing land located in Delta Township. 21 �This page was revised Dec. of 1984 Nearly all of the new land development in Delta Township during this period occured east of I-96, and, excepting industrial and warehouse uses, north of I-496. This is explained due to the provision of sanitary sewer, public water, and urban storm drainage utilities in this area. Since the 1972 land use survey a most obvious trend has been the infill of the so-called southeast quadrant of the Township, being south of I-496 and east of I-96. This growth in the s·outheast quadrant has been based upon favorable location in relation to transportation facilities and anaggressive posture on the part of Township Officials in providing utilities to and encouraging development of the area, known as the "Delta Industrial Tract." Another very evident trend has been the substantial number of large lot single-family homes built in the non-urbanized portions or Delta Township. Occuring primarily west of I-96, most of these homes have been constructed on non-platted parcels of land. Over one-quarter of the Township's total land area lay vacant as of 1984. The majority of the vacant land within the Township is located west of I-96. Vacant land appears in a number of forms including floodplains and wetlands, forested areas, large acreage parcels occupied by a single dwelling, fallow farm land, public lands and areas composed of poor soils. Vacant land is recognized as an important co1IDDodity since it represents one of the Township's most valuable natural resources and presents many opportunities for the future. • The existing land use map, Figure GD-III, differentiates between lands in agricultural production and vacant lands. The amount of land used for farming activities in the Township has decreased as development of the Township's industrial tract has intensified, residential subdivisions have been platted and the construction of single family homes on large parcels has increased. During the period of 1969 to 1978 the amount of land in agricultural production in Eaton County decreased by eight percent. (Data source: "Michigan Farm Lands are Increasing Again", Detroit News, April 12, 1981). During the late 197O's several hundred acres of farm land in the Township were enrolled in farmland development rights agreements under the provisions of Act 116 of 1974 being the Farmland and Open Space Preservation Act. Delta Township has attempted to preserve prime farm lands by a number of actions including active participation in the aforementioned farmland preservation program, creation of agricultural zoning districts and efforts to channel new development to areas already served by public utilities and services. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes agricultural activities as a long-term, permanent land use rather than a "holding area" for future development. 22 �DELTA TOWNSHIP Figure GD-Ill EXISTING LAND USE [:] [] [] Single Family Residential ml Multi-Family Residential 000 000 000 Single Family Subdivision Two Family Residential Office Commercial Retail Commercial Service Warehousing lndustrial-Manuf acturing Transportation-Utilities Public-Semi Public /// /// /// In D Park & Open Space Agriculture Vacant & Non-Urban PRIVATE ROADS NOT SHOWN REVISED CITY OF LAN _SING NORTH I . . ....... .... ..... ·. - - • ----------- 23 I I 2/84 I 1111111 111111 1 1 1000 1 2000 11 11111 111111 11111111111111111111 11111111 0 4000 �FIGURE P-III Population Distribution Five Township Area 1960-1980 !DELTA TWP. ---....,- -MERIDIAN TWP. ..... EAST LANSING LANSING/ LANSING TWP. -DELHI TWP. TWP. ;DELTA TWP. TWP. 1960 LANSING/ LANSING TWP. -EAST LANSING TWP. TWP. 1970 EAST -LANSING -DELHI TWP. \DEWITT TWP. 1980 28 �This page revised Dec. of 198 ' Distribution of Population in the Five-Township Area The Five-Township area encompasses a large portion of the Lansing Metropolitan area. Figure P-III portrays changing distribution of population in the area during the 1960-1980 period. Those portions of the metropolitan area with increasing shares of population are vividly presented. The Townships of Delhi, DeWitt, Meridian and Delta currently represent thirty percent of the metropolitan area population as compared to fifteen percent in 1940. This redistribution of metropolitan area population appears to be continuing. A possible explanation for this changing pattern of population distribution is a general tendency for the growth of a given area to slow after a certain density has been reached. '~, During the 1960-1970 period, the population in the suburban townships surrounding Lansing, being Delhi, DeWitt, Delta and Meridian, increased by 46 percent while the increase in the 1970-1980 period was 23 percent. The slow down in the urbanization of the suburbs can be attributed to many factors including increasing energy costs, a decreasing supply of land which has the necessary public utilities, and the increasing cost of development which is characterized by high land costs, high mortgage rates, and high materials costs. The Impact of Inmigration on Delta Township's Population Growth Inmigration has played a significant role in Delta Township's phenomenal population growth. Usually, the net migration experienced by an area over a period of time is determined by finding the difference between the actual change in population over the same time period. Natural increase or decrease is determined by the difference between the recorded births and the recorded deaths attributed to the reg.i on for the time period in question. Until re·cently, however, birth and death records have not been kept for areas smaller than a county. During the period of 1960-1970, sixty-five percent of the population growth in Eaton County was attributed to the irunigration. Irunigration also had a signif~cant impact in the 1970-1980 period when sixty-four percent of the population growth in Eaton County resulted from inmigration. Certainly, Delta Township has experienced a large amount of inmigration over the past decade. Due to the fact that Delta Township's population grew at a greater rate (35%) than Eaton County's population (25%) during the 1970's, it is likely that Delta Township experienced a higher inmigration rate than did Eaton County. Age-Sex Structure of Delta Township's Population An analysis of the number of males and females in various age groups provides useful information for many planning activities. Figure P-IV provides age-sex pyramids for the Township for the years 1960, 1970 and 1980. Table P-3 illustrates the specific number of persons within various age groups and what percentage of the Township is within any one age group. Each of the age groupings in Figure P-IV and Table P-3 are for ten year periods with the exception of the under 5 years group and the 75 years and older group. 29 {"""- �This pare r evised D2 c . of 198 ~ FIGURE P-IV AGE-SEX PYRAMIDS DELTA TOWNSHIP I 980 POPULATION u• o, .... l--+--+--+--+-----,1---+--+--+--+--+- 7 S Yurt SENIOR ClTIZEN PRIME LABOR F'ORCE STUDENTS PRE-SCHOOL U•- SY•Ft malt• Male.a I 970 POPULATION ' 75 .,o, .. ,. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ... ••• SENIOR CITIZEN . I M E LABOR F'ORCE STUDENTS 5-14 PRE-SCHOOL U•O• 5 Yoart 2400 zooo lt00 ,zoo too 400 0 400 800 Ft111altt IZ00 1800 zooo 2400 Malta I 960 POPULATION ,a ., .... i - - - t -• SENIOR CITIZEN ••• o.... --t--1"-----,1----;---;--+-1"---1----;-._ l---+--+-+-+-----,1---+--+--+--+-----,1---. PRIME LABOR FORC~ ZS-34 STUDENTS ""PRE-SCHOOL UUtP 5 Yoart Z400 zooo 18110 ,zoo 0 Fe111altt 800 1200 Malu 30 18 0 zooo 2400 �- Table P-3 POPULATION AGE GROUPS DELTA TOWNSHIP 1970 1980 % of population Male Female Total % of population Male Female Total Under 5 yrs. 774 789 1563 9% 716 717 1433 6% 5-14 yrs. 2284 2194 4478 26% 2083 1972 4055 17% 15-24 yrs. 1266 1404 2670 15% 2345 2372 4717 20% 25-34 yrs. 1129 1252 2381 14% 2012 2177 4189 18% 35-44 yrs. 1270 1249 2519 15% 1660 1653 3313 14% 45-54 yrs. 992 1002 1994 11% 1366 1367 2733 11% 55-64 yrs. 548 499 1047 6% 970 983 1953 8% 65-74 yrs. 217 236 453 3% 378 511 889 4% ,-,, 75+ yrs. 74 117 191 1% 179 361 540 2% 17., 396 Source: 23,822 U.S. Bureau of Census 30a �This page revised Dec. of 1984 Figure P-IV and Table P-3 reveal the following facts: 1. A significant number of the "Baby Boom" generation reside in Delta Township as evidenced by the 5-14 group in 1970 which became the 15-24 group in 1980. This age group constituted the largest segment of the population in both 1970 and 1980. 2. The fact that the majority of the age groups have increased in total numbers is an indication that migration into the Township took place between 1970 and 1980. 3. As might be expected, the number of females in the 75 and older group is approximately double the number of males. 4. Indications exist that the Township's population is aging. In 1970 approximately 35% of the population was under age 15 whereas in 1980 the figure had declined to 23%. Conversely, in 1970 approximately 10% of the population was over 55 compared to the 1980 figure for the same group which was over 14% • • 30b �Tiiis page revised Dec. of 198~ , Population Per Household J An important social characteristic of population is the continuing decrease in the population per household in Delta Township. Table P-4 illustrates past trends in· the population per household in Delta Township over a twenty year period. TABLE P-4 POPULATION PER HOUSEHOLD DELTA TOWNSHIP 1960-1980 Year Population Per Household 1960 3.74 1970 3.75 1975 3.22 1980 2.83 Source: U.S. Bureau of Census The continued decrease in the population per household can be attributed to many factors including a declining birth rate and corresponding maturation of the population as a whole. Social factors contributing to this decline include a greater mobility of the under 24 age group accompanied by higher economic independence, a declining marriage rate, and a trend toward childless cohabitation. 31 I �This page revised Dec. of 1984 The U.S. Census -Bureau has reported a 66 percent increase in non-family households during the 1970's. Nationally, non-family households in 1980 accounted for one-fourth of all units, compared to one-fifth in 1970. The Census also revealed that almost 90 percent of non-family households consist of one person. The 1980 census counts for Delta Township revealed that a significant difference exists between the population per household figures for multiple family units and single family detached units. An analysis of census tracts which consist solely of single-family detached dwellings revealed that the population per household figure is generally between 3.0 and 3.6 while the population per household figure for census tracts which were occupied by muliple units ranged from approximately 1.5 to 1.7. The decline in persons per household while the population increases has implications as to the demand for and type of dwelling to be provided for in future years. Based on present trends, it appears that the population per household figure in Delta Township will continue to decline. This trend will very likely result in a demand for smaller dwelling units and a decrease in the school age population. II - Population Projections Estimates of future population are important in the planning process to the extent they provide general indications of probable land consumption, school enrollments, public facility use demand and similar impacts. This section provides population estimates for the period of 1985 to the year 2000 for Delta Township. The basic methodology which has been used is a regional cohort-survival model with apportionment among minor civil divisions to consider the affects of migration. Migration information has been derived from two data sources: (1) Increases in Delta Township population in excess of expected cohort-survival totals and (2) Increases in reported household tax return exemptions on U.S. Census Bureau data. Table P-5 provides population projections for Delta Township. Eaton County. the Five-Township Metropolitan Area and the Tri-County Region through the year 2000. TABLE P-5 POPULATION PROJECTIONS TO THE YEAR 2000 1980* 1985 1990 1995 2000 Delta Township 23,822 24,953 28,163 31,361 34,425 Eaton County 88,337 91,235 100,757 110,219 119.262 Five-Township Area 271,661 274,313 283,755 292.186 298,891 Tri-County Region 419,750 425,979 447,181 466,892 483,684 *1980 population figures represent the final 1980 census counts. Source: Population Projections for the Tri-County Region, 6/1/84, TriCounty Regional Planning Commission, Lansing, Michigan. 32 �This page revised Dec. of 19~ Table P-5 suggests Delta Township, will continue to experience growth though not nearly as dramatic as occurred in the 1950-1970 period. Based on the information contained in Table P-5, population increases between 1980 and the year 2000 are projected as follows: Delta Township~ 45% increase, Eaton County~ 35% increase, Five Township Area~ 10% increase and the Tri-County Region= 15% increase. Population projection is not an exact science and is affected by numerous factors in the local projection area. Increases in employment beyond that expected, recessionary periods, amenities of a community and other factors all influence the amount of irunigration. Also, a community's growth policy may have a significant impact on the population change. If Delta _Township should institute a growth policy requiring phasing of development on lands adequately served by utilities, parks, schools, roads and other services, the estimates of population increase would be different from those being projected. The presentation of estimated population herein has presumed no such growth policy. The declining household size suggests a leveling off or actual decline of school-age children during the planning period. This will affect school facility planning. The trend toward fewer persons per household may be of importance as to development regulations pertaining to minimum dwelling unit size. 33 �F!GUU P-V • DEI.I'A TOWNS1iil' POPULAI'ION 2,.000 0 Q. 0 0 -... Q. 0 20.000 0 4 e z= ~ - I ,.000 1930 1940 19~0 1960 Year 1970 1990 1980 • • JJa 2000 ACTUAL PROJECTED �!bis page revised Dec. of 1984 COMMERCIAL BASE ANALYSIS Commercial facilities in Delta Township are presencly locaced in four principal areas: The Delta Cencral Business District (CBD), on Saginaw Highway east of Elmwood Road. on Saginaw Ilighway wast of Mall Drive West, and at the Waverly Plaza along Waverly Road. • • The Delta Cencral Business District consists of a regional .shopping cancer, the Lansing Mall, which concains the Kudson's. Penny's and Montgomery Ward Depart:mant Stores, as well as Maijer Thrifty Acres, K-Mart and Dornec Village which are located on the south side of Saginaw Highway across from the Lansing Mall. The scores of the Delta CBD comprise a co'llll'arisou shopping magnec of regional significance. Although the Lansing Mall - K-i.'!art - Meijer complexes were not planned in a related fashion and are bisected by the traffic pattern of Saginaw Highway, this grouping of major scores does function as an interrelaced business district. The commercial district located on Saginaw Highway ease of Elmwood Road consists largely of commercial strip developments which were primarily constructed during the period of 1965 to 1975. There is little or no functional transition becween the types of commarcial uses in this strip, and the area is generally congested and unattractive. The area along Saginaw aighway west of Mall Drive West is evidencing a similar trend coward total scrip development which will probably be reached unless alternacive land development policies are iIDl)lemented. With the exception of the Waverly Plaza, the commercial development on the wesc side of Waverly Road is of a scrip nature. However, existing retail stores are separated by large distances of non-commercial usage so that a true strip character has not yet emerged . ! Characteristics of Existing Commercial Development Types of Commercial Enterprises Retail shopping areas within Delta Township have taken on cwo different and distinct forms. The first type of commercial development is known as the shopping center which is defined as "a group of commercial establishments, planned, developed, owned and managed as a unit related in location, size, and type of shops to the trade area that the unit serves; it provides on-site parking in definite relationship to the types and sizes of stores." 1 Prior to the evolution of the shopping center. retail scores were usually developed as a llliscellaneous collection of individual buildings each on a separate parcel of street frontage. The second cype of commercial development is generally referTed co as scrip development. This r:ype of develop1118nt usually fronts on both sides of an arterial roadway and extends inward for half a block . Strip development is often characterized by an assortment of office and commercial uses requiring relatively small parcels of land. 1 Toe Community Builders Handbook, Urban Land Institute, Wash.ingtan D.C. 1968, pg. 264. 34 �This page revised Dec. of Shot:it:Jing centers are generally classified as one of four types; t:he neighborhood, the community, the regional, and the super regional. The shopping center's type is determined by its 1D&jor tenant or tenants rather ,-, than site area or square feet of structures. The Urban I.and Institute defines the various t71'es of shopping centers as follows: 2 a neighborhood center provides for the sale of convenience goods (foods, drugs, and sundries) and personal services (laundry and dry cleaning, barbering, shoe repairing, etc.) for the day to day living needs of the immediate neighborhood. re is built around a super-market as the principal tenant. rn theory, the neighborhood center has a t71'ical gross leasable area of 50,000 square feet. rn practice, it may range in size from 30,000 to 100,000 square feet. The neighborhood center is the smallest type of shopping center. In addition to the convenience goods and personal services of the neighborhood center, a community center provides a wider range of facilities for the sale of soft lines (wearing apparel for men, women, and children) and hard lines (hardware and appliances). The community center makes a greater variety of merchandise available in sizes, styles, colors, and prices. It is built around a junior deparaienc store, variety store, or discount depart:mant store as the major tenant, in addition to a supermarket. It does not have a full-line depart:mant store, though it may have a strong specialty store. rn theory, the t71>ical size is 150,000 square feet of gross leasable area, but in practice it may range in size from 100,000 to 300,000 square feet. The community center is the intermediate type of center, most difficult to eseimate for size and pulling power. The regional center provides fo.r general merchandise, apparel, furniture, and home furnishings. in depth and variety, as well as a range of services and recreational facilities. It is built around one or c-wo full-line deparaient stores of generally not less than 100,000 square feet. ,rn theory, a typical size for definitive purposes is 400,000 square feet of gross leasable area. The regional center is che second largest cype of shopping center. As such, the regional center provides services cypical of a business district yet nae as extensive as those of che super regional center. A super regional center provides for extensive variety in general merchandise, apparel, furnicure, and home furnishings, as well as a variety of services and recreational facilities. It is built around at least three major department stores of generally not less than 100,000 square feet each. !n theory, che typical size of a super regional center is about 750,000 square feet of gross leasable area. rn practice, the size ranges to more than 1,000,000 square feet. There are examples of chree cypes of the above described shopping centers within Delea Township: Neighborhood Center - the West Saginaw Plaza, located northwest of che interseccion of Saginaw liighway and Waverly r-,., Zoollars and Cants of Shoooing Centers: Institute, pg. 4. 35 1984, The Urban Land �'this page revised on Dec. of 1984 Road, which consists of approximately 55,000 square feet. Community Center - che Waverly Plaza, located southwest of the intersection of St. Joe Ilighway and Waverly Road, which consists of approximately 180,000 square feet. Super Regional Canter - che Lansing Mall, located aortilwest of Che intersection of Saginaw f!ighway and Elmwood Road, which consists of approximately l,000,000 square feet. Location of Types of Commarcial Enterprises The majority of the Township's comparison retail stores are located in th~ Delta Central Business District. Department and apparel stores are more likely co be located in Che Delta Central Business District chan any other commercial area wichin the Township. The majority of the Township's retail convenience stores are located on Saginaw Ilighway east of Elmwood Road. Toe fact that convenience stores have yot co decentralize on a neighborhood level throughout the Township could be attributed co two factors: l) Delta Township households are very auto-oriented, cherafore, it is not an inconvenience for the majority of residents to drive several m:i.les to purchase day-co-day necessities, 2) many residents oppose the establishment of any cype of co1111Nrcial developmant in their residential neighborhoods due to the fear that the commercial development I1ould change the residential character. Fast-food restaurants are presently concentrated on Saginaw aighway ease of Elmwood Road due to the high visibility and traffic exposure offered by this area. Quality sit-down restaurants are much mere dispersed throughout the Township than the fast-food outlets. Toe majority of the Township's hotel facilities are located in close proximity to the Canal/Yest Saginaw intersection • • Reasons for Locating Commercial Uses Delta Township has experienced steady growth in commercial develop111ent over the past decade. There are several reasons which account for retail merchants desiring to locate in Delta Township: Toe Township's arterial street pattern affords good traffic access while providing excellent exposure to retail firms; the availability of land within the Township. when compared to 1110re urbanized and centralized locations in the Lansing Metropolitan Area, is a primary locational factor; and the existence of adequate public services makes the area attractive for commercial development. Toe steady increases in the Township's population over past decades, as well as the area's growth potential. is another inducement to retail firms. Toe existence of a regional shopping center such as the Lansing Mall also serves as an inducement for commercial development to locate in the area. Finally, Delta Township constitutes a separate market place within the Lansing Metropolitan Area. II Projection of Future Commercial Development In analyzing and projecting Delta Township's commercial facilities requirements. it is necessary to distinguish between two basic kinds of shopping needs. First, . comparison facilities must be provided co serve the needs for clothing, furniture. household appliances, and other major items. Secondly, convenience facilities such as groceries, drug stores. and barber shops will be required to serve daily shopping needs. This section will analyze Delta Townships comparision shopping needs as well 36 - - -- - -- -~ - - - �lb.is paga revised Dec. 0£ 1984 as several of the more significant convenience shopping needs such aa food stores, drug stores, hardware scores and restaurants. There are five basic seeps required to project che facilities needed co serve comparison and basic convenience shopping needs. ~,~ 1 First, the primary trade areas to be served by comparison and convenience shopping facilities must be determined. Generally, the trade area of convenience facilities is limted co surrounding residential neighborhoods, while the trade area for a regional comparison shopping center includes a large pori:ion of the Lansing Metropolitan Area. The second step required to project che need for comparison and convenience shopping facilities is to determine future total sales in various retail categories wichin the trade a~ea. Determination of trade area future total retail sales is dependent upon changes in population, purchasing power and eXl'enditure patterns within the trade area. The third seep is to determine the proportion of total trade area retail sales that will acrue co the projected facilities. Convenience facilities are considered to draw business throughout their trade area. The proportion of total trade area retail sales that comparision facilities will draw is dependent upon a number of factors, most imtJortant of which is the relative quality and location of competitive facilities. The fourth seep is to determine the amount of square footage required to sustain the proportion of total trade area retail sales that the facilities will generate. This determination can be based on current projected marketing standards. The final seep is to compare the projected future requirements with ,--...~ existing facilities. This comparision will indicate the extent to which new facilities will be required. , In determining future comparison shopping facilities needs, atten~ion will be focused on the concentration of comparision facilities centered in the Delta Central Business District. These facilities include the Lansing Mall Stores, Meijer Thrifty Acres, K-Mart, and Cornet Village. rur~her, the scores of the Delta Central Business District can be meaningfully compared with other major shopping areas in and near the trade area. This comparison will be the basis for assessing the i.l!q>act of these stores on the trade area. Determination of Comparision Shopping Trade Area !he first step required to analyze the major comparison facilities in and near the Lansing Mall is to determine the trade area served by these facilities. · The eXl'erience of regional shopping centers in other metroplitan areas indicates that such centers draw a major portion of their customers fro~ within a three to five mile radius . For the pur,,ose of this s~udy, it has been assumed that the Delta Central Business District has a trade area approximated by a five mile radius. This trade area is illustrated in Figure C-l. It encompasses virtually all of Delta Township, most of the western half of the City of Lansing-Lansing Township area, as well as significant portions of Watertown and DeWitt ,,---.. Townships. 37 �!h.is page revised Dec. of 1984 • While it is assumed that 50 percent of the Dalta. CBD customers live beyond c:he five mile trade area, it is probable that in the future this percentage will decrease. As Delta Township becomes t110re densely populated, it will contribute mere and t110re patrons to the scores of the Delta CBD. As some areas near Delta Township becoua mere highly urbanized, they can be exl)ected to develop their own comparison shopping facilities. !his will reduce the demand that would otherwise be placed on Delta Township's facilities. Conversely, because of th• TriCounty Region's excellent highway system and the expected future pattern of population grow,:h, it is likely that the scores of the De.lea CBD will continue to play a large role in fulfilling the comparison shoppin.g needs of people living in c:he outlying portions of the Tri-County Region. Based on the foregoing considerations, it is assumed that by the year 2000 approximately 60 percent of the patrons of the Delta CBD scores will live wic:hin the five mile trade area. While chis judgement should not be interpreted as a firm prediction, it will be useful as a basis for further analysis. Determination of Convenience Shopping Trade Area Having determined the trade area of Delta Township's comparison shopping facilities, attention is now directed to consideration of the trade area of Delta Township's convenience shopping facilities. As previously noted, convenience shopping facilities generally have a lim:ited trade area. !his is understandable because of the frequency with which they are patronized by individual customers. Because people are reluctant to travel far to satisfy daily shopping needs and because of the amount of traffic generated by convenience shopping trips, convenience scores ideally should have a trade area no larger c:han a grouping of neighborhoods. 'therefore, the exact distribution of c:rade area delineations for convenience shopping facilities in Delta Township will depend upon the neighborhood unit plan. !he present analysis will nstrict itself to specifying the total amount of convenience shopping facilities which will be required to serve Delta Township's projected year 2000 population. Projection of Future Retail Sales !he second major step required c:o analyze and project the need for cOlllparision and convenience shopping facilities within Delea Township is c:o determine trade area future total sales in various retail categories. Determination of trade area fucure total retail sales is dependent upon c:hree factors: 1) population growth within c:he trade area, 2) growth in per capita retail expenditures within c:he c:rade area, and 3) c:rade area changes in retail expenditure patterns . Current and projected populations for the trade area are presented in Table C-1. !his table divides the trade area into the following unic:s: Delta Township, the Lansing-Lansing Township area, Watertown and DeWitt Townships. Population increases in the Lansing and Lansing Township portions of c:he c:rade area were determined from projections of the total population of Lansing and Lansing Township by using a c:wo-scep procedure. First, c:he Lansing-Lansing Township area was surveyed to determine the distribution of vacant residential land which might acco111Dl0date increases in population. Second, future land development c:rends for the LansingLansing Township area were evaluated for their probable impact on the 38 �-I 'lbis page revised Dec. 0£~3!! development of vacant residential land. Consideration was given to the projected distribution and extent of various densities of development. ~~ Based on the distribution of vacant residential land and expected '~ development trends. one-half of the projected population increase for the Lansing-Lansing Township area was allocated to the portions of Lansing and Lansing Township lying within the . five mile trade area. 39 -- �111is page revised Dec. of 1984 TABLE C-l TRADE AREA POPULATION PROJECTIONS F'IVE MILE 1980* 1990** 2000..,. Delta Township 23,822 28,163 34 , 425 Lansing-Lansing Twp. Area*** 68,100 7l, 739 73,720 DeWitt Township*,...* l,900 2 , 066 2, 103 Watertown Township***** 1,200 1 . 320 1,530 Political Subdivision of the Trade Area *U . S. Census Bureau figure. **PTojection provided by the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, July l, 1984. ***Lansing-Lansing Township area figure represents 50% of the projected population figure. ****DeWitt Township figure represents 20% of the projected population figure. • *****Watertown Township figure represents 33% of the projected population figure . The portions of DeWitt and Watertown Township's populations living within the five-mile trade area were determined by the same methodology as was applied to the Lansing-Lansing Township portion of the trade area. The portion of the r:wo township's 1980 population living within the trade area was estimated on the basis of the existing pattern of residential developaent. The portion of the two township's 1980 through year 2000 populations living within the trade area was determined fro• Tri-County Regional Planning Commission population p~ojections . Population increases were allocated to the five-mile trade area on the basis of the availability of residential land and expected developaent trends. !twas determined that approximately one-fifth of DeWitt Township's 1980 through the year 2000 population will be living within the five mile trade area. !twas also determined that approximately one-third of Watertown Township ' s 1980 through the year 2000 populati ons will be l i ving wi t hin the t:rade area. The second factor bearing on future trade area retail sales is future per capita retail expenditures. Future per capita retail expenditures can be determined by estimating projected increases in real per capita purchasing power and applying such a projection co an estimate of curTent per capita retail expenditures. 40 �!his page revised Dec. 00984 During the period of 1970 to 1980 per capita incomes for the five mile trade area increased by 122% resulting in an annual increase for the period of 12%. 1 The inflation rate has fluctuated widely in the past decade varying from a ~ high of 13% in 1979 to a low of less than 3% in 1983.2 Predicting the amount of inflation which will take place in the future is difficult since the rate is dependent on a number of factors including the Federal Reserve Board's 1I1Cney supply policies, the strength of the dollar, prices for essential raw materials such as oil, food and other commcdities, productivity and wage rates and deregulation of certain industries. For the purpose of this study a 5% annual inflation rate has been utilized. When the inflation rate is applied to the annual per capita income increase a 7% annual increase in per capita incomes results which was multiplied times the 18 year forecasting period (1982-2000) resulting in a year 2000 estimated per capita income of $20,446 which represents a 126% increase for the period. In 1982 approximately 49% of estimated personal incomes for the Tri-County Region were spent on retail sales.3 For che purposes of chis study, it is assumed chat che 1982 percentage of personal income devoted to retail expenditures will remain constant through the year 2000. Applying che aforementioned percentage to the year 2000 projected Tri-County inflation adjusted per capita income of $20,446 results in an inflation adjusted per capita income retail expenditure for the year 2000 of $10,018. Table C-2 illustrates a year 2000 estimate of per capita retail expenditures along with projections as to how retail sales ~ill be divided among various categories. The estimates as to how retail sales will be allocated is based on 1982 retail sales information for the Tri-County Region provided by the Lansing Regional Chamber of Commerce. 4 1Data Source: Urban Decision Systems, Los Angeles, California, October 13, 1983. 1970 per capita income :a $3,480, 1980 pe:i; capita income :a $7,745. 2oata Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor July, 1984. 3oata Source: Sales and Marketing Management Magazine, 1983 Survey of Buying Power, U. S. Metropolitan Market Projections for Retail Sales, October 1983. 41 �'lbis page revised Dae. of l984 , ,/ • TABLE C-2 n:AR 2000 TRI-COUNTY PROJECTED PER CAPITA RETAIL EXPENDITURE PATTERNS* Total Retail Spending $l0,0l8 Comparison Stores General Merchandise Stores Clothing and Accessories Stores Furniture and Homa Furnishings Other Comparison Stores • ' 2,104 501 401 801 Convenience Stores Food Stores** Hardware and Building Materials Drug Stores and Pharmacies 1,603 300 200 Eating and Drinking Places** 1,403 Other Retail Expenditures 2,705 *Based on 1982 dollars. **In 1982 19% of retail eJqlenditures were devoted to food stores. This number has been reduced to 16% for the year 2000 projection and a corresponding increase of 3% has been made in che eating and drinking category in order co reflect projected crends. Data Source: Sales and Marketing Management Magazine, 1983 Survey of Buying Power, U.S. Metropolitan Market Projections for Retail Sales, October, 1983. 42 . I �!his page rev-isad Dec. ofrs.84 ~ Trends in Retail Expenditures The third factor bearing on future trade area retail sales is cunent and eJCllected changes in retail expenditure patterns. The following list contains expected trends in retail expenditures which could effect businesses within Delta Township: l. Eating and drinking establishments will experience an increase in business as 1110re working couples consuma a larger percentage of their maals outside of the home resulting in a possible decline in grocery store sales. Z. New tTIJes of retailing will be eseablished in the local market including factory outlets, off-price discount stores and greater use of drive-thru facilities. 3. !tis questionable whether additional super regional shopping malls will be constructed in the metropolitan area due to market saturation and the costs of raw land and construction. 4. Greater emphases will be placed on service-tTIJe businesses because of an increase in the number of two income and one person households. 5. The popularity of "one-stop" general merchandising stores offering a wide variety of goods including grocery, hardware, apparel, houseware and appliance items in a single store will continue. 6. A resurgence in small speciality stores offering a limited line of high quality merchandise with personalized service is expected in the nexe decade. 7. The continued "aging" of the population will be reflected in increased expenditures for health services, drug and pharmaceutical items, travel, etc. 8. Retailars will renovate existing stores in an effort to obtain greater sales from "old" facilities. 9. Competition for retail sales in the Lansing area will intensify due to the opening of a tieijers Store on Lake Lansing Road, planned expansions at the Frandor Plus Center on Michigan Avenue, renovations to the Logan Center and the redevelopment of downtown Lansing. ~~ Having arrived at a projection of tha year 2000 per capita expenditures in various retail categories and having also determined the population of the various zones of the trade area of Delta Township's major comparison shopping facilities, it is now possible to det•rmine the total future retail expenditures that will be generated within the various zones of the trade area. This determination is based upon population multiplied by per capita expenditures. !he results of this multiplication are presented in Table C-3. Comparision expenditures are presented for all zones of the trade area because all zones will con~ribute business to the comparison shopping facilities of Delta Township. Convenience expenditures are presented only for Delta Township because Delta Township's convenience facilities will be supp.o rted primarily by local residents. ,,,-,., 43 �!his page revised Dec. of 1984 • Another factor determining the impact of loss on the various zones of the trade area is the distance of the Delta CBD and the distance of competing facilities from the various zones of the trade area. The fun:her away the Delta CBD is fr011l the center of population of a trade area zone, the smaJ.ler the proportion of total retail sales generated within the trade area zone that will accrue to the Delta CBD will be. Conversely, the farther away c0111peting facilities are from the cancer of population of a trade area zone, the larger will be Delta Central Business District's proportion of the trade area zone's retail sales. Having determined the future retail ex;ienditure pattern for the C011ll)arision and convenience trade area of Delta Township, attention will now be directed to determining t:he proportion of future co11ll)arison and conve,n ience sal.es generated wit:hin the trade area t:hat will be spent in Delt:a Township's retail facilities. This determination is quite simple with respect to convenience type retail sales. As noted earlier, convenience stores do business within their relatively limited trade areas. Therefore, it will be assumed that all convenience sal.es potential. generated wit:hin Delta Township will be spent in Delta Township. This asswirption is dependent upon the provision of sufficient, properly located conven.i.ence merchandise outlets to allow full realization of their potential. Table C-3 ,. YEAR 2000 PROJ'ECTEO TRADE AREA RETAIL EXPENDITURES* Delta Township City of Lansing Lansing Township Township $72,430,000 17,247,000 13,804,000 27,574,000 $155 , 107,000 36,934,000 13,804,000 59,050,000 $4,425,000 l ,054 ,000 843,000 1,685,000 DeWitt Waten:ovu Township Comparison Stores General Merchandise Clothing and Accessories Furniture and Rome Furnishings Other Co11ll)arison Stores Convenience Stores Food Stores Hardware and Building Materials Drug St:ores and Pharmacies 55,183,000 10,328,000 6,885,000 Eating and Drinking Places 48,298,000 Other Retail E.xi)enditures 93,120,000 *Based on 1982 dollars . Source: !able prepared by Delta Township Planning Department based on data presented in !able C-2. 44 $3 ,219.,000 767,000 614,000 l,204,000 �This page revised Dec; of9t9S4 Determination of Accrual of Future Trade Area Sales to Delta Township Determination of the proportion of future trade area comparison reta;il sales that will accrue to Delta Township's major comparison facilities is a complicated task involving three considerations. These three considerations are (1) the existence of competitive facilities, (Z) the relative attractiveness of competitive facilities, and (3) th• distance of Delta Township's comparison facilities and their competitors from th• various zones of the trade area. The first consideration in determining the proportion of total trade area comparison sales accruing to Delta Township's comparison facilities is the existence of competitive facilities. An investigation of reta:il sales outlets within the Tri-County Region led to the conclusion that there are two regional shopping centers and three co'lllllWllty shopping centers in direct competition for the retail sales that will be generated within the trade area of the Delta Central Business District. The two regional shopping centers in competition with the Delta Central Business District are the Frandor Shopping Cancer and Meridian Mall. Th• three community shopping centers in competition with th• Delta Central Business District are the Waverly Plaza, Logan Square, and Edgemont Canter. The City of Lansing's Central Business District is also located within the delineated trade area and competes with the stores of the Delta Central Business District. Although the City of Grand Ledge shopping area is not located within the five au.le trade area, it does have an impact on the Delta CBD. Table C-4 provides a listing of neighborhood and regional shopping centers within the Tri-County area. Although this list is not all inc.l.usive, it does include those shopping centers which have the most impact on the Delta CBD's five ad.le trade area. ~~ The second primary consideration which :impacts the Delta Central Business District is the relative attractiveness of the enumerated competitive facilities. Six factors must be weighed in evaluating the relative attractiveness of the competitive comparison facilities. Three of . these factors are related to accessibility and circulation: 1) the ease of accessibility to the various competitive facilities as determined by surrounding street patterns; 2) the availability of convenient parking spaces; and 3) the features of internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation patterns which facilitate or hinder customer use. A fourth important consideration influencing the relative attractiveness of competitive shopping facilities will be the existence or absence of climate control advantages common in modern shopping malls. The fifth factor pertaining co the relative attractivenss of competitive shopping facilities will be the drawing power of major department stores associated with those facilities. The sixth and most basic consideration pertaining to the relative attractiveness of competitive facilities will be their total size. The Delta Central Business District and the competing comparison shopping facilities were evaluated in terins of the six criteria of attractiveness. !t was detel-mined ~hat the three regional shopping centers were of approximately equal attractivness when judged on the basis of all six criteria. Of course, all of the main shopping areas have distinctive features by which they are 1::::=:::, f ' uniquely characterized. However, negative features in each shopping area tended to be balanced by equally positive features in the same area. 45 �./ • 'l'his page revised Dec. of 1984 Based on the number of shopping facilities in competition with the Delea Cancral Business District and on the relative attractiveness of those facilities and the distance of the Delta Central Business District and competing shopping facilities from the center of population of the various Lansing Mall trade area zones, a determination was made as to the proportion of total area retail sales which would accrue to the Delta Central Business District. !twas determined that the Delta Central Business District would receive approximately 85 percent of the total retail sales generated within the Delta Township portion of its trade area, l5 percent of the retail sales generated within the Lansing-Lansing Township area, 15 percent of the retail sales generated within DeWitt Township and 30 percent of the rer,ail sales generaced within Watertown Township. TABLE C-4 N'EIGHBORHOOO AND REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTERS WITHIN THE TRI-COUNTY AREA Gross Leasable noor Area (sq. ft.)* ~ Lansing Mall • • Number of Scores* 1,000,000 105 Frandor 600,000 100 Meridian Mall 640,000 116 West Saginaw Hwy. Meijer, K-Mart, Cornet Village 284,000 18 Logan Square 226,000, 27 Meridian Township Meijer 220,000 l Waverly Plaza 182,000 15 South Lansing Meijer 175,000 l East Lansing Meijer 165 .ooo l Cedar Park Center 112,000 25 Edgemont Shopping Center 110,000 12 Frandor Plus 64,000 3 Haslett Village Square 80,000 20 West Saginaw Plaza 58,000 7 Country Meadows Village Center 55,000 14 Bath Corners Shopping Center 37,000 8 Granger Mall 30,000 9 Willow Plaza 25,000 6 "'The square footage of the various retail facilities and the number of stores within them are subject to constant change. The square footage figures and retail score figures include vacant units. 46 �, - !his page revised Dec. o~84 Based on the foregoing determination of the proportion of total retail sales generated within the different zones of the trade area which are attributable to the Delta Central Business District, and upon data presented in Table C-3 a ;=-._ determination was made of future total c:rade area retail expenditures accruing to c:he Delta Central Business District. The proportion of c:ocal rade area retail expenditures accruing to the Delta Central Business District is presented in Table C-5. TABLE c-s PROPORTION OF TOTAL TRADE AREA RETAIL EXPENDITURES ACClUimG TO THE DELIA CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT IN THE YEAR 2000* Delta Township City of Lansing Lansing Township DeWitt Township Watertown Township $61,566,000 14,660,000 11,733,000 23,438,000 $23,266,000 5,540,000 2,071,000 8,858,000 $664,000 158,000 126,000 253,000 $966,000 2.:30,000 184,000 351,000 Couq,arison Stores General Merchandise Clothing and Accessories Furniture and Hotna Furnishings Other Comparison Stores Convenience Stores Food Stores Hardware and Building Materials Drug Stores and Pharmacies 55,183,000 10,328,000 6,885,000 Eating and ~rinking 48,298,000 Other Retail Expenditures 93,120,000 *Based on 1982 dollars. Source: Table prepared by Delta Township Planning Deparaient based on data presented in Table C-3. 47 �·~-:, •t'l•l a, puuw11111d n•p uo puwq 1u.. uwd110 lttfUHfd dy11911r101 •11110 Aq "1'1•1 iJUi:, p\ii iJiifoii •011 """'1"1' :11nnos 'IIJflHHUf p1111n llt!<IJn ''196Q :i,J;oJU3:)~"'IS 1" 11u1uu lu1ddo11" 1wuo9l;o1 · s·n 101 11011e•10JUI 1001 nd nt•sz •u•""" · •1•11or l861 "" """"'• 000''11l Oll OOO'Olf '{6 9;oJfllfrt111d~J lfl!l"1' U'fJO 000''16{ lll 000'96l'9'T 11unupq '"'" lhtfll!J ooo•.,., ooo·u, 000'60l "~' 000•~99•9 8l ~9l OOO'tlll ' 01 0OO'Ul'H ""' :Jl!WJWlfd "''" !l;oJnJs ""'" "'"'1111"" '"'"''"' ruw "1"r1r1•n 11;o1n1s """.f !l".IOIS ""U"f"'""'":I (llffl 909 OOO't'll OIJ0'~'1C ooo· ~o, OOO'tll 000'11{ 000'009' I ooo·n, ooo·u ooo' It, OOO'ltl 000°1'16 0 000°6(9 06 ooo'lH'6 ooo'on 06 000'8{'1'(l OOO'll IOI 000' IIC 'l OOO'll6'~ 000'969''1lt 000'601 ooo·u, OOO'llt OIi 06 t 901 OIi 06 t OOO'lll'II 000'099''11 000'99~•,.,, ooo·,s ooo' ""' IJIIJnlS Un!lfJl!dMo:, J;o'fJO !llfllflf!lfll.lflJ -ow ruw lUfllfU.lflJ ""f.10111111:,:,y ruw lu1q1n1:, ""fl'U""".l"M 111.1;,u;,:1 11;un1s ttn11f 111d•n:J ' '·" • t;s Ui 11w1y ""J'"""" ""'If.I! .1nnu w:,.1y -IIOfl pnw w:uy """ J.f. I wJn.t t"•J 11nnGs Uf WWJY JOOl.f r•uynl,w9 l!1tJy 1tf11!Jl-Unfl '""J wumfis llf l!UY JOOIJ PWJfnl,:,9 W3J'f • l.t ·tis u1 wuy JOOIJ · ,_. ·tis Jlld llllfl!S 1 i,unftfiu11b3 · i.t · Gs u, WWJy JOOIJ ~rs Hd llllll!S 1 s;,Jn1y puwib3 r• 1 tnb;o9 flUfnl,119 1tru.t I" '"·'· l!IIJV lll'l!Jl "'" JO ""' UOd !ldf'f!111'101 IUJIIUl!l pu11 UrlOJJIIJl!H 'J1fHIIO 'IUfllUl!l JO Alf:, l!PJ'f uo, un,1 3111!11 llqJ JO "'''""""l • ,,,.n SNWJ.UYd 311RllONJdllJ ll'f!JII flOOl JIIUS 01 ffJlllOOJII :J:,YdS 11001.4 'llVUII 9-:> J1WY1 •.,- · . "'1 �This page revised Dec. of~84 Projected Retail noor Space Requirements !able C-6 indicates retail floor space required co serve future trade area r-., retail expenditure patterns. This table projects required space for comi,arison, convenience and eating and drinld.'ng facilities in the year 2000. The projections of future required floor area for each category of comaarcial activity. were developed by dividing projected expenditure levels by established expeuciicure rates per square foot of com:marcial space. !able C-6 also ponrays the required floor area of various comparison and convenience retail facilities for the year 2000. The seventh column of Table C-6 entitled "Total Trade Area" represents the sum of the required comi,arision floor area for the Delta Township poniou of the trade a~ea as well as for the portion of the trade area outside Delta Township. The total commarcial floor space area requirement projected in this column does not reflect the total amount of commercial facilities which could be sustained within the Delta Central Business District in the year 2000 because, as previously explained, only 60 percent of the cust01118rs rlll originate fr01ll within the primary trade area. The eighth column in this table, entitled "Non-Trade Area," indicates the floor area required to serve cust01118rs originating fr01ll beyond the trade area. The final column in Table C-6 indicates the floor area which can be sustained by both the Central Business District trade area and non-trade area customers. The year 2000 convenience shopping space requirements are shown in the third column of Table C-6. TABLE C-7 COMPARISON OF 1984 AND YEAR 2000 REQUIRED SHOPPING FACILITIES Floor Area of Existing Facilities in sq. ft. (1984) Projected Requiremanes in sq. ft. (2000) Additional· Floor Area Required Comparison Stores 535,000 143,000 24,000 1,600,000 311,000 218,000 1,065,000 168,000 194,000 120,000 3,000 12,000 209,000 132,000 44,000 89,000 129,000 32,000 Eating and Drinking 158,000 396,000 238,000 Other Retail Expenditures 250,000* 716,000 466,000 General Merchandise Clothing and Accessories Furniture and Home Furnishings Convenience Stores Food Stores Hardware and Building 11.aterials Drug Stores and Pharmacies *Estimate Source: Table prepared by Delta Township Planning Department based on data presented in Table C-6. Table C-7 compares exis~ing commercial space in Delta rovnship with projected commercial space requirements for the year 2000. 49 �!bis page revised Dec. of 1984 !II • • Major Findings of che Commercial Base Analysis !n view of che foregoing analyses of exiscing and projecced character- istics of Delea Township's commercial base, che following conclusions are significant in the develop1!18nt of che Township's Conqn.·ehensive Plan: l. !be commercial base analysis revealed that the trade area could absorb additional reta:f.l floor space in all of the categories analyzed. Of course the figures provided represent projections based on ava:f.lable econo'lll:i.c daca and current assumptions which could fluctuate widely in the future. 2. The Township is presencly serving as che retail center for the western portion of cha Lansing Metropolitan Area, particularly regarding hotel accommodations, restaurants and major dapar'ODllnt stores. !be Township's close proxi'lll:i.ty co the ait"t>orc, advantageous location to che interscace system and growing presence as an identifiable market contribute co che concentration of certain commarcial uses in the area. 3. !n order co insure the continued viability of the central business district, efforts should be made to solve local traffic ingress and egress problems, reduce the excessive number of driveways penetrating Saginaw Righway, promote the concept of a service drive paralleling the arterial roadway. regulate cha proliferation of signs and provide for landscaping provisions within co111111ercial areas. 4. !tis recommended that commercial development be encouraged co infill existing commercially zoned vacant areas and cluster when possible in order co avoid intrusions into residential areas. utilize existing uitlicy services and provide comparison shopping opportunities. S. !c should be noted chac Delea Township is particularly well suited for the establishment of a exhibicion hall/convention center due to favorable access provided by interstate freeways, che availability of a significant number of hotel/mocel rooms and che existence of support facilicies such as restaurants and a regional shopping mall. 6. !£ the supply of vacant co1111m1rcially zoned land in the Township becomes limited the following trends are anticipated: a. Rezoning requests to accommodate commercial land uses will increase. b. Proposals will be filed for commercial developments ac outlying loc,ations which often "leapfrog" ahead of available utility services. c. Real estate interests will attempt to develop interior parcels located behind commercial properties on West Saginaw Highway . • so �.. ~ c. Real eseace incereses will aeceJlll)e co develop incerior parcels locaced behind commercial propar~ies on Wese Saginaw Highway. 51 �Tois p&ge revised Dec. of 1984 INDUSTRIAL BASE ANALYSIS The largest single tract of industrially zoned land in the Lansing Metropolitan Area lies within Delta Township. Located in the southeast quadrant of the Township, the industrial tract eXl)erienced a significant amount of develop1D8nt during the l970's. This section b&gins with a discussion of the Township's ex:i.sting industrial. development which includes a listing of major industrial. firms within the Township. The second por~ion of this section provides projections for future industrial development in the Township and also notes recent trends in industrial employment. r Analysis of Delta Townshiu's Existing Industrial Base The principal industrial, wholesaling and distribution activities in the Township are concentrated within the Delta Township Industrial Tract. This 2100-acre area of land is generally bounded by Mc. Hope Righway on the nor~h, US-27/Temporary I-69 on the east and southeast, and I-96 on the west and southwest. Three major facilities are situ.atad in this tract including the Oldsmobile Diesel Engine ?lane, Meijer Distribution Center and the Erickson Electric Generating Station owned by t:he Lansing Board of Water and Light. The industrial tract also includes the area bounded by I-496 to t:he north, Mt. Hope Highway to the south, Waverly Road to the east and Homeland Subdivision to the wast. This area includes three major industrial facilities being the General Motors ?art Warehouse, Jacklin Steel and Douglas Steel. Figure I-I illustrates the location of the Delt:a Township Industrial Tract. The proximity of Delta Township's industrial tTact to major interstate highway connections is a local manifestation of the Lansing Metropolitan Area's position as t:he economic hub of central Michigan. The Grand Trunk Western Railroad also plays an important role in the activities of Delta Township's industrial, warehousing and distribution operations. The General Motors ?arts Warehouse and Oldsmobile Diesel Engine ?lane extensively utilize t:he railroad for incoming and outgoing shipments. The Maijer Distribution Center receives most food goods by rail and thereafter, the bulk of goods is trucked to Meijer retail stores throughout: Michigan. The Grand Trunk Railroad line has evidenced its intention to expand services to the industrial tract by construction of new marshalling yards (1971), an auto port (1975-76), new spur tracks to the Meijer Distribution Center (1975) and new spur tracks to the Oldsmobile Diesel Engine Plant (1980). The proposed construction of !-69 from Charlotte to Lansing in Eaton County will traverse Section 33 within the industrial tract. At this time the Michigan Department of Transportation intends to locate a portion of the roadway east of the existing I-96 and south of Millett Highway. It is estimated that approximately SO acres of industrially zoned land will be acquired for I-69 right of way. The proposed !-69 project will not include additional access points to the industTial cract. 52 �FIGURE r-r DEI..TA TOWSRIP INDUSTRIAL TRACT Lnduscrial Tract Locacion wichin Delea Township AVI !lluscracion of Delea Township lndusctial Trace 53 �/ This page was revised A,ril of 1983 Dec. of 1984 COlJll)OSition of Existing Industry Delta Township ' s full range of industrial, warehousing and distribution . activities is shown in Table I-1. This t:able illustrates t:he a.umber of Delta Township firms engaged in various industrial, warehousing and dist:ribucion activities. Table I-1 indicates that a major portion of Delta Township's industrial firms are engaged in s0111a form of distribution. Included in the distribution group is t:he General Motors Parts Distribut:ion Center discussed earlier along with t:he Meijer and Coca-Cola Distribution Cancers. The ocher firms represented in t:he ~istribution group are colJll)aratively small t:ransfer and t:rucking OlJerations. Most of t:he establishments engaged in distribution activities are affiliated with firms car1:7ing on Ol)erations outside the Lansing Metrol)olitan Area. ~1th t:he excel)tion of the General Motors Pares Distribution Center and Meijer Distribution Center, firms engaging in distribution activities ellll)loy relatively few. people in their local operations. During the 1970's a significant a.umber of new industrial firms, the majority of which were associated with distribution of materials and · goods, located in the industrial t:ract. This trend suggests t:hat the location and access characteristics of the industrial tract are highly desirable . TYl)ically, firms providing comon carrier and freight transportation services require highly accessible locations to both metrol)olitan and regional service areas. 54 �This page was revised April ot l983 Dec. of l98~ TABLE I-l MAJOR BUS'lliESS ESTABLISHMENTS LOCATED IN DEI.TA TOWNSHIP' S INDUSTRIAL TRACT Construction and Related Activities Distribution Clark. Foundation Couq,any Douglas Steel Jacklin Steel T.R. Noyce Construction Company Rieth-Riley Construction Company Shreve Steel Company rem' s Asphalt Paving Company General Trucking Alvan Motor Freight Associated Truck. Lines Blue ArTow Inc. Bruce Cartage Central Transport Inc. Interstate System Robin Transport Transcon Lines Tucker Freight T..ines United Trucking Service Warehousing Auto-Owners Warehouse Coca-Cola Company Farm Bureau Warehouse General Motors Pares Distribution Center Hi-Klas Beverage Lansing Storage Company Manufacturers Service Co~oration Meijer Distribution Center Nabisco Warehouse P,:-ecision Parts Sherriff Goslin Company Stevens ~an T..ines Truck. Rental Atlas Truck Rental and Leasing Keena Truck. Leasing Ryder Truck. Rental and Leasing Grain Elevators Millett Elevator Company Rals~on Purina Company Wholesaling Miscellaneous Central Dairy Supply Flint Pipe and Well Supply Kendall Electric Company A-1 Auto Parts Cante~n Services Central Michigan Lumber Couq,any Tony M's Lounge/Baldwin's Party Store Chemstyle/Dahlmer Lansing Sash and Door Michigan Ash Sales Light Manufacturing Air-Lift Company Diamond Manufacturing Heavv Manufacturing Detroit News Printing Facility Oldsmobile Diesel Engine Plant Utilities and Railroads Erick.son Generating Station Grand Trunk Western Railroad 54A �Industrial Tract Land Inventory Approximately fifty percent of the land within the Delta Industrial Tract has been developed or is committed to existing industries. The industrial tract consists of soma 2100 acres of land area, of which approximately 1,000 acres are developed or are now being develo~ed. Among the largest land users are the Enck.sou Electric Generating Station (305 acres), Meijer Distribution Complex (250 acres), Oldsmobile Diesel Engine Plant (230 acrt>~), C-..et'leral Motors Parts Warehouse ( 195 acres) , Coca-Cola (30 acres) and the Detroit News (12 acres). Industrial-warehousing uses have consumed an estimated 100 acres per year of vacant land during the 1972-1980 period. Industrial Development Activity in the Lansing Metro Area During the 1970's, Delta Township attracted a significant number of industrial warehousing firms. In the 1972-1977 period, approxi.lilately 27,000 square feet of manufacturing space was constructed in the Township. During this same time approximately c:wo million square feet of warehousing space was constructed. In the late l970's, the following major projects were constructed within the industrial tract: Oldsmobile Plant Number Five (1,000,000 square feet), the General Motors Parts Warehouse addition (825,000 square feet), Meijer Hardlines Distribution Building (415,000 square feet), Coca-Cola Warehouse (85,000 square feet) and the Detroit News printing f~cility (J0,000 square feet). !I P~ojectiou of Future Industrial Development Potential analysis. and projection of industrial, warehousing and distribution economic paten eial will be car~i~d out in four steps. First, at c-en tion will be directed to the overall structure of the Lansing Tri-County Region's economy. Secondly, consideration will be given to those special features of the Tri-County economic structure which are important to industrial, warehousing and distribution economic potential. Thirdly, regional employment trends in industrial and wholesaling trades will be analyzed. Finally, projections of future Tri-County industrial and wholesaling employment will be presented and analyzed in order to determine future development potential for Delta Township. An Tri-County Regional Economic Structure The economy of the Tri-County Region is based upon three key elements: state government,- higher education and automobile manufac curing. Having an economy based on three such diversified elements has benefit~d the Lansing area in terms of economic balance and stability that would not be possible in a oore narrowly-based economy. Furthermore, this economic structure has enabled the Lansing Metropolitan Area to take advantage of national growth trends in the three key economic sectors of government:, education and industry and thereby evolve as the economic hub of central ~chigan during the post World War rwo period. Features of the Tri-County regional economy which have a bearing on the potential for future industrial development are primarily related to the skills and expertise which exist within the ~etropolitan Lansing Area. 55 �The region has facilir:ies and personnel reqw.red for basic research operations. Furthermore, ir: has a good supply of skilled craf~man capable of participating in a brnad range of manufacturing activities. These asser:s shoul.d assure r:h.e region steady growch over future dacalies. ~ The durable goods industry of the Lansing Metropolitan Area revolves around r:he production of transportation eqw.pmant. Despice conscious efforts to decentralize r:ha automabile manufacturing industry, the Lansing area complex of transportation-affiliated induscrtes is expected to retain its national importance as a major automcbile manufacturing canter. Future expansion of automobile affiliated industrtas in r:he Tri-County Reg:i.on is expected to depend on national econom:i.c and. population trends and local and state governmantal policies. While automobile manufacturing and its ancillary industrtas form tha mainstay of the Lansing Metropolitan Area manufacturing community, there are numerous non-<iurable indus cries. Kay non-durables in r:ha Lansing area are generally the ones classified as central place industries. Central place industries are characterized by strong cies to local and regional markets that can 'be served from a central place. Thay are ct... pendent upon a highly competitive mark.et. Tha Maijer Distribution Canter is an example of a central place industry since it operates co servi.ce metropolitan and regional retail outlets of r:he parent company. A feature of r:he Tri-County Region which is very import:ant co its potencial as a warehousing and distribucion cencer is ics strategic location in cha lower central portion of Michigan. As already indicated~ r:ha network of modern highways that link Lansing wich other pari:s of Cha state enhance chis posicion. Air and rail r:ransportation facilicias in r:he Lansing natropolican Area also help co strengthen r:his potential. fiaving analy,:ed the general structure of cha Tri-Councy regional economy and having evaluated those special features of the Tri-County Region which have a 'bearing on potential industrial, warehousing and distribucion develop111ant, we now cum co a considerai;ion of Tri-Councy regional. manufaccuring and wholesaling employ,nent crends. Table t-2 indicates chat manufacturing and wholesale employment crends show small, 'but signi~ ficant, gains in manufacturing and wholesale employ,nent becween r:ha years 1965 and 1978. Despite chase gains, r:he tables show that manufacturing and wholesale employ,nenc has lagged 'behind total non-farm employ,uent. Manufacturing and wholesale employ,nenc grew 'by l l and 33 percenc, raspeccively, 'between che years 1965 and 1978. Ac Che same r:ime government and retail employment increased 146 and 70 percent, respeccively. Evaluation of the foregoing trends in manufacturing and wholesale employmane must 'be cempered wich Che realization that che Cima period during which Chey developed Sal-' a national shift in ~mploy,nent away from manufacturing towards retail crade. Furthermore, during the same time period, local development~ included significanc expansion in r:he operacions of 'both Michigan Seate University and state government. !n view of these faces, Tri-County manufacturing and wholesale employ,uent crends shoul.d be read for their absolute growth. The fact that manufacturing and , . . . _._,_ wholesale employt11ent failed co gain as a proportion of total employ,nent should not be caken as an indicacion chat these t:wo sectors of the Lansing economy are wichouc vicalicy. tndeed, che future portends slow 56 '1 �but steady growth in both of these areas. Projection of Manufacturing and Wholesale Employment Table 1-3 presents projected manufacturing and wholesale employment projections for the Tri-County Region developed by the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission. This projection is based upon expected changes in the structure of the national economy and on past and proposed trends in Tri-County economic development. The projected Tri-County employment shown in Table 1-3 was developed during 1977 by the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission. The: entire region was divided into 465 traffic zones. Using statewide growth projections, the Tri-County allocation of state growth, and knowledge of local land development trends, land use assignments were made within each traffic zone. Employment, a key factor in traffic generation, was also developed for each traffic zone based on TCRPC employment projections and assignments to each zone. Regional employment and economic development trends do not provide sufficient detail for proper analysis of economic change within Delta Township. Using the traffic zone socio-economic data, traffic zones 91, 92, 93 and 94 represent the geographic area of Delta Township's Industrial Tract, previously discussed. Table I-4 presents the summary of these four traffic zones as to projected manufacturing and wholesale employment which may be expected by 1985 and the year 2000. TABLE I-2 TRI-COUNTY REGION EMPLOYMENT CHANGES 1965-1978 1965-1978 Percent Change 1965 19 74 1978 Manufacturing Employment 40,941 33,383 41,400 1. l Retail Employment 16,192 24, 177 29,000 79. 1 Government Employment 27,653 49,550 68,100 146. 3 Other* 34,376 40,849 45,800 33.3 119. 162 147,959 184,JOO 54.6 TOTAL Sources: Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Michigan Employment Security Commission *Wholesale employment estimated at 15 % of the "other employment" category based on projections by TCRPC and Robert Gladstone Associates . 57 �TABLE I-3 PROJECTIONS OF MANUFACTURING AND WHOLESALE EMPLOYMENT IN THE TRI-COUNTY AREA Manufacturing Wholesale Source: 1978 1985 2000 1978-2000 Percent Change 41,400 39,872 43,510 5.0 6,800 7,300 9,700 42.6 Final 1985 and 2000 Traffic Zone Socio-Economic Data, TCRPC, 1977 TABLE I-4 PROJECTIONS OF MANUFACTURING AND WHOLESALE EMPLOYMENT IN THE DELTA INDUSTRIAL TRACT 1974-2000 Percent Change 19 74 1985 2000 Manufacturing 758 1,865 2,865 277. 9 Wholesale 105 252 549 422.8 Source: 1985 and 2000 Traffic Zone Socio-Economic Data (1977), Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Delta Township Planning Department Since raw projection of employment provides no indication of future land consumption, it was deemed necessary to determine average employment density for manufacturing and wholesale activities, then compute raw land requirements by dividing projected employment by ' employment density, thereby obtaining a rough notion of land consumption. Table I-5 presents the results of this calculation. Table I-5 indicates some 200 acres of new land will be needed for industrial-wholesale enterprises in the 1981-2000 period. When compared with 1972-1977 economic expansion in the industrial tract, approximately 120 acres per year, the forecast seems highly conservative. However, 1972 through 1977 was an extraordinary period of economic expansion due primarily to the advent of the Meijer Distribution Center and the General Motors Parts Warehouse expansion. Absent these two enterprises, the rate of economic expansion whould have been significantly lower. ' 58 �TABLE I-5 j PROJECTED LAND CONSU11PTION FOR MANUFACTURING AND WHOLESALE ACTIVITIES IN THE DELTA INDUSTRIAL TRACT Employment Change Employees Per Acre Additional Acres 1974-1985 Manufacturing 15 958 63 Wholesale 10 14 7 ,. 1.) 1986-2000 Manufacturing Wholesale 13 1,149 88 9 297 33 Competitiv~ Position of Delta Township in Attracting Industry Within the Tri-County Region The industrial tract of Delta Township contains approximately 11.00 acres of vacant, not yet committed, land. When compared to the estimated 200 acres of land needed for manufacturing-wholesale uses by the year 2000, this amount of land appears to be an excessive reserve, even perhaps speculative. However, several factors suggest the current boundaries of the industrial tract, as depicted in Figure I-I, should b_e retained; they are: 1. The strong influx of new industry during the past decade suggests the industrial tract is favorably located for transportation-distribution dependent industry. 2. The present limits of the industrial tract form a logical transition between industry and other land uses. 3, The industrial tract provides an area with land reserves sufficient to accommodate post-2000 economic expansion. 4. The Township has maintained a consistent pro-economic expansion philosophy, evidenced by sizable investments for utilities and roads in the industrial tract and creation of the Delta Township Economic Development Corporation. Continued promotion of economic growth by Township officials could result in increased land consumption for industrial uses. 5. Industrial firms have recently sought to purchase tracts larger than their immediate needs would dic~ate to accommodate future conditions and to ensure a measure of privacy since many manufacturing concerns have been the object of nuisance claims due to noise, smoke, dust, vibration and the like. 59 �III Conclusions 1. The Del ta Township Comprehensive Plan, 19 7 3 Edition, recommended reservation of some 2100 acres of land for present and future industrial and related uses. The Delta Industrial Tract has evolved consistently with this recommendation. Although designation of this amount of land for future development exceeds the projected potential requirements of 200 industrial acres, it is believed that the Township should provide for industrial expansion which may occur beyond the twenty-year projection period of the Plan. Also, the future location of a limited number of very large industries within Delta Township could measurably increase the amount of new industrial development in the Township and thereby increase the amount of land required. 2. Delta Township should continue with planning and construction of utilities, roads and essential services within the industrial tract, thus maintaining its advantages in the Lansing Metropolitan area as to providing services. 3. Delta Township should receive a significant proportion of the new economic expansion occurring within the Tri-County Region to the year 2000. Favorable location, accessibility, sound utility system, comparable tax rates and incentives now offered via tax abatement and public financing all contribute to this conclusion. 4. Township officials should carefully monitor new enterprises to ensure compatibility with existing industrial activity, adequacy of utilities, proper fire protection and that needed private services are maintained. Such private services should include retail and personal services conveniently located near the industrial tract to serve the large number of employees projected. Fast-food, drive-'i.n bankinf,, personal services and certain professional services are typically found on the fringe of major employment areas. 60 �This page revised Dec. of 1984 XI • Mass Transit Service in Delta Township In January of 1972 the Capital Area Transportation Authority (CATA) was formed under Act 55 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1963, through a petition by the City of Lansing. CATA provided transit service to Delta Township during the late 1970's and early 1980's with financial subsidies being provided by the Township. The CATA system provided service pri_marily to activity centers along West Saginaw Highway. In April of 1984 CATA discontinued transit service to the Township which was replaced ·by a line haul service operated by the Eaton County Transportation Authority (EATRAN). EATRAN began operation on October 1, 1980 under a contract with the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT). In 1981 Delta Township joined EATRAN which is a demand response bus system which constantly changes the way the buses are dispatched as customer demand changes. EATRAN services the entire Eaton County area while specializing in commuter express trips, and medical trips for senior citizens and handicappers into the Lansing Area. Approximately 70% of EATRAN's riders are on a permanent reservation, that is they utilize the system at the same time on a regular basis. Table T-5 illustrates ridership figures for the EATRAN system in Eaton County and Delta Township. EATRAN ridership has been stable in the past in Delta Township and has experienced annual increases country-wide . Decreases in ridership took place in 1984 due to a 20% reduction in service hours. It is anticipated that Delta Township's percentage of ridership will increase due to the initiation of limited line haul service by EATRAN in Delta Township in 1984. TABLE T-5 EATRAN RIDERSHIP % of Ridership in Year* 1980-1981 1981-1982 1982-1983 1983-1984** Eaton County Delta Township 89,452 101,710 131,053 77 , 580 10,950 7,377 13,644 7,435 Delta Township 12% 7% 10% 9½% *Period is October to October **Period is October 1983 thru April 1984 EATRAN is presently providing demand response, line haul service and commute express services to the Township. EATRAN demand response and line haul services connect to the CATA system at the southeast corner of the Edgemont Plaza in Lansing Township. EATRAN line haul route times are presently coordinated with CATA Route Number Three which traverses Willow Highway. 84 �This page revised Dec. of 1~ XII Railroad Facilities Serving Delta Township The Chesapeake and Ohio and the Grank Trunk Western are the two railroad lines with tracks running through Delta Township. The Chesapeake and Ohio track cuts across the extreme northwest corner of the Township, but does not provide direct service to the Township. Two Grand Trunk Western tracks cut across the southeast corner of the Township parallel to U.S. 27. The tracks are part of a main line route serving Chicago, Port Huron, Toronto and intermediate cities. The Lansing yard located at Snow Road and Pierson Highway is Grand Trunk Western's headquarters and main marshalling yard in the Lansing Metropolitan Area. Grank Trunk Western facilities and services in Delta Township represent one of the most important transportation assets in the Lansing Metropolitan Area . The Lansing yard consists of 13 switching tracks with automated controls and is a central assembly and dispatch point for railroad cars destined for all parts of the country . Grank Trunk Western serves the following Delta Township industrial type facilities. Oldsmobile Diesel Engine Plant Lansing Board of Water & Light ' s Erickson Station Meijers Distribution Center Millett Elevator Company Ralston Purina Company Grank Trunk Western has indicated a willingness to provide additional spur service to new industries desiring to locate in the Township's industrial tract. The Grank Trunk Western Railroad tracks carry approximately 15 tra i ns per day in each direction, making Grank Trunk Western the major r ail line in the Lansing area. Grand Trunk Western has eliminated the passenger service it once provided to the Township. 85 . 7 f~ �Since August of 1975 the Grand Trunk Western has operated an automotive compound, lo:i.o"tvtl as Autoport, which is located on Snow Road adjacent to the railroad's main line. This facility was designed as an intermodal distribution center for both American and foreign-made automobiles. Vehicles are transported by rail from either the assembly plant or the U.S. port of entry to Autoport and then trucked to dealerships in Michigan cities and surrounding out-state areas. In the first four years of operation, over 100,000 vehicles were transported through this facility. - From a railroad track layout perspective alone, most of Delta Township's industrial tract could be served by the Grand Trunk. The Grand Trunk Railroad plans to extend a railroad spur from the existing Meijer lead, which traverses the middle of Section 26 in a north-south direction, eastwardly three quarters of a mile to the Autoport facility which is located in Section 25. The potential also exists to serve the eastern halves of Sections 27 and 34 off of the Oldsmobile lead. Future railroad service to Delta Township is difficult to project. Recent national railroad trends have evidenced the elimination of some passenger and freight service to various parts of the country. The most important local trends affecting freight service to Delta Township will be the pace of development in the Township's industrial triangle and in other industrial areas served oj, ·the Grand Trunk Western line. Past increases in freight traffic suggest that the future will witness moderate growth. XIII Air Service to Delta Township Capital City Airport is located near the northeast corner of Delta Township, north of Grand River Avenue in Clinton County. The airport provides commercial passenger, freight and general -aviation service to the Lansing Metropolitan area. The 1600 acre airport is served at present by three major airlines; United, Republic and Piedmont. There are also two commuter airlines serving the Lansing Metropolitan area; Simmons and Freedom. These four airlines currently have 30 regularly scheduled flights per day to such major cities as New York, Chicago, Detroit, Denver, Atlanta, Milwaukee, Cleveland and Washington, DC. In 1978 United and Republic airline flights into and out of Capital City Airport carried 448,260 passengers, an increase of 58 percent since 1972. A total of 163,032 flights occurred at Capital City Airport in 1978. General aviation activicy accounted for 88% of this total or 147,205 flights. Capital City Airport general aviation activity includes business, charter, survey and patrol flights, crop dusting, instructional and pleasure flying. Besides the main terminal facility, there are office, industrial, commercial, hangar, maintenance, crash/fire/rescue and classroom buildings located at Capital City Airport. The airport serves as the air transportation hub for Michigan State government, Michigan State University and many private businesses in the Lansing area as well as Delta 'Township 86 �This page revised Dec. of ~ 4 XIII Air Service-to Delta Township Capital City Airport is located in and adjacent to the northeast corner of Delta Township, primarily north of North Grand River Avenue in Clinton County. ~ Toe airport provides commercial air transportation, air freight and general aviation services to the Lansing Metropolitan area. The 1700 acre airport is currently served by three major airlines : United, Republic and Piedmont along with two commuter airlines: Simmons and Freedom. These carriers provided 30-35 flights to such major cities as New York, Boston, Washington, D.C., Atlanta, Miami, Dallas-Fort Worth, Denver, Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, los Angeles, San Francisco and Phoenix. Air travel from Lansing pe~ked in 1978 and 1979 with 448,260 passengers in 1978 and 444,224 passengers in 1979. Table T-6 illustrates passenger activity in 1983 increased 36% over the act i vity in 1982. The passenger activity for 1984 is expected to stay the same as 1983 or increase slightly. Lansing's Capital City Airport has historically been the third or fourth busiest airport in the State of Michigan, periodically changing places with Saginaw's Tri-City Airport behind Detroit Metropolitan Airport and Kent County International Airport in Grand Rapids. Approximately 85-90% of the air traffic at Capital City Airport is general aviation activity which is comprised of business, charter, survey, crop dusting, patrol flights, instructional and pleasure flights to name a few. Early in 1981, a new and expanded modern terminal facility was put into use with full second level loading through passenger loading bridges and a large new baggage claim area. The Terminal Building also houses state and federal offices related with air transportation and airport development as well as a restaurant, airline and rental car offices, and two travel agency offices. · Located at Capital City Airport are many businesses and offices, both commercial and industrial. Capital City Airport serves as the air transportation hub for Michigan State Government, Michigan State University, and the many private businesses in the Greater Lansing area. The numerous hotels located in Delta Township serve as major support facilities for travelers utilizing the airport. Commercial and industrial businesses i n Delta Township have direct access to air transportation and air cargo facilities at Capital City Airport. In 1975 a new Master Plan was prepared for the full development of Capital City Airport . That plan has been completely developed for the f i rst phase of expansion and construction. Since 1975 many changes have taken place nationally which have created the need for the Master Plan to be updated for today's situation and economy . In late 1984 a master plan consultant will be engaged to conduct a new updated study and provide the Capital Region Airport Authority with direct i on for future development. 87 ~- �This page revised Dec. of 1984 TABLE T-6 PASSENGER ACTIVITY CAPITAL CITY AIRPORT DEPLANED PASSENGERS ENPLANED PASSENGERS TOTAL PASSENGERS 1979 224,178 220,046 444,224 1980 188,151 180 , 302 368,453 1981 133,038 123,767 256,805 YEAR CHANGE -17% -30% + 1% 1982 172,315 129,779 257,094 1983 177,255 172,858 350, 113 DATA SOURCE : +36% Capital Region Airport Authority -~ 87a ..I �XIV Non Motorized Transportation The use of bicycles as an alternative means of transportation has risen dramatically in the 1970's due to the ever-increasing cost of gasoline and the threat of reduced supplies. Bicycles represent a practical energy conservation measure while providing door-to-door convenience and efficiency, as a practical mode of transportation, particularly in urban areas. As part of a large urban area, Delta Township should provide for the growing needs of bicycle users in the Township. The Planning and development of a bicycle path system in ~elta Township should be regionally coordinated in order to create an efficient bicycle route system throughout the Tri-County area. Engineering standards for constructing bicycle paths as developed by federal and State Departments of Transportation Officials should be utilized to avoid conflicts in connecting bicycle paths with adjoining municipalities. There are baiscally three types of bicyclists. The first group is children who use the bicycle extensively on low traffic residential streets. The second group is the average adult rider who usually rides close to home on local streets and generally is uncomfortable traveling long distances on heavily traveled streets. The third group is the experienced bicyclist who travels high volume arterials, generally keeps up with traffic in urbanized areas at a pace of 10-15 miles per hour and frequently travels relatively long distances of 10-20 miles. Each of the aforementioned groups has unique bicycling characteristics and therefore requires different types of bicycle facilities to satisfy its needs. Children who commute to schools, parks and playgrounds can often be served by low volume local streets. Average adult cyclists generally feel comfortable on low volume streets and frequently prefer off-road recreational paths. The commuter bicyclist is oriented towards utilitarian bicycle trips and generally prefers on-road routes which offer the shortest distance between travel points. Due to the fact that the majority of bicyclists now utilize the roadway, with the exception being children who generally use sidewalks, greater emphasis should be placed on reducing motorist-bicyclist conflicts. Many Delta Township streets cannot adequately accommodate bicyclists due to poor vertical and horizontal alignments, narrow traffic lanes, and inadequate shoulders. This situation is especially critical in the vicinity of schools. · ' In planning for non-motorized transportation in the Township, consideration should be given to developing bicycle lanes in conjunction with new road construction, improvements to existing roads, and the installation of bicycle/equestrian paths along utility easements. Many bike paths could be developed via these methods without significant additional funding. Bicycle lanes could also be constructed along the Carrier Creek and Grand River green belts as designated on the Future Land Use Map. One source of funding for bicycle path construction could be the Eaton County Road Commission which was authorized in 1979 to appropriate one percent of its funds for non-motorized transportation projects by an amendment to the Michigan Motor Vehicle Fund (Act 51 of -~ the Public Acts of 1951). 88 �• During 1979-1980 a Bicycle Transportation Plan was prepared by the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission. This Plan contains regional bicycling goals and objectives, a description of existing bicycle facilities, a review of local bicycle ordinances, and an analysis of education programs and engineering studies. The report also contains an appraisal of major Delta Township streets which were examined by experienced members of the Tri-County Bicycle Association regarding the street's suitability for safe bicycling. A sidewalk network to serve pedestrians should also be considered as part of a non-motorized transportation plan for the Township. The existing sidewalk system does not meet the needs of Township residents. Sidewalks do not exist to serve students commuting to schools forcing them to use roadways and creating a dangerous situation par t icularly for young children . Pedestrian-auto conflicts also occur in commercial areas due to the lack of sidewalks. In planning a sidewalk network, emphasis should be on the creation of a safe means of access for pedstrians to activity centers within the Township such as schools, parks and commercial areas. Priorities for sidewalk construction should be based on pedestrian volume to these activity centers. Funding for sidewalk construction is available through such state authorized means as the creation of special assessment districts or the levying of a special millage • • 89 �This page revised Dec. of 1984 WATER SERVICE • The previously documented growth which Delta has experienced has resulted in increased demands for municipal services including the provision of a public water supply. Because the Township has only provided this service for the past two decades the water supply system has experienced the advantages of the improved technology of the past twenty years. In order to maintain the high quality of the municipal services presently provided, the Township must continually evaluate the water supply and distribution system in terms of its ability to meet present and future water supply demands. This chapter describes the existing water system, provides projected water consumption figures and depicts future water service areas. I Historical Information The existing water supply system was initiated during 1957 with water being purchased from Lansing Township. Water mains were installed in three subdivisions; Knolls, Clairborne Heights and Huntington Acres. The Lansing Board of Water and Light operated the system until the late 19SO's when Delta Township purchased these water lines from the Board of Water and Light. In 1963 the Township began to establish its own water supply system. -During this time the 500,000 gallon elevated storage tank on Snow Road was constructed, 100,000 feet of water mains were installed and water Wells #1 and #2 were installed. These facilities served the area generally located between Waverly and Elmwood Roads. Major expansions to the system were initiated in October of 1965 and were completed in the spring of 1966. Well #3 was added to the system during this time and minor subdivision extensions, paid for by individual developers, were installed. Well #4 was constructed in 1968. In September of 1969 the State of Michigan entered into an agreement with the Township for water service to the State Secondary Complex located in Windsor Township adjacent to Delta's southern boundary. • Additional water supply wells have been constructed in order to meet increasing water consumption demands. Well #5 was put into service during the summer of 1970, Well #6 in 1973, Well #7 in 1975, Well #8 in 1977, and Hell #9 in 1984. Since 1969, major new additions to the water service area have taken place. In 1975, Water District #5 provided service west of Creyts Road along Willow Highway and along Canal Road between Willow and Saginaw Highway. In 1978-1979 District #4 was established which provided service along Creyts Road between I-496 and Millett Highway. Improvements in this area also included the construction of a 1.25 million gallon ground storage structure near the Creyts Road/Millett Highway intersection. In 1982 Water District #6 was established which provided service along Creyts Road between Millett Highway and U.S. 27. II • Description of Existing Water Service System Existing Distribution System The Township's water system service area lies within an area best described as bounded by Waverly Road on the east, the Grand River on the north, Interstate 96 on the west and on the south by the southern Township boundary. The major exception is service to the State of Michigan 90 �DELTA TOWNSHIP Figure W•I · EXISTING WATER SERVICE AREA (19841 ISi TRANSMISSION MAIN [Q] WATER STORAGE [Q] WATER WELL ....... °' 1\ - NORTH ti> 0 REVISE( 1000 /84 2000 4000 �This page revised Dec. of 1984 Secondary Complex within Windsor Township. The existing water system service area is illustrated on Figure W-I. A majority of water mains in the distribution system have been constructed within the past ten years and were largely installed as ductile iron pipe. With only minor exception, all mains are at least six inches in diameter. The system, being comparatively new and largely constructed with ductile iron pipes, is in good physical condition and has a long-term life expectancy. The present system of feeder or transmission mains looped along section lines consists largely of eight, ten and twelve inch mains. While these larger mains have adequate water flow properties, they have been installed at one mile intervals which is wider than the one half mile spacing recommended by the American Water Works Association. The transmission mains along portions of Creyts and Elmwood Roads are presently undersized. The installation of a 16" water main in the vicinity of Creyts Road and the construction of a 1.25 million gallon water storage facility helped remedy the water pressure inadequacy by reinforcing the transmission grid. As of 1984, the water distribution system consisted of approximately 91 miles of water mains. The water distribution system provides two primary services; (1) domestic consumption water and (2) fire protection. Discussion in later passages deals with consumption requirements. present and future. Provision of adequate fire protection is dependent upon adequately sized water transmission mains and adequate initial pressure at the well supply. Fire flow requirements are based upon building size, spacing between buildings, type of construction and the provision of sprinkler systems. Minimum standards have been established as to the required gallons per minute (GPM) needed to fight a fire and put it out. Many buildings in Delta require 3000 GPM with a limited number as high as 6000 GPM. As the water distribution system is expanded in response to future development, Delta Township should strive to coordinate future water main construction with the goal of strengthening the present transmission network. This approach will be particularly effective in portions of the Township which are only partially developed. That is, transmission mains can be constructed in terms of anticipated demands of these growing neighborhoods. The last section of this chapter provides approximate locations of proposed future transmission mains together with service area boundaries. Water Supply The water system has nine wells supplying water into the distribution system. These wells tap sandstone aquifers at depths ranging from 363 to 450 feet. The estimated combined maximum capacity of the eight wells is over 4800 GPM or 6.91 million gallons per day. This production cannot be maintained at maximum levels due to water draw down effects in the aquifers and the need to maintain the wells. Total well production can generally be maintained at 3,800 GPM or S .4 •million gallons per day. Table W-1 provides data regarding the existing production wells. 92 �This page revised Dec. of 1984 'I TABLE W-1 EXISTING WATER WELLS, DELTA TOWNSHIP Well No. Year Installed DeEth Diameter 1 1963 426' 12 II 300 2 1963 450' 12 II 300 3 1966 390 I 12 II 300 4 1968 370' 16" 600 5 1970 423' 15 II 600 6 1972 363' 15" 800 7 1976 267' 16 II 268 8 1976 298 11 16" 840 9 1984 440' 16 II 800 Water Productzo~ Rating in GPM l (l)Well production is indicative of the amount of water each well pumps from the ground in gallons per minute (GPM). The nine water supply wells in the Township's water system tap the Parma Sandstone formation lying some 350-450 feet below land surface. Rock aquifers such as the Parma formation provide lower water yields than glacial drift aquifers, but are less susceptible to the effects of contamination from surface sources. These rock wells are deeper than wells in glacial drift and have overlying strata which slows the recharge from surface waters. Rock aquifers are often highly mineralized, containing high concentrations of iron, maganese and hardness. Wells 1-3 are connected by water mains along Michigan Avenue. Water from Wells 2 and 3 is combined with Water Well 1 at which point chlorine is added as a disinfecting agent. Wells 4, 6 and 8 connect to an isolation main which enables chlorine to be added at a free-standing building on the wastewater treatment plant site. Sodium hexameta-phosphate is added at each well prior to chlorination to stabilize the iron found in the water. All other wells are connected directly to the water system with chlorination and iron stabilization provided at each. Delta Township does not add fluoride to the water system. Water Storage The function of water storage in a public water supply system is threefold; it provides (1) a temporary source of water during electrical power mechanical failure, (2) supplemental water supply during periods of peak water demand and (3) fire protection capacity. The water system contains two types of water storage, an elevated tower and a ground tank. Elevated storage is most commonly used because of its reliability in case of electrical or mechanical failure. Larger water systems include ground storage equipped with variable speed pumps because of lower capital investment requirements per gallon of storage, the provisions of 93 t;" �This page was revised April of 1983 Dec. of 1984 easy access for repair, and the fact that ground storage facilities have more aesthetic appeal than elevated storage tanks. The Delta Township system has a 500,000 gallon elevated tank on the east side of Snow Road just ~orth of St. Joe Highway. This tank has a static water pressure at its base of 59 pounds per square inch (PSI). A ground · storage tank, equipped with variable speed pumps, is located on the west side of Creyts Road some 600 feet north of Millett Highway. · The tank contains 1.25 million gallons of storage capacity and delivers water into the 16 inch South Creyts transmission main. The ground storage facility helps maintain 50-55 PSI in the south end of the water system serving lands south of I-496. Water Consumption Table W-2 illustrates that water - consumption in Delta Township has steadily increased in the past. A consistent pattern has emerged, that being that approximately 45 percent of the total water consumed is attributed to single family residences, 25 percent is consumed by commercial/office establishments, 20 percent is consumed by multi-family residential developments, four percent is consumed by industry, 2% by manufacturing with miscellaneous uses such as schools and churches consuming the remaining four percent. It is expected that the amount of water consumed by industrial and manufacturing establishments will significantly increase as growth and development take place in the Township industrial tract. TABLE W-2 DELTA TOWNSHIP WATER CONSUMPTION 1977-1983 Customer Classes Year Annual Single MultiWater Family Family Senior Office Special Consumption Residential Residential Citizens Commercial Category* 1977 589,543,680 1978 638,522,720 1979 652,824,480 1980 647,782,960 Industrial Hanufacturir 1981** 695,000,000 1982 749,127,960 318,522,635 127,587,033 657,118 241,645,888 9,436,992 35,058,161 16,119,998 1983 790,726,510 348,127,203 152,869,732 293,141 194,453,595 10,191,275 38,657,612 20,864,936 *Special category includes institutional uses such as schools, churches, etc. * *Estimate ~ - 94 �This page was revised April of 1983 Dec. of 1984 Fire Flows As suggested previously, one major problem with the water distribution system is the undersized water transmission mains spaced on one-mile intervals. Historically, fire underwriters have identified municipal fire flow requirements using empirical formulas based upon resident population in the service areao With increasing sophistication of water supply systems and fire fighting apparatus, new criteria have been adopted which recognize the types of structure and density of develppment. In 1977, the Township Engineering Department calculated fire flows for existing major buildings, a partial listing of which is included in Table W-3. Table W-3 RECOMMENDED FIRE FLOWS Recommended Fire Flow Duration of Fire Flow Village Green Apartments 6,000 GPM 6 hours Lansing Mall 4; 500 GPM 4 hours Plum Tree Apartments 4,000 GPM 4 hours West Saginaw Plaza 2,750 GPM 2 hours Michigan National Bank Center 3,500 GPM 3 hours Sea Hawk Restaurant 1,500 GPM 2 hours Waverly High School 4,500 GPM 4 hours Meijer (retail store) 3,000 GPM 3 hours Hilton Inn 4,500 GPM 4 hours Establishment The addition of the 1.25 million gallon ground storage facility and the installation of 12 and 16 inch transmission mains along Creyts Road improved the water system's fire flow capability and duration of flow. It should be noted that having fire flow capability in well production and storage does not mean that recommended fire flow can be delivered to the site of a fire. The distribution mains must be properly sized, spaced, and looped to provide such fire flows at all locations in the water service area. A private firm, Insurance Services Office (ISO), grades municipal fire systems throughout the United States. Many insurance companies in Michigan base their fire insurance rates on information gathered by ISO. The ISO rates fire systems on a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 representing the best performance. No Michigan communities ranked by ISO score a 1 and many are rated at 8, 9 and 10. The cities of Detroit and Lansing score a 2 and 3 respectively. Areas served by hydrants in Delta Township are rated at 8 while more rural areas without hydrants are rated at 9. Representatives of the Michigan Insurance Bureau have stated that residents in communities with ISO rankings of 8 to 10 pay 10 to 70 95 -~ �This page was revised April of 1983 Dec. of 1984 percent additional for fire insurance than areas with better grades. Among the items considered by the ISO in their ranking are fire department equipment, staffing and training, fire prevention programs, building codes; reliability, flow and maintenance of the water system and fire communications, including alarms. III Future Service Area Figure W-II provided an indication of the future water system service area _in increments of five years. This figure should not be construed as identifying precise lands to be served during each time period. It is intended to convey the general extent and location of service area extensions based upon projected service demands. Figure W-II should be viewed in conjunction with Figure SS-II presented in the Sanitary Sewer Service Chapter as to the provision of both public water and public sanitary sewer services to given areas of Delta Township. There are extensive portions of the Township to which Township public water services are not contemplated during the planning period. These areas are generally described as follows: (1) All lands lying north of the Grand River and west of I-96. (2) The portion of the Township bounded by Interstate 96, Mt. Hope Highway, the west Township boundary and the south Township boundary. The water service limits represented in Figure W-II have been derived so as to provide water service only to those areas where it is costeffective to do so. Moreover, the general strategy of providing service is to encourage fill-in of vacant land near or within existing service area limits and to service existing residential development areas west of Interstate I-96. It can be reasonably assumed that when the network of wells and transmission mains west of Interstate 96 is constructed, sufficient water supply capacity will exist to serve development on presently vacant lands consistent with current land use policies. 96 �DELTA TOWNSHIP Figure W·II EXISTING & PROPOSED WATER SERVICE AREA (1984) [I] EXISTING SERVICE ii Areas not anticipated for public utilities EEJ 1985-1990 EJ 1991-1995 filil1 POST 1995 r-O"I IS] TRANSMISSIO N MAIN IQ! WATER IQ! WATER STORAGE NORTH WELL II! l 11 1 ·' 40 00 0 ( '~ REVISED 12 /84 2000 �This page revised Dec. of 1984 • SA..~ITARY SEWER SERVICE The tempo and location of land development within the Township is significantly affected by the availability and sanitary sewers. Given the characteristics of soils within the Township, on-site disposal systems, even for single-family detached homes, are not typically suitable. Thus the extent of urban-type development which may occur in various are~s of the Township is generally dependent on the provision of public utilities including sanitary sewers. It should be noted that several areas within the Township are presently not envisioned to receive sanitary sewer service in the future. Largely because of past growth and development within the Township, the treatment of wastewater effluent has become an important ~ervice provided by Delta Township. Certain operating problems, together with increasing quantitites of wastewater resulting from the addition of customers to the sewer system, make prominent the need to anticipate appropriate capacity to treat wastewater entering the wastewater treatment plant. Future improvements to the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant will be based upon anticipated growth. Improvements will anticipate subsequent flow increases and thereby be cost-effective. Delta Township contains slightly over 35 square miles of land area, less than 30 percent of which is served by sanitary sewers. So as to control growth within the bounds of the Land Use Plan, allow for orderly expansion of all municipal services, and to preclude over-zealous extension of sanitary sewers to areas not now served, a series of five-year, shortterm phasing projections are set forth in the latter portion of this chapter. I. Historical Information Establishment of Sewer Collection and Treatment Service The Delta Township Wastewater Treatment Plant is located on the north side of Willow Highway, one-half mile east of Canal Road. The original treatment plant was constructed in 1965 and designed to treat one million gallons of wastewater per day. At the time of construction, sanitary collection sewers were also constructed to serve developed portions of the Township. The orginal collection and treatment system was financed by general obligation bonds and special assessments. The original collection sewer system is known as Sanitary Sewer District #2 of 1965. Table SS-1 depicts construction dates and general locations of the various sanitary sewer assessment districts in the Township. Figure SS-I illustrates the Delta Township Sanitary Sewer Service· System as it existed in 1984. Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Since the original wastewater treatment plant was built in 1965, the plant has been improved both as to capacity and quality of wastewater treatment. In 1972, Delta Township contracted with the Eaton County Board of Public Works for expansion of the treatment plant to provide added capacity and secondary treatment of wastewater. Under the contract, Delta Township continues to operate, maintain and manage the the treatment plant. 98 �DELTA TOWNSHIP Figure SS · 1 EXISTING SANITARY SEWER SERVICE AREA (19841 0 EXISTING SERVICE ISJ TRUNK SEWER [ill WASTE WATER TREATMENT PL ANT O"I O"I , . NORTH 0 1000 2000 REV!St . 2/84 4000 �• TABLE S·S-1 DELTA TOWNSHIP SANITARY SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS District :Jumber Year of Construction General Location 1965 Northeast portion of Delta Township 1967 Northeast portion of Delta Township lt 3 1972 Gettysburg Estates, Farms and Farms West #4 1972 Area south of Delta Mills IF S 1975 Rockdale/Willow area 117 1975-77 Creyts Rd. near Millett Hwy. 1!8 1982 Creyts Rd. from Millett Hwy. to U.S. 27 1110 1983 Pierson/Sanders Roads 1116 ' 1984 1119 1984 Saratoga Farms and Island Park Highlands 1/20 1984 Country Meadows Subdivision 1984 West Saginaw Hwy. west of Creyts Rd. # 11 1985 Subdivisions west of I-96 between Willow Hwy. and Mt. Hope Hwy. II 12 1985 Home Acres Subdivision lftZ 1121 & 22 Millett Area 100 �Th.is page revised Dec. of 1984 In 1984 Delta Township received a federal grant of approximately $4.6 millon dollars for the installation of sanitary sewers to serve most of the existing residential subdivisions located west of I-96 between Willow Highway and Mt. Hope Highway. The remainder of the financing, approximately $1.5 millon dollars, will be provided by assessments levied on benefitting properties. Construction of the sewers, which is scheduled for completion in 1985, will provide servic.e to approximately 750 existing single family homes. Impact of the Federal Clean Water Act Present federal law, as set forth in the Federal Clean Water Act (Public Law 92-500), seeks to achieve a high level o,f water quality in all of the Nation's streams, lakes and coastal waters. The importance of careful planning in striving for improved water quality has become increasingly evident. Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 affirm the importance of water quality planning and "mandate" local governmental participation in cleaning up the nation's surface waters. One such mandate is the requirement that a "201 Facility Plan" be prepared by the local governmental jurisdiction and submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency for its approval. The "Facility Plan, 111 based on the requirements of Section 201 of Public Law 92-500, proposed to develop an area-wide approach to improving municipal wastewater collection and treatment facilit;es and treatment methods. The basic intent of the facility plan is to demonstrate the need for any proposed facilities, to serve as a systematic evaluation of feasible alternatives, and to demonstrate that proposed measures represent the most cost effective means of meeting established water quality standards for wastewat_e r discharge at the treatmen_t plant. "The Facility Plan represents established planning goals and future wastewater collection treatment services. If fully implemented, the Facility Plan would ultimately move Delta Township into an area-wide sanitary sewer service system. Delta Township operates the largest treatment and collection system in the facilit~ plan service area and was the lead local government in the preparation process of the facility Plan. The projected sanitary sewer networks, presented herein, do not envision accomplishment of all the 201 Facility Plan features within the time frame of this Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is not areawide in that it does not include reco1IUI1endations for areas outside the Township . Also, the Township areas which are to be provided sewers within the specified time frame do not necessarily include those specified in the 201 Plan, nor do they adopt the same scheduling. However, using Township projections for population growth and development, the Comprehensive Plan recommends achievement of the standards for water quality required by Public Law 92 - 500 within the necessary time per i od. It is assumed that the proposed future sanitary sewer service areas will be revised in the future in order to reflect participation by non-Delta Township areas, adjustments to population projections, as well as the consideration of land use trends not presently foreseen. 1The Facility Plan was completed during December of 1975 and sets forth a regional service area. The report is entitled Delta, Windsor, Onieda, and Eagle Townships, Village of Dimondale and City of .Gr~nd Ledge Facility Plan for Regional Wastewater Treatment, Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr and Huber, Consulting Engineers. 101 �• • This page revised Dec. of 1984 II Description of Existing Sanitary Sewer Collection and Treatment Facilities Sanitary Sewer Collection System As stated earlier, the first sanitary collection sewers were constructed in Delta Township during the 1965-1967 period and were designed to serve large areas within the northeastern portion of the Township. The Carrier Creek Interceptor carries wastewater from collection sewers throughout the central portion of the Township to the wastewater treatment . plant. Additionally, the Carrier Creek Interceptor serves Delta's Industrial Tract and the State Secondary Complex in Windsor Township. The sewer extensions listed in Table SS-1 were financed through the creation of sewer assessment districts. A number of other extensions, including those to the Verndale Complex and Delta Industrial Park, have been financed by the individual developments which benefited from the sewer extension. The existing collection sewer system consists of pipes varying in size from four inches to 36 inches in diameter comprising a total of approximately 84 miles of sewer lines and eight sewage pump stations. Wastewater Treatment Plant The original wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) was constructed in 1965 and had a capacity of one millon gallons per day. During the period of 1970 to 1972 the plant was expanded to an average daily wastewater flow of four million gallons with a maximum hydraulic capacity of eight million gallons per day. The plant presently treats an average daily flow of 2.5 million gallons of wastewater and serves 4600 customers. III Future Service Areas for the Wastewater Collection and Treatment System Projected Growth of Service The increase in demand for sanitary sewer service is directly linked with the increase in resident population. However, the extension of sanitary sewers is dependent on physical and financial constraints. This section provides projections of sanitary sewer service demand, proposed sewer service areas, and the periods of time in which the service is likely to be provided. Integration with other elements of the Comprehensive Plan is provided by utilizing population projections, land consumption rates and land .use as set forth in chapters one and t-wo. Table SS-2 presents actual rates of new customer connections for the past seven years. These rates, together with anticipated expansion of service described in a later section, form the basis for projecting sanitary sewer customers as illustrated in Table SS-3. Once the projection of future sanitary sewer customers was completed, it was necessary to further refine the projections in terms of customer equivalents and expected wastewater flow at the treatment plant. Table SS-4 provides the results of this evaluation. 102 �This page was revised: April of ~ 9B3 Dec. of 1984 :, TABLE SS-2 ~ ,,- SANITARY SEWER CUSTOMERS* 1975-1983 1982 1983 3950 4016 3970 210 224 231 25 26 Customer Class 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 Single-Family Residential 3220 3260 3500 3530 3860 100 120 130 140 190 MultipleFamily Residential 1981** Special Category*** OfficeCommercial 230 270 300 330 360 430 165 350 Industrial 1 6 5 5 5 11 10 10 *The number of customers may actually decrease from year to year due to building vacancies. **Information not available. ***Special category includes institutional uses such as schools, churches, etc. TABLE SS-3 PROJECTED SANITARY SEWER CONNECTIONS AND LAND ACREAGE CONSUMPTION 198?-2000 1985 1990 1995 2000 6000 464 Ac. 6830 464 Ac . 7650 464 Ac. 8480 464 Ac. Multiple-family Residentia1Cl) Land Consumption 170 80 Ac. 190 101 Ac. 220 101 Ac. 240 101 Ac. Office/Commercial(!) Land Consumption 370 37 Ac. 410 38 Ac. 450 38 Ac. 500 38 Ac. Industrial (1) Land Consumption 13 139 Ac. 18 139 Ac. 23 139 Ac. 28 139 Ac . Single-family Residential Land. Consumption (l)For purposes of computation of future wastewater influent at the WWTP, all classes of customers are converted to customer equivalents, as set forth in Table SS-4. An equivalent customer (a hypothetical term) means the wastewater from a typical household in the year 1977. Based upon actual water consumption statistics, this translates to 225 gallons/day/household or 6805 gallons/ household/month. 103 �This page revised Dec. of 1984 TABLE SS-4 WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS AT THE DELTA TOWNSHIP WWTP 1985-2000 1985 1990 1995 2000 9,980 11,450 12,920 14,390 Wastewater Flow Rate into WWTP(l) 2.33 2.56 2.89 3.02 Expected Infiltration/Inflow(!) 1.59 1. 70 1.82 1. 93 Total Flow(!) 3.82 4.26 4.71 5 .35 Equivalent Customers (all classes) (l)All flow rates for wastewater entering the WWTP stated in million gallons per day (MGD). Description of Lands Included in Future Service Areas Figure SS-II depicts expansion of sanitary sewer service in Delta Township during three time periods. The strategy for service can be generally described as a filling in of service provided to lands east of I-96. Given the large quantities of vacant land $ituated near present sanitary sewer collection lines, it was deemed logical to promote utilization of these lands prior to extension of services to more remote areas. Extension of sewers west of I-96 to serve existing residential subdivisions is recormnended due to documented septic tank failures and the resulting health hazards. The customer equivalent projections and land consumption rates were factored to represent provision of services to subdivisions west of I-96 between 1991 and 1995. No new land consumption is computed where service is provided to an existing building or use of land. Much of the projected extension of service will occur in Sections 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 22, 23 and within the Delta Industrial Tract. In addition, the fill-in of now vacant parcels in largely built-up areas is encouraged. Description of Land Excluded From Future Sanitary Sewer Service Any discussion of future sanitary sewer service would be incomplete absent identification of areas not planned for sanitary sewer service within the time frame of this Plan. Areas not included in future service limits have been excluded for one or more of the following reasons: 1. A major physical barrier exists preventing the economical extension of sewer service, such as a river, wetlands or major highway. 2. Existing or planned use of land suggests no major transition to urban uses is desirable. This would include prime croplands, specialized farming, unusual natural environment, and lands restricted from private development such as parks and conservation areas. 3. Areas where other public facilities and services have not evolved to a point where they would be cost-effective to provide along with sanitary sewer service. 104 �This page revised Dec. of 1~84 4. Established planning policies restricting the use of land to densities not requiring public sanitary sewer service. Areas which are not destined for future sanitary sewer service are described as follows: 1. All lands lying north of the Grand River and west of Interstate 96. 2. Land lying north of the Grand River and situated between Delta Mills and Saratoga Farms Subdivisions, but exclusive of Delta Mills and Saratoga . 3. The entire southwestern quadrant of Delta Township bounded by Mt. Hope Highway, I-96, the south Township line and the west Township line. 105 �DELTA TOWNSHIP Figure SS·II EXISTING & PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER SERVICE AREA { 1984) • EXISTING SERVICE mi Areas not ant ic ipated for public utility service EJ 1985·1990 W 1991 ·1995 ~ POST 1995 Ill 0 '° ..... TO BE SERVI CED BY THE CITY OF LA NSING iJi!!!if''' NORTH ... 0 ( 1000 ED 2000 12/ 84 4000 �• the concept should be looked into and considered as a solid waste management tool before becoming locked into other techniques which preclude source separation and recycling. Source separation and recycling are positive approaches to solid waste management because many benefits accrue from a properly managed program. The benefits: 1. Material is kept out of the waste stream and out of the landfill. The less material put into a landfill, the longer it will last. 2. Wasting of our natural resources is reduced and our limited domestic supplies of certain raw materials are extended. 3. Income is derived from materials you now pay to dispose of. This income may not be enough to pay for all your solid waste management costs but it could help lower these costs. 4. Reprocessing of scrap materials generally causes less pollution than does the processing of virgin materials. • • 5. Recycling saves energy. That fact alone makes it worth considering. Recycling aluminum results in a 95 percent energy savings over processing from raw materials. Energy savings from recycling paper range from 20 percent to 70 percent depending on the grade of paper . 6. Other waste processing facilities can be sized smaller, resulting in lower costs. In spite of the aforementioned benefits of the recycling of -solid waste, it should be noted that presently most residential, commercial and industrial solid waste is still being dumped tmprocessed in landfills. At the same time the number of landfill sites is decreasing due to more stringent state and federal environmental regulations, the rapid rate at which landfills are being used up and the fact that landfills are becoming increasingly expensive to construct, renovate and operate. The recycling of solid waste in the Lansing Metropolitan area is not widespread at this time due to the pick-up, collection and hauling costs involved in getting waste materials to a processing site, an inconsistent supply of waste and tmdependable markets for the recycled materials. In 1978 the Michigan Legislature adopted Act 641, being the Solid Waste Management Act. This Act mandated that a solid waste management plan be prepared for each county. The Act contained requirements that the plan include an enforcement program and process to assure that the nonhazardous solid waste generated or to be generated in the cotmty for the next twenty years is collected and recovered, processed, or dispensed of at facilities which comply with State law and rules promulgated by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources governing location, design, and operation of the facilities . Each county's waste management plans must be filed with the Department of Natural Resources, cover a twenty year period and be updated every 116 �This page revised Dec. of l~&~ five years. Once the plan has been approved by the DNR, no local ordinance, law, rule, regulation, policy, practice or plan may override the location of or development of the approved site location for solid waste disposal. The plan also is required to contain a covenant restricting the post-disposal use of landfill sites for a fifteen year period. A solid waste management plan must be approved by at least two thirds of the municipalities within the planning area. All solid waste disposal sites (sanitary landfills) must be licensed by the DNR in order to operate and a financial guarantee in accordance with the statute must accompany all applications for a license. The Eaton County Solid Waste Planning Committee was established in January of 1981 with the expressed purpose of preparing a solid waste management plan for the County, as per the requirements of Act 641. The Tri-County Regional Planning Commission acted as the "lead" agency in assisting the County in preparing the plan as well as coordinating the Eaton County plan with adjacent county plans. Act 641 requires that 2/3 of the local governments in Eaton County, amounting to 18 of the 27 governmental units of five villages, six cities (including the City of Lansing) and sixteen Townships, adopt the plan by resolution after which the plan was transmitted to the DNR for final adoption which took place in 1984. 117 �... • This page revised Dec. of 1984 current availability of utilities as per the 1975 Sewer Agreement, the proximity of the area to existing low density residential areas, and the "close-in" location of the area to the Lansing urbanized area . Neighborhood Two This area is• characterized by large tracts of vacant land and high quality, country-estate type homes along Delta River Drive and in the Saratoga Farms, Island Park Highlands, and White Oaks Subdivisions. These residential areas are primarily composed of large lots with detached single-family homes. For the most part this neighborhood is located within the Grand Ledge School District. The former Delta Mills Elementary School, which is located in the western portion of the neighborhood, was closed in 1982 and is vacant. The extreme easternmost portion of this neighborhood, specifically the Saratoga Farms Subdivision and a portion of the Island Park Highlands Subdivision is located within the Lansing School District. Public sanitary sewer service was extended to the Saratoga Farms and Island Park Highlands Subdivisions in 1984. The remainder of the neighborhood is lacking sanitary sewers. It would appear that the central and western portions of the neighborhood, with the possible exception of the Delta Mills area, will not be served by sewers until some time in the future . The lack of public water service in the area presents problems regarding fire service. The remoteness of the interior of this neighborhood also results in difficulties in providing fire and emergency vehicle access. The existence of a significant amount of land within the one-hundred year flood plain in the southern portion of this neighborhood could provide possible recreational opportunities. The Hawk Meadow Sanctuary, an 81 acre Township park, is located on the north side of Delta River Drive in the center of the neighborhood. This facility is planned to be left in a natural state and utilized as a nature area. This neighborhood is bordered by Watertown Township to the north. The Clinton County Comprehensive Plan illustrates a mixture of agricultural and parks/open space uses along the northern border of Neighborhood Two. Further north in Watertown Township, between Grand River Avenue and the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad tracks, a significant amount of land is classified for industrial development . A low density residential land use pattern is recommended for the Delta Mills area due to the planned provision of sanitary sewer service within the next ten years, the existence of a significant number of single family homes on platted lots, and the fact that support services such as a church and several businesses are located in the area. A very low density residential land use classification is recommended for the remainder of the neighborhood due to the lack of public utility service to this area for the foreseeable future, the existence of a very low 126 �This page revised Dec. of 1~84 >. density residential land use pattern, and the fact that the area is lacking arterial road access. Neighborhood Three The area which is designated as neighborhood three is almost completely developed with the exception of two vacant parcels, one of which is on the westernmost portion of the neighborhood and the other being on the southernmost portion. A low density residential development land use pattern has been firmly established in this area. Some of Delta Township's highest quality single family subdivisions are found in this neighborhood. Neighborhood Three is bordered by Grand Woods Park to the north. This 139 acre facility borders the Grand River and offers hiking trails, playground equipment, softball fields, a canoe launch and a shelter building. I~ 1984 Delta Township entered into an agreement with the City of Lansing, owner of the park, to lease and maintain the facility for a thirty year period. Sharp Park, a 55 acre recreational complex owned and operated by Delta Township is located in the southwestern portion of this neighborhood and features an amphitheater, physical fitness trails, a fishing pond, tennis courts and softball fields. A proposed fire station site, consisting of approximately two acres, is located immediately south of the St. David's Church property along Elmwood Road. This facility should provide much improved fire fighting service to the eastern portion of the Township. One of the major concerns in this neighborhood is the through traffic which traverses residential areas in this neighborhood enroute t o the Delta Township central business district. The· proposed east-west collector road is intended to address this transportation related problem. The entire neighborhood is located within the Waverly School District with the school district boundary line serving as the western border of this neighborhood. The Elmwood Elementary School serves this neighborhood. A low density residential classification is recommended for this neighborhood since a low density single-family residential pattern has been established and supportive services and facilities such as recreational areas and retail businesses are located in close proximity. The existing street system in the area is also adequate tosupport low density residential development. 127 �This page revised Dec. of 1984 This neighborhood consists of two subdivisions, being Castle Hills Subdivision on the east which consists of approximately two hundred platted lots and the Huntington Acres Subdivision on the west side of the neighborhood which has approximately two hundred and thirty platted lots. · The Castle Hills Subdivision was platted in 1929 with the majority of the homes being constructed in the area in the late 1930's and 1940's. The majority of the lots in the Huntington Acres Subdivision are significantly larger than those to the east in the Castle Hills Subdivision. Publi:c sanitary sewer and water service is generally available in the area with the exception that there is no water line along Waverly Road. The entire neighborhood lies within the Banks-Briggs Intercounty Drainage District. The Preliminary Study and Report of the BanksBriggs Intercounty Drain, which was prepared in 1977, documented the need for storm drainage improvements in this area. A low density residential classification is recommended for neighborhood eleven due to the fact that a low density single family residential land use pattern has been established in the area. Residential land uses in this area can be adequately served by adjacent arterial streets, existing public sewer and water service and the retail businesses which are located in close proximity to the neighborhood. Neighborhood Twelve Neighborhood Twelve is expected to receive a significant amount of residential development in the 1980's due to the availability of vacant land and the general adequa~y of utilities in this area. Three developments, being the Fairfield Subdivision, Park Meadows Subdivision and Townhouse complex and the Westwind Apartments, were constructed in the area in the 1978-1981 period. The neighborhood is served by the Waverly High School and Junior High complex which is located immediately to the west. Close attention should be given to any proposed developments on the east side of Snow Road to insure that such developments will not impose any significant negative impacts such as excessive traffic, high noise levels, etc., upon the adjacent school complex. In spite of the number of schools which are located in close proximity to this neighborhood, sidewalks are practically nonexistent in the area. At a minimum, sidewalks should be provided adjacent to St. Joe Highway and Snow Road in order to serve the Colt and Winans Elementary Schools, Waverly West Junior High and Waverly High School . • 134 �Several major transportation improvements are proposed for this neighborhood. The first improvement involves the reconstruction of Snow Road between Michigan Avenue and St. Joe Highway. The second needed improvement is the hard surfacing of Stoll Road which is one of the last graveled roads which still exists in the urbanized portion of Delta Township. Public sewer and water service in this area is generally adequate to serve most forms of residential development. A Delta Township water storage tank is located on the western periphery of the neighborhood. Storm drainage in the area presents a problem in that property on either side of Stoll Road is not within a designated county storm drainage dis~rict. The Michigan Avenue Drain, and its branches which serve the neighborhood, no longer has adequate additional capacity to serve urban types of development in this area. Thus, absent improvements to these drains, some form of on-site storm water detention will be necessary. A low density residential land use pattern is recommended for this neighborhood for the following reasons: 1. A low density residential land use pattern is firmly established in the area. 2. Low density residential areas generally generate more school-age children than higher density residential areas. Given the close proximity of the Waverly School complex it is logical to encourage low density residential development in such a manner that children can walk to school. 3. Facilities and services which support residential areas are a short distance away. These facilities and services include retail businesses, playground areas and arterial roadways. Neighborhood Thirteen The predominant features in this neighborhood are the Waverly Schools complex on the east, the Homestead Acres Subdivision in the center, and approximately 150 acres of vacant land on the western portion of the neighborhood. There are approximately 125 acres of land in this area which is in agricultural production. Public water service is generally available throughout the neighborhood. A water well is located in the vicinity of the Mall Drive South and Michigan Avenue intersection. Public sanitary sewer service is available to the area except for the fact that there are no sanitary sewer lines adjacent to St . Joe Highway. All of this neighborhood is located within the Michigan Avenue storm drainage district except for the westernmost 80 acres which is located within the Tower Drainage District. A 48 inch storm drain is located within the Kenway Drive right-of-way and flows northward to the Grand River . On-site detention of storm water runoff will be required in this area to insure that the drains in the area are not overloaded. 135 .. �This page revised Dec. of 1984 2. • The area is very desirable for ·low density residential land use due to the existence of the Delta Center Elementary School, the close proximity of retail businesses along Saginaw Highway and at the Creyts Road/St. Joe Highway intersection, and the fact that the Carrier Creek traverses the center of the neighborhood and provides various recreational opportunities. Neighborhood Sixteen The majority of the land in this neighborhood is presently vacant with the exception of the Sherwood Forest Apartments and the Century Park Mobile Home Park on the northern portion of the neighborhood and several single-family residences along Canal Road. The entire ~ei~hborhood is located within the Grand Ledge School District. Public water service is limited to the northern portion of the neighborhood due to the fact that a water line exists only 1/2 mile south of M-43. Sanitary sewer service is generally available to the majority of this area. The majority of the neighborhood is located within the Lazell Drainage District. The extreme southeast portion of the neighborhood is located within the Moon and Hamilton Drainage District. The Delta Center Elementary School is located immediately to the east of this neighborhood but unfortunately sidewalks do not exist along Canal Road. The fact that the area abuts I-96 to the west could necessitate some type of screening in order to buffer prospective residential uses from the freeway's possible negative impacts. • The proposed extension of Michigan Avenue to Canal Road should provide improved access to this area. It is anticipated that increasing traffic volumes in the vicinity of the Canal Road/St. Joe Highway intersection will necessitate improvements such as traffic signalization and additional lanes in this area. The following justifications are given for the medium density residential land use pattern which is recommended for this area: 1. The area will be provided transportation facilities and services in the future, such as improvements to Canal Road and the extension of Michigan Avenue which can adequately support this type of development. 2. A sufficient number of large parcels exist in this area to facilitate land assemblage for multiple family developments. 3. Medium density residential land uses are already found in this neighborhood. 4. The area is located in close proximity to the I-96/M-43 Interchange. Neighborhood Seventeen - Neighborhood seventeen consists primarily of vacant land with the exception of the Gettysburg Farms Subdivisions and several single-family residences located along St. Joe Highway and Canal Road. Two institutional 13R �uses, being the Delta Center Cemetery and the Trinity United Methodist Church, border the northern boundary of this neighborhood. Public water service is presently not available to this neighborhood. The Gettysburg Farms Subdivisions are served by private water wells. Further urban-type development in this neighborhood should be prohibited absent public water service which is necessary to comply with minimum fire flow requirements. Sanitary sewer service is generally available to this area via sewer lines within the Canal Road and St. Joe Highway rights-of-way as well as the Carrier Creek Interceptor. The maj~rity of this neighborhood is located within the Michigan Avenue Storm Drainage District. The Moon and Hamilton Drain (Carrier Creek) traverses the center of this neighborhood in a north-south direction. The easternmost forty acres of neighborhood seventeen is located within the Tower Drainage District. · The Carrier Creek's 100-year flood plain covers approximately fifty acres in the center of this neighborhood. A natural water body which is approximately ten acres in size lies immediately south of the Gettysburg Farms West Subdivision. As previously mentioned, the intersection of Canal Road and St. Joe Highway is presently handling a significant amount of traffic, especially at peak hours. What with projected increases in traffic volumes at this intersection it will be imperative that improvements be made at this intersection which could include the installation of a traffic signal and/or the installation of additional turning lanes. A low density residential land use pattern is recommended for this neighborhood for the following reasons: 1. A low density single family residential land use pattern has already been firmly established in the area. 2. The roadways in this area would probably not sa~ely accommodate the amount of traffic generated by higher density residential developments. Neighborhood Eighteen The majority of the land in neighborhood eighteen is vacant· with the exception of the Echo Valley Estates Subdivision and several single-family residences along Mt. Hope Highway. Although the Echo Valley Estates Subdivision was platted in 1965, it has yet to be completely developed due to the fact that many of the lots have not passed septic tank percolation tests. The entire neighborhood is located within the Grand Ledge School District. The eastern portion of Neighborhood Eighteen is served by the Carrier Creek sanitary sewer interceptor . The proposed Hamilton Sanitary Sewer Service District would serve the western portions of this neighborhood. No portion of this neighborhood has public water service. This neighborhood is not within an established county storm drainage district at this time. Measures are presently being taken to have the 139 �majority of this neighborhood included in the proposed Delta Industrial Drainage District. A twenty acre storm water detention pond is envisioned in the center of Section 22 for the purpose of storing storm water runoff generated within the industrial tract so that flooding does not occur downstream during peak water runoff periods. Transportation improvements planned for this area include the reconstruction of Mt. Hope Highway, between Canal Road and Creyts Road, to Class A, All Weather status. This project will provide improved access to the Delta Township Industrial Tract to the south. A low density residential land use pattern is recommended for Neighborhood Eighteen for the following reasons: 1. A low density residential single-family land use pattern has already been established in this area due to the presence of the Echo Valley Estates Subdivision. 2. The provision of a low density residential area adjacent to the industrial tract will insure a variety of housing types in the area. The fact that this neighborhood is bordered by I-496 to the north and the industrial tract to the south will most likely necessitate the installation of screening devices in order to mitigate the possible negative impacts of the aforementioned facilities on future residential developments. The recommendations for residential development for this area presupposes that adequate public utilities, roadways, and storm drainage facilities exist to serve any propos~d development. Neighborhood Nineteen The majority of the land in neighborhood nineteen is vacant with the exception of the Homeland and Meadow View Subdivisions and the singlefamily detached residences along Mt. Hope Highway and Creyts Road. The Homeland Subdivision, which borders both sides of Marcy Road, was platted in 1929 and consists of 81 platted lots. The Meadow View Subdivision, which borders both sides of Guenther Road, was also platted in 1929 and consists of 56 platted lots. Public water service is available throughout the Meadow View Subdivision as well as the westernmost portion of the neighborhood. The interior of the neighborhood, including the Homeland Subdivision, lacks water service due to the fact that a water main is not located within the Mt. Hope Highway right-of-way. The entire area is presently lacking sanitary sewer service. The easternmost portion of the neighborhood is located within the Underhill extension drainage district while the westernmost portion of the neighborhood is located within the Holly Drainage District. The majority of neighborhood nineteen is located within the Waverly School District. The westernmost sixty acres of the neighborhood is located within the Grand Ledge School District. Delta Township owns approximately l½ acres of land on the north side 140 �This page revised Dec. of l9?4 of Mt. Hope Highway, west of the GM Parts Warehouse, within Section 24 which is being reserved for a future fire station. Although not located within Neighborhood Nineteen, the proposed fire station should provide improved fire service to the general area. Given the fact that this neighborhood is positioned between industrial areas to the east and south and an interstate freeway to the north, there will probably be a need to provide screening treatments, such as landscaped berms and buffer strips, to insure an orderly transition in land uses. A low density residential land use pattern is recommended for the eastern portion of Neighbo~hood Nineteen for the following reasonsf 1. A low density single family residential land use pattern exists in the area due to the existence of the Homeland and Meadowview Subdivisions. 2. The proposed open space corridor along the south side of Mt. Hope Highway will provide for a proper transition between residential uses on the north side of Mt. Hope Highway and industrial uses on the south side of Mt. Hope Highway. 3. The provision of a low density residential areas adjacent to the industrial tract will insure a variety of housing types in the area. A medium density residential land use pattern is recommended for the Western portion of Neighborhood Nineteen for the following reasons: 1. This area is located adjacent to the Creyts Road/I-496 Interchange which affords easy access to the Greater Lansing Area. 2. The land ownership pattern in this area is such that land could be assembled for multiple family developments. 3. Medium density residential development in this area should provide ample housing opportunities for employees in the adjacent industrial tract. Neighborhood Twenty The Millett community is the most prominent feature in Neighborhood Twenty. The neighborhood is composed of nine subdivisions and several commercial establishments along Lansing Road. Public sanitary sewers were installed in the majority of the Millett Area in 1984. Public water service is not available in the neighborhood. The fact that U.S. 27 and the Grand Truck Western Railroad border Neighborhood Twenty on the north presents obstacles to providing fire service to the area. A volunteer fire station is located on Lansing Road but due to the fact that this facility is unmanned, it can provide only limited service. 141 ./"""""\ �- by the Myers and Henderson Drainage District while the central portion is served by the Decke Drainage District and the southwest area is served by the Munton Drainage District. This neighborhood is bordered by Onieda Township to the west. The Eaton County Development Plan illustrates parks and open space uses for the majority of land in Section 24 of Onieda Township while a small area is classified as rural non-agricultural uses. The proposed construction of I-69 from its present terminus to Charlotte will impact this area in terms of land acquisition, traffic volumes, and transitions in land use. A freeway interchange is planned on Nixon Road south of Mt. Hope Highway. During the construction of I-69, it is planned to extend Broadbent Road from its existing terminus approximately three-quarters of a mile to the south to connect with Mt. Hope Highway. The construction of the Broadbent Road extension should provide improved access in this area via the provision of a new north-south corridor between Willow Highway and Davis Highway. Very often commercial land uses are advocated for those areas adjacent to a freeway interchange. It is recommended that commercial land uses not be established adjacent to the I-69/Nixon Road interchange for the following reasons: - 1. It is assumed that the construction of the interchange will precede the availability of public utilities in the area. 2. At this time it does not appear that there is a large enough population within this area to support retail businesses in this area. 3. The establishment of commercial uses ;in this area could impose negative impacts -such as excessive traffic volumes and incompatibilities in land use upon adjacent resida~tial uses. A low density residential land use pattern is recommended for Neighborhood Twenty Seven for. the following reasons: 1. A low density single family residential land use pattern has already been established in the area due to the existence of the Countryside Estates and Evergreen Heights Subdivisions • .• ,--_ l 2. There are several areas in this neighborhood where soil conditions would not be conducive to the construction of commercial or multiple family buildings. 3. This neighborhood is located several miles from existing and proposed fire service facilities. Therefore, land uses which require significant fire flows should be discouraged in this area. Neighborhood Twenty Eight - The majority of land in this neighborhood is vacant with the exception of several single-family residences located along section line roads. It is estimated that approximately 2400 acres of land within this neighborhood are currently in agricultural production. All of the 148 �This page was revised April of f9e3 Dec. of 1984 Most of the soils in this area are very conducive to agricultural uses. These soils also present severe limitations for urban type development due to poor septic tank percolation, poor compaction and load bearing capacity and the fact that they are susceptible to frost action. The Delta Township Parks, Open Space and Recreation Plan recommends that a community park site be obtained somewhere in this neighborhood in order to serve the long range recreation needs of residents in the southwest portion of Delta Township. Delta Township owns twenty acres of land on the north side of Millett Highway adjacent to 1-96 which i~ planned to be used as a future cemetery site. The proposed construction of 1-69 from Lansing to Charlotte will result in approximately 35 acres of land being designated as interstate right of way in the extreme southeast portion of the neighborhood. Davis Highway will go over 1-69 via a bridge structure. The proposed connection of 1-69 to 1-96 does not include the installation of on or off ramps within Delta Township. This neighborhood is bordered by Onieda Township to the west and Windsor Township to the south. The Eaton County Development Plan depicts parks and open space uses within Sections 25 and 36 of Onieda Township. The Windsor Township Comprehensive Development Plan depicts agricultural land uses for those areas within Sections 4, 5 and 6 which abut Neighborhood Twenty Eight. An agricultural land use classificatiop, is recommended for all of Sec- tions 29, 30, 31 and 32 for the following .r easons: 1. The soils in this area are most conducive to agricultural activities. 2. An agricultural land use pattern ·nas ··been firmly established in this area. 3. Public utility service is not plaJln~~ for this area in the near future. A very low density residential classification is recommended for the remainder of Neighborhood Twenty Eight for the following reasons: 1. A very low density single-family residential land use pattern has been established in this area. 2. The relatively flat topography withi,n the eastern portion of Neighborhood Twenty Eight presents prob~ems in adequately handling storm water runoff generated by urban type .development. 3. Public utility service is not planned for this area in the near future. 4. The section line, gravel surfaced roadways in this area could not safely accommodate the higher volumes of traffic which are associated with higher densities of residential developments. 149 R �TABLE LU-2 • PROPOSED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS (continued) PROJECT NAME LENGTH (MILES) .5 East-West Collector St. (Willow St. extension) • PRIMARY PURPOSE(S) Willow Hwy. to Elmwood Rd. New construction 1.0 Elmwood Rd. to Creyts Rd. New construction 1.0 Creyts Rd. to Canal Rd. New construction Bridge structure Sno½· 'R.d. 1.n·ie'r's ec tion Realignment of intersection, ROW acquisition, radius improvements Improve turning movements New construction, bridge structure Provide a needed north-south corridor with a river crossing in the western portion of the Township. New construction Provide improved access within Industrial Tract Mt. Hope Hwy • Provide alternative east-west access other than W. Saginaw Hwy., eliminate through traffic from residential neighborhoods bf' Nixon Rd. extension Willow Hwy. t~ J;~ ton Hwy. 1.0 r Davis Hwy. extension -~· t . 25 ,l._• ,'• .t • PROPOSED Il1PROVEMENTS LOCATION ,....,,.... - ! i _. Can.ii Rd . ~east to existing terminus ;.1r1 . ,1 . 164 �"l>- ~ ), This page revised Dec. of 1984 · TABLE LU-2 PROPOSED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS (continued) PROJECT NAME Creyts Rd. LENGTH (MILES) 1.0 U.S. 27 to Millett Hwy. Acceleration/Deceleration lanes, intersection improvements, drainage outlet. 1.0 Millett Hwy. to Mt. Hope Hwy. ROW acquisition, drainage outlet, acceleration/deceleration lanes, additional lanes at selected points . St. Joe Hwy. to Michigan Ave. ROW acquisition, additional lanes at selected points, improve vertical alignment. .5 Michigan Ave. to Saginaw Hwy. ROW acquisition, additional lanes at selected points, drainage outlet. 2.0 St. Joe Hwy. to Willow Hwy. New Construction •5 Royston Rd. extension PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS LOCATION 165 PRIMARY PURPOSE(S) Improve traffic circulation and traffic carrying capacity. Provide improved north-south traffic movements in the western portion of the Township. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Wyckoff Planning and Zoning Collection Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Planning & Zoning Center (Lansing, Mich.) (Organization) Wyckoff, Mark A. Description An account of the resource Municipal master plans and zoning ordinances from across the state of Michigan, spanning from the 1960s to the early 2020s. The bulk of the collection was compiled by urban planner Mark Wyckoff over the course of his career as the founder and principal planner of the Planning and Zoning Center in Lansing, Michigan. Some additions have been made to the collection by municipalities since it was transferred to Grand Valley State University. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Michigan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1960/2023 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Subject The topic of the resource Michigan Comprehensive plan publications Master plan reports Zoning--Michigan Zoning--Maps Maps Land use--planning Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-240 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Delta-Twp_Comprehensive-Plan-Revisions_1984 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Delta Township Planning Commission, Eaton County, Michigan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1984-12-10 Title A name given to the resource 1984 Revisions Description An account of the resource The 1984 Revisions were prepared by the Delta Township Planning Commission as part of the Delta Township Comprehensive Plan and were adopted on December 10, 1984. Subject The topic of the resource Comprehensive Plan publications Delta Township (Mich.) Eaton County (Mich.) Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/083d1a4412c835cc07bae2f28a739a76.pdf 188d1626002c58c95390585d25035ebb PDF Text Text 1990 Census Subcommunity Profiles for the City of Detroit October 1993 Southeast Michigan Census Council, Inc. Michigan Metropolitan Information Center, Center for Urhan Studies, Wayne State University United Community Services of Metropolitan Detroit �$15.00 1990 Census Subcommunity Profiles For the City of Detroit October 1993 Southeast Michigan Census Council, Inc. 17321 Telegraph Road, Suite 204 Detroit, MI 48219-3143 (313) 535-2077 Michigan Metropolitan Information Center Center for Urban Studies Wayne State University Detroit, MI 48202 (313) 577-8359 United Community Services of Metropolitan Detroit J212 Griswold Detroit, MI 48226-1899 (313) 226-9409 I I Project funded by NBD Bank, N.A. WSU/CUSIMIMIC-SEMCC-UCS SUBCOMMUNITY PROF1LES I �CONTENTS t F~"\ PI c:. .. .. ,,.j • ::-:· .... :1. - ~~ .'OF c: _!~ L :--, !nc. • • -- . . . 1 • __ Page PREFACE ................................................................................................ iv TABLE 1 GENERAL POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS ................ 1 TABLE2 SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS .............................................. 7 TABLE3 INCOME AND POVERTY CHARACTERISTICS .............. 13 TABLE4 LABOR FORCE CHARACTERISTICS ................................ 19 TABLES GENERAL HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS ..................... 25 TABLE6 SELECTED HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS .................... 31 APPENDIX ................................................................................................ 37 GLOSSARY ............................................................................................... 01 SUBCOMMUNITIES IN THE CITY OF DETROIT: 1990 MAP WSU/CUS/MIMIC-SEMCC-UCS SUBCOMMUNITY PROFILES �PREFACE This report, presenting 1990 census data for UCS Subcommunities in the City of Detroit, has been prepared cooperatively by the Southeast Michigan Census Council (SEMCC), Wayne State University/Center for Urban Studies/Michigan Metropolitan Information Center (MIMIC), and United Community Services of Metropolitan Detroit (UCS). It should be noted that data percentages may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. Funding for creating the report was provided by NBD Bank, N.A. For further information on the UCS subcommunity system, see United Community Services of Metropolitan Detroit, "Subcommunities in the City of Detroit, 1990," 1992. Copies are available from the UCS Resource Center (313-226-9409). In addition to the UCS Subcommunity data presented in these pages, similar data can also be prepared for any geographic area aggregated from census tracts, zip codes, or minor civil divisions. For further information on obtaining a custom geographic area profile, contact the Southeast Michigan Census Council (313-535-2077) or MIMIC (313-577-8359). i J I WSU/CUSIMIMIC-SEMCC-UCS iv SUBCOMMUNITY PROFILES I I �TABLE 1. GENERAL POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS SUBCOMMUNITIES OF DETROIT Total Population White, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic Other, non-Hispanic CITY OF DETROIT AIRPORT BAGLEY 1,027,974 212,278 774,529 12,694 18,418 1,946 16,102 266 21,045 333 20,519 88 ..Hispanic .................................................................................................................................. 28,473... .. ..............!.~... % Black 76% 88% 3% 1% % Hispanic % 17 Years and ymmger % 60 Years and older % 65 Years and older Median Age FAMILY AND:HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS 29% 16% 12% 30 .Jt:·· .. ··. =:-::;=:::nt Total Families Total Househol~ · ··· ..... · % Househo)ds with head 65 years+ % Households with 1 or more persons 65 years+ :::,: . . . .·· 244,327 374,057 22% 25% 4,203 5,769 19% 22% 10,032 112 9,823 36 BRIGHTMOOR BROOKS 19,042 6,134 12,406 262 35,643 8,133 26,741 208 BURBANK 27,520 13,392 13,359 487 CENTRAL 20,784 1,140 19,372 150 ................!Q~.... ...................~!.... ................?.19......................~~!.... ................?.!!.?.....................!.~~.... 35% 12% 9% 26 I:,: :::.:·· . . •.•·,t· BOYNTON 98% 0% 98% 1% 65% 1% 75% 2% 49% 1% 94% 1% 23% 20% 14% 36 23% ·28% 20% 36 37% 8% 6% 24 33% 12% 9% 35% 13% 10% 26 22% 24% 19% 36 ·•.·. /::·\: :}}{ : ::,:.·. :.: ·\ f)F:'tt=)·::·:. ·:./:·.· ¥{\:\:: .·..;.;;..·,··. \t :·r):·:•:•:•.:r·•::,··::,:,:. E:::: .. 5,485 7,152 23% 28% 2,632 3,634 39% 43% 4,665 6,633 11 % 13% 27 :f)/' .· 8,804 12,363 16% 19% 6,790 9,365 20% 23% 4,145 9,09T .. 29% 33% .. %.Households with. 1 .or.more persons 60 years+ ..............................................................33% .................. 30% .................. 39% .................. 55% .................. 19% .................. 25% .................. 28% .................. 4~:!.~ % of population in group quarters 2% 1% 2% 1% 0% 1% 0% 3% . _._,.,.,.•.• · -· · >=·;::iiir:r . ,., , : :- ,. •= :-,-, ftt .. : •. _.,. -. : ·'={\fa, :: ,. % Living with two parents % Living with one parent % Living in other household type HOUSEHOLD TYPE AND RELATIONSHIP(% distribution). Married Couple Household With Child(ren) No Children Family, Femai~ "ii~~;h~lder WithChild(ren) No Children Other Househ~id.;ith.2 or more persons One Person Household WSU/CUS/MIMIC - SEMCC - UCS 32% 50 18 ..:•: :,,:-: __ :·,· ..·. 22% 57 22 39% 34 27 28% 40 32 29% 61 11 32% 54 14 36% 52 12 17% 56 27 25% 13% 12% 41 % 32% 9% 11 % 23% 43% 18% 25% 29% 17% 12% 9% 20% 37% 13% 24% 29% 18% 11 % 27% 16% 11% 37% 31% 6% 12% 24% 32% 17% 15% 35% 27% 8% 9% 25% 36% 19% 17% 30% 24% 6% 11 23% 14% 5% 9% .'/}'.:.,, ...: 30% 15% 15% 30% 22% 8% 11 % 30% 9% 25% ················26q; 17% 9% ti; ..................°i"3% 47% DETROIT SUBCOMMUNITIES �TABLE 1. GENERAL POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS CENTRAL CERVENY BUS. DIST. SUBCOMMUNITIES OF DETROIT POPULATION, RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN .. ·-:•: .. •: .. •: ··:•: CHADSEY 1·•::,:· : CHENE .•>>.:: ·•...•:··•:::··· ·:: ':'.• ..;_.. . -~ ... CLARK PARK CODY .. ··::: .... CONNER CONDON •:•: •:.••:'·. -- .., •'.'· ...: .,;-· 8,146 21,950 36,758 22,230 15,208 17,630 24,545 11 ,699 2,314 869 3,319 14,912 1,647 6,969 6,594 2,750 5,539 20,904 2,923 13,354 32,578 2,466 17,195 7,641 147 83 330 649 116 408 429 157 146 94 212 91 327 .. Hispanic .................................................................................................................... ........................... ........................... ............ 4,065 ___ ··························· .............7,787 ... ........................... ............ .1 ,151.... ··························· 68% 96% % Black 14% 89% 88% 15% 70% 66% 2% 0% % Hispanic 18% 1% 1% 44% 1% 10% Total Population White, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic Other, non-Hispanic AGE.CHARACTERISTICS . :•· <: .::·-·• '.··'.•'.••••.•.··.::.+x(·' · :•:•_·::·:··: ::C: ,. ,: ·::,:::: ..· :·•?:::\:_?' \. ?:':':'=?? :-· .. '.,:: > ···:·-·--·· 6% 17% 12% 37 % 17 Years and younger % 60 Years and older % 65 Years and older Median Age FAMILY:-AND HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS ·:.J:l•L\/ :::/? Total Families ............................................................................................................. Total Households % Households with head 65 years+ % Households with 1 or more persons 65 years+ .::::: •.-:•:• •:;:•: ... ....:·· >:·:.:;:::: 31% 10% 7% 29 -.·. . . • ' . •:;•: Married Couple Household With Child(ren) No Children ......................................................................................................................................... Family, Female Householder With Child(ren) No Children ........................................................................................................................................... Other Household with 2 or more persons One Person Household WSU/CUS/MIMIC - SEMCC - UCS :=-::;:::::::::•.,:', ·,:-:-: ···: ·: 31% 20% 16% 30 :., .. tr'••:•· . \ 1t=';'":-/\ ,::..·- _.·.•:,. 30% 14% 10% 29 .·,::• '. ·.• 32% 10% 8% ,:,:'·-· •.•. 40% 7% 5% 23 29% 22% 17% 32 27 ..,:,::•·· !(\:/";•..·.;.:• . .··-: ..•:-:,: ... .:,·:,::.::·:=·•::::•··. ··:: 8,122 10,888 5,330 6,087 4,328 8,999 25% 10% 29% 33% 19% 14% 28% 13% 33% 37% 22% 16% 35% 18% 41% 31% ......................... 46% 21%~. ........................... ··························· ··························· ··························· ··························· 0% 0% 3% 0% 4% 0% -:;/\:'.:::. HOUSEHOLD TYPE AND RELATIONSHIP(% distributionf /·· .· 31% 17% 13% 29 . ::;::;::,.:._. % Living with two parents % Living with one parent % Living in other household type .. •::• • . :-::-: 967 5,428 ............. 3,334_ .. ............ 3 ,729 ... ............. 6,124 ... .. .......... 2,620 ... 8,388 ·······•··················· ............. 5,401 ... ········•·················· ··························· 4,527 7,226 19% 11% 20% 15% 27% 21% .. % _Households_ with_ l _or _more _persons. 60_ye~~:+.......................................... ··························· ··························· 23% % of population in group quarters 1% UVING ARRANGEMENTS OF '.CHILDREN ::;:::,'('.{(]/: ··:-::</ '• .· .· 25% 49 25 "}\-::::,:, -:::· 39% 42 19 -:•· ·: 12% 36% 2% 21% 10% 15% ········•·················· ··························· 6% 33% 3% 24% 3% 9% ............................ ··•························ 9% 9% 72% 22% 2 42% 47 11 ::."·;::(' .. .. •,•• .•.·,;. '· . .. .• .··••'••·· 14% 59 27 44% 43 13 '::, ,: .•, ·:.. ··•••:t?: 42% 46 12 34% 16% 31% 35% 17% 7% 18% 20% 17% ..................... 9'1o 13% 15% ........................... ··•························ ··························· 27% 39% 23% 28% 20% 28% 17% 22% 7% ...................11% 6% .................... 6% ........................... ··························· 12% 14% 13% 10% 28% 32% 32% 27% ·.· 27% 57 16 22% 55 23 .-;•,•·.: 21% 9% 12% ··························· 32% 22% 10% ........................... 13% 34% 27% 17% 10% 44% 37% 7% 10% 19~ DETROIT SUBCOMMUNITIES I I I 'I I �TABLE 1. GENERAL POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS DAVISON SUBCOMMUNITIES OF DETROIT .. POPULATION~RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN .......· ::.:' :::,:. : .. .•·. DELRAY/ SPRNGWLS , DENBY DURFEE EVERGREEN EAST RIVERSIDE FINNEY GRANDMONT ····· . •·. •· 19,660 28,743 22,349 29,470 10,443 35,470 31,196 24,445 6,754 18,160 10,925 1,617 4,100 380 16,144 1,078 12,234 3,022 28,904 8,649 30,891 10,853 14,305 23,128 478 587 90 267 316 86 402 133 194 255 96 91 212 345 106 .. Hispanic ..................................................................................................................... ........................... ............. 6,974 ... ........................... ........................... ··························· ........................... ··························· ··························· 62% 11% % Black 49% 83% 87% 46% 98% 95% 1% 24% 1% 0% 1% 1% % Hispanic 1% 0% Total Population White, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic Other, non-Hispanic AGE CHARACTERISTICS I•·:'.:'.'"=\;:;::t::.:;\ :I/i .:"":::://, H?( :',/:\. -====rm=·-=· •··-•:: ,••·::.::: FAMILY.AND HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS ·-· 32% 15% 11% 28 : : ·:::,::: \i':":: 1:/_.;t=:: '.::::.:,._._. •·-·'. •• 1 .· : ..,. :-.-:-:-:-::-·-·. 30% 15% 12% 29 ·-·· ❖'· ·-·- 26% 22% 17% 33 -:-::- : .. ·-: ...: 32% 18% 14% 29 % 17 Years and younger % 60 Years and older % 65 Years and older Median Age •. .•. ❖• 34% 13% 9% 27 I ···=-: ... 33% 11% 8% 28 . ..·. .··. •: :;· ... 29% 16% 13% 30 .. .... .. 34% 8% 5% 27 ... : Total Faniilies ............................................................................................................. ............ 4,757 ... ............. 6,806 ... .. .......... 5,526 ... ............. 7,074 ... ............ 2,458 ... ............. 8,781 ... .............7,597 ... ............. 5,942 ... 6,849 10,471 8,312 Total Households 11,837 3,615 11,638 11,389 7,693 27% 21% 22% 28% 18% 13% % Households with head 65 years+ 21% 11% 31% 24% 25% 32% 21% 15% % Households with 1 or more persons 65 years+ 24% 14% 32% 38% 30% 40% 21% 29% 29% 21% .. % .Households. with. 1. or more persons. 60years+.......................................... ··························· ··························· ··························· ··························· ··························· ··························· ··························· ··························· 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% % of population in group quarters 2% 1% 0% LIVING ARRANGEMENTS OF CffiLDREN : -= >t >::.,/tr.,.,. ·=>t •. ::. ·= ,.. ,•::,:-:,: 29% 54 17 % Living with two parents % Living with one parent % Living in other household type HOUSEHOLD TYPE AND RELATIONSHIP(% distrlbutlon) .·. ::,:;::,, . ::•.-:-::-:• •. ·-··= 43% 46 11 ..•.•· 52% 36 12 : : ·: 17% 59 24 3 .. .· ..·. ... · ... =··.······•:•. ·.• 21% 58 21 -: .·' ·- ... ·:: .. ·:• 39% 46 15 48% 40 12 32% 50 19 ·. .. .. 28% 32% 40% 20% Married Couple Household 13% 18% 22% With Child(ren) 7% 15% 14% 18% 13% .. No Children .............................................................................................................. ........................... ........................... ........................... ........................... 35% 27% 21% Faniily, Female Householder 34% 26% 20% 15% With Child(ren) 24% 9% ........................... 7% ........................... 6% ........................... 10% .. No Children .............................................................................................................. ........................... 12% 12% 11% Other Household with 2 or more persons 10% 25% 30% 28% 36% One Person Household WSU/CUS/MIMIC - SEMCC - UCS ·= ·~'-:- .-,:.-.· 24% 36% 39% 33% 12% 22% 21% 20% 12% 14% 18% ........................... ··························· ··························· ...................13% 33% 39% 22% 37% 30% 26% 16% 29% 7% 9% ........................... 6% ..................... 8% ........................... ··························· 11% 10% 12% 10% 27% 21% 27% 19% DETROIT SUBCOMMUNITIES �TABLE 1. GENERAL POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS GRANT SUBCOMMUNITIES OF DETROIT .·. POPULATION, RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN : ,. .... ,.: .•. GREENFIELD HARMONY VILLAGE ,:-: . '.· .. INDIAN VILLAGE .·,:• .. .. JEFFRIES KETTRNG/ BUTZEL :-•. ..·. LAFAYETTE .. •;- :•:-~ ·:• MACK . :•'.•. ·,:: ,: 12,427 28,801 35,193 5,439 9,183 31,261 8,514 22,598 3,456 1,559 587 2,333 1,705 1,838 1,268 1,195 8,644 26,871 34,326 2,957 6,942 29,303 7,142 21,150 201 201 115 80 127 117 90 87 126 170 165 69 276 90 136 ........................... 90 ........................... .. Hispanic ..................................................................................................................... ··························· ··························· ........................... ·························•· ··························· ··························· 70% 94% 98% % Black 55% 76% 94% 94% 84% 1% 1% 0% % Hispanic 1% 3% 0% 0% 1% Total Population White, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic Other, non-Hispanic AGE CHARACTERISTICS . . ·"·.··.·.-: · • ·.·:::/:\{.//{ ., \? >Ai........ .•>: ;.;: ;.· •: .;: ...·.·-: ·••,•: : :,:.•:•.,.·.::-· ,·:'. ;.: ·'. 32% 14% 11% 28 % 17 Years and younger % 60 Years and older % 65 Years and older Median Age .· •: 30% 13% 9% 30 1:·r:t . . 30% 14% 9% 29 ·=··-.. 10% 40% 33% 49 ,;. : .<:::::::· ,;.:;:,-·:,:-:-:-: .. .. ·.-:, ... ·:._ FAMILY AND HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS::.":::(:/·.·...: .-. :.).• ·.•:- .. '\.-... .. } 3,052 7,218 Total Families 8,603 999 ···································································································•·····•···•··························· ........................... ··························· ··························· ··························· 4,341 9,699 Total Households 11,550 •: -- :,: ,; -_ : : 20% 17% 24% 20% 30% 27% .. % Households_ with. 1. or more persons_ 60_ye;~.~±.......................................... ··························· ··························· 0% % of population in group quarters 2% ·•: .. ,,. ·.·,· . ,: Married Couple Household With Child(ren) No Children ........................................................................................................................................... Family, Female Householder With Child(ren) No Children ......................................................................................................................................... Other Household with 2 or more persons One Person Household WSU/CUS/MIMIC - SEMCC - UCS 25% 26% 20% 34 36% 10% 7% 18% 31% 25% 42 .:. 3,241 17% 40% 21% 42% 30% 50% ··························· ··························· 1% 4% I 25 ·, ............ _l,834 ... ............. 6,750 ... ............ _l,827 ... ............. 5,021 ... 7,649 4,307 10,937 4,850 14% 33% 33% 36% 17% 36% 37% 38% 24% 45% ............................ 46% 46% ············· .............. ·············••+.••······· 1% 3% 7% 2% -:• :•. •,•, :•: 36% 48 15 ::: 24% 26% 20% 35 I •• •:❖ ·.• :: ·•··: % Living with two parents % Living with one parent % Living in other household type HOUSEHOLD TYPE AND RELATIONSHIP.(%::distrlbµtion) - - % Households with head 65 years+ % Households with 1 or more persons 65 years+ LIVING ARRANGEMENTS O'fi\ CHILDREN ; /{tf?tit:\:.:: ,: ·'. : 37% 44 19 24% 51 26 ·.··. . ,'.•.•···· 43% 36 21 ··::):-:,:: ;: 34% 36% 29% 20% 18% 20% 14% 5% 16% 16% 15% 15% ........................... ··························· ··························· ··························· 29% 33% 39% 9% 22% 24% 28% 4% 7% .......................... 9% .................. 11 o/'o ..................... 5% ··························· 11% 9% 10% 8% 25% 22% 22% 63% 4 : 20% 61 20 :·'• .. ... ... 15% 55 29 21% 61 18 ,.· .. :, 17% 63 20 ·•.: 12% 21% 6% 8% 6% 13% ............................ ····················•······ 26% 35% 18% 24% 8% 11% ··························· ··························· 11% 12% 51% 33% 18% 15% 10% 4% 8% 11% ··························· ··························· 42% 20% 34% 13% 8% 7% ··············••*••········ ··························· 10% 6% 30% 58% DETROIT SUBCOMMUNITIES I ' " " Ill �TABLE 1. GENERAL POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS MACKENZIE SUBCOMMUNITIES OF DETROIT MCNICHOLS MOUNT OLIVET NOLAN PALMER PARK PEMBROKE PERSHING _,: --• POPULATION, RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN .. Hispanic ..................................................................................................................... % Black % Hispanic .::: •,•,•: ··-· : 41,781 1,267 40,135 169 210 Total Population White, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic Other, non-Hispanic AGE CHARACTERISTICS REDFORD ··························· ··························· 96% 1% .. I• 29,650 12,586 15,305 1,382 377 ........................... 97% 0% 1: .•,·•:,• •.• -: -•: 12,777 223 12,403 95 56 52% 1% ...·,: ·- •:·=•-::•·•:.•. : ,· 23,841 2,022 21,425 187 207 21,870 386 21,286 81 117 12,237 2,078 9,812 188 159 22,476 3,223 18,997 110 146 23,443 12,718 9,935 445 345 ··························· ··························· ··························· ··························· ··························· 81% 1% 90% 1% I •.•:•. 98% 1% 85% 1% 43% 1% -.-. -- % 17 Years and younger % 60 Years and older % 65 Years and older 30% 15% 10% 27% 21% 15% 32% 15% 12% 30% 17% 13% 21% 12% 8% 22% 21% 15% 28% 20% 15% 26% 14% Median Age 29 32 28 30 34 37 32 31 FAMILY AND HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS ,· . 11% ·--· 1 .' ·- ' Total Fainilies ............................................................................................................. .......... 10,293 ... ............. 3,174 ___ .............7,252.... ............. 5,994 ___ .. .......... 2,941.... ............. 5,938 ___ .. .......... 5,732____ ········--···5,748 ___ 14,125 4,722 8,121 10,471 8,163 5,005 7,807 Total Households 9,523 18% 28% 21% 25% 11% 26% 27% % Households with head 65 years+ 18% 22% 32% 30% 24% 15% 29% 31% % Households with 1 or more persons 65 years+ 20% .. % _Households. with. 1_ or _more persons. 60y_e,~-~±.......................................... % of population in group quarters 30% 42% 30% 22% 40% 38% 39% 25% ··························· ........................... ··························· ··························· ........................... ··························· ··························· ··························· 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 36% 37 26 35% 45 20 54% 35 11 40% 15% 19% 25% 22% ........................... ··························· 27% 14% 36% 16% 20% ........................... 38% ..· • LIVING ARRANGEMENTS OF CHILDREN % Living with two parents % Living with one parent % Living in other household type 23% 21% 46% 55 23 51 28 41 13 26% 54 20 61% 26 13 38% 32% 20% 14% 18% 18% ··························· ··························· 26% 36% 19% 26% 7% ........................... 10% ··························· 11% 9% 26% 23% 41% HOUSEHOLD TYPE AND RELATIONSHIP(% distribution) 29% 26% 13% 10% 16% 16% ........................... ........................... 38% 35% 28% 24% 10% ........................... 11% .. No Children............................................................................................................... ........................... 10% 10% Other Household with 2 or more persons 23% 28% One Person Household Married Couple Household With Child(ren) No Children ........................................................................................................................................ Fainily, Female Householder With Child(ren) WSU/CUS/MIMIC - SEMCC - UCS 5 19% 19% ··························· 31% 18% 9% 16% 21% 12% 11% 5% 10% 6% ··························· ........................... ........................... ··························· 11% 9% 9% 12% 35% 24% 23% 33% DETROIT SUBCOMMUNITIES �- TABLE 1. GENERAL POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS SUBCOMMUNITIES OF DETROIT ROSA PARKS POPULATION, RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN<,_.: · ·:•.: \. :: _-'.:'.'':>() ·::' -·-:-::' Total Population 28,986 White, non-Hispanic 662 Black, non-Hispanic 27,795 Other.non-Hispanic 293 ROSEDALE PARK ROUGE .. ·::,:::.,:· ..•·. ·. 19,985 3,937 15,658 213 ST.JEAN ·•· ·-·•: STATE FAIR .-.. TIREMAN UNIVERSITY :-. .•. : :=:~ 24,731 18,698 4,735 376 23,265 662 22,471 55 WINTERHALTER 11,812 5,273 5,980 301 26,325 344 25,770 84 16,692 4,318 10,684 1,451 22,261 218 21,895 71 .. Hispanic ..................................................................................................................... ................ 236 ... .................177... ................ 922....................... 77 ... ................ 258 ... .................127 ...................239 ...................... 77 .. . %Black 96% 79% 19% 97% 51% 98% 64% 99% 1% % Hispanic 1% 4% 0% 2% 0% 0% 1% ...-.-:·:.·.. AGE CHARACTERISTICS ',,,: 26% 24% 18% 33 % 17 Years and younger % 60 Years and older % 65 Years and older Median Age FAMILYANDHOUSEHOLDCHARACTERISTIC:S\•'=(··.:::{J /-: 32% 9% 6% 30 .•.. •'.·•· -: ,<· .. ;.:,::,.· ..( ·••.•:--:-: ;:;-: : . :-:-. I···· .-. -::- 26% 20% 16% 32 t·•: :::- ...., ':'·. :-::-:: 29% 20% 15% 31 .. 36% 12% 9% 26 :fL.·::,: .• ... ·•.•· .. · : :- ·.• :-: 29% 21% 16% 31 .-.•.· 27% 21% 15% 32 12% 25% 20% 38 I ·< .. -:. .. •· .. Total Families 6,654 5,136 6,589 5,257 2,584 6 569 2 065 5 441 Total. Household; .. ····................................................................................................. ...........j 1,686 ... ············· 6,546 ... ............ 9,587 ................ 8,280 ... ............ 3,856 ··· ............. 9:709... ············ 9:578 ................ 8:986··· % Households with head 65 years+ % Households with 1 or more persons 65 years+ 31 % 35% 11 % 14% ...% Households. with. 1. or more persons. 60.years+............................................................ ~}%. ................. )?..'!.~ % of population in group quarters 1% 0% LIVING ARRANGEMENTS OF CHILDREN .·_.;.;:.} :' ? { .. >:}· i.:: 28% 31 % 26% 30% 19% 22% 28% 29% 0% 3% I% ·. :.:': 1% .· .·• : :;>: .· 11 % I% ··-.,: % Living with one parent % Livin~ in other household type HOUSEHOLD TYPEAND RELATIONSHIP (% .distribution) :: 16% 60 24 , 61% 27 12 ·:,,: .· ._ 59% 31 10 16% 59 26 42% 47 11 18% 59 23 25% 55 19 )/ ,:;:.. Married Couple Household With Child(ren) 18% 7% 51 % 32% 46% 21 % 20% 8% 30% 19% 24% 9% 8% 3% % Living with two parents 24% 28% ................. }?.~~ ................. )9% .................. 30% .................. 42% .................. 36% ................. )7% ... } 30% 34% 16 62 22 . •.• 22% 8% F~ft}t:1!:i~•H•~~~h~i•d~~••••••••••••••••••••••••"••••••••••••••••••••••••••••n••••••••••••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••••½~:: ••••••• .. ••••••••••ti: ••••••••••••••••••}~: ••••••••• .. •••• . ••ll;; . .•••••••••••••••½li ••••••• .. ••••••••••jl;; ••••••••••••••••••iii •••••••••••••••••••jt:: With Child(ren) 25% 27% 7% ttfNt:::~1d·;·ith·2·;;·~~;~·~~~~~··········................................................. ··················-1·ii ..................... I: ..................iii··············..···~~: .................. iii ···················i·i·: ...................i.1i 24% One Person Household 28% 28% 68% 35% WSU/CUS/MIMIC - SEMCC - UCS 23% 15% 38% 18% 6 11 % 26% 27% 31% 16: DETROIT SUBCOMMUNITIES " �TABLE 2. SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS CITY OF DETROIT SUBCOMMUNITIES OF DETROIT . PLACE OF BIRTH (% distribution) ·•: .. .. ... ·••:. BAGLEY :·_::· -- BOYNTON BRIGHTMOOR 66% 31 3 ..;,:, ..... ·-· .•. •.••-••.• .· ·'- ·, ; • . ..---:=.· .: ·.-.·.· LANGUAGE SPOKEN IN HOME BY AGE ·(% distribution) . ::·-:.::.:b::_..,..,.-: 51% 14 6 28 382 ':' •::-::•: ··=. 55% 45 1 61% 38 1 70% 28 3 77% 18 4 -:•: :: . .: :? ·-·-·_- 56% 43 1 : 10% 23 15 53 229 -:•:,:.-:•·•:_ ... CENTRAL .,. 74% 24 2 ·o::=:::_:::r·:.·: ::·:::'::: 37% 21 9 33 34,490 1980 or later 1970 to 1979 1960 to 1969 Before 1960 Total Foreign Born BURBANK :, 65% 33 2 ·-:-·-· BROOKS 1-•• -. :,; Michigan Other Native Born Foreign Born YEAR OF ENTRY:(% of Foreign Born) ·,. AIRPORT ·=· 47% 12 6 35 346 6% 55 8 31 65 33% 17 7 43 948 ·=· -:-: 25% 19 7 50 1,225 30% 30 6 34 282 •: . .- - .•. . ·--·• ,: IAge 5 lo 17 years Speak only English Other language, Speak English well 94% 96% 96% 96% 98% 96% 95% 95% 4 5 2 3 3 3 5 5 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 ..Do.Not_Speak_English well ................................................................................... .......................... ··························· ........................... ··························· ........................... ··························· ........................... ··························· !Age 18 years and older 92% 96% 92% 97% 98% 95% 92% Speak only English 96% 7 7 4 2 1 5 8 Other language, Speak English well 4 1 0 I 1 1 0 1 Do Not Speak English well 0 .... .. . .. SCHOOL ENROLLMENT:(Persoos·3 years and older) : Preprimary school Elementary or high school % in private school College 18,223 206,424 13% 65,720 431 4,591 5% 727 12% 26 28 HiJ!.h. school .~raduate_or GED ................................................................................ ............................ 25 1 to 3 years of college 10 College graduate 17% 39 27 ··························· 16 2 •.· YEARS OF SCHOOL COMPLETED ( % of persons 25 yrs. +) of-persons 5 years and older) Same house Elsewhere in Michigan Outside Michigan WSU/CUS/MIMIC - SEMCC - UCS •. .. ·,; - 175 1,676 6% 483 283 3,558 17% 1,979 425 4,429 8% 1,188 561 7,933 12% 2,099 562 6,260 18% 1,356 ... .·. 8 years or less 1 to 3 years of high school RESIDENCE IN ·198S (% . •· ,: ··= ..-··=:::;::·••:;•.:-:.<·..·· ·•--:•.·.·•·::_:-::,·. •.· ,·•.· .• ···········••., . 8% 10% 5% 17% 10% 15% 24 28 25 18 26 26 25 ........................... 33 ........................... 33 ........................... 29 ........................... 35 25 ........................... ················'"••········ 25 27 35 25 24 24 7 16 5 5 6 10 •.:;\:'=j- . { .-.·•.•:-:--.-:- - 60% 36 4 64% 33 3 7 205 3,286 8% 1,351 75% 23 2 :·:·:::::,•·.•.·•.. ·.- :::_.;:_ 79% 19 2 39% 55 7 -.~::::.::·:·-•.::._•·:··:-::-:-.-..:·_-: .. .... - .. .··•::, 57% 39 4 . "::: 48% 48 4 56% 41 3 DETROIT SUBCOMMUNITIES �TABLE 2. SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS CENTRAL BUS. DIST. SUBCOMMUNITIES OF DETROIT .-: PLACE OF BIRTH (% distribution) Michigan Other Native Born Foreign Born YEAR OF ENTRY(%ofForeign Born) 1980 or later 1970 to 1979 1960 to 1969 Before 1960 Total Foreign Born ·-·· CERVENY CHENE .. :-. CODY CLARK PARK .. .. ::: ,· .·.... 31% 22 12 35 437 .::.. :.\./::_;'. f:·::t:=},< Speak only English Other language, Speak English well 67% 66% 32 2 12 34% 16 18 32 370 96% 4 97% 2 . ·····,··=· 50% 18 7 25 2,742 . ·•= 72% 24 3 59% 24 15 .-. \ 1/?}·:··_ t·: ;_ :)\i ___ ?·} ( 64% 33 3 20 .·--- .• •.-:: :• 34% 29 13 25 493 11 .. 92% 7 : : :.. ',; .. 65% 33 .--: .-: 50% 21 9 19 763 29% 6 7 58 308 :=t --: ,;:-:-:•··::•: •.·· ·: 72% 26 2 -: ·:\_ 31% 20 9 40 694 : :: . 72% 21 ·.• 27 2,659 :,•; 61% 35 3 -: -:·-·: 36% 26 1, : ·... _,;:_ 59% 36 5 CONNER CONDON ,: :-: •:,: LANGUAGE SPOKEN IN HOME BY AGE"{% distribution) !Age 5 to 17 years CHADSEY -.•. -'.:-:"":·•·: -: •••• .· ,_.•::•._•;,,,:,:'.c"'.:,•:::•, 96% 3 91 % 8 :: ... Preprimary school Elementary or high school % in private school College YEARS OF SCHOOL COMPLETED".(%_ persons 2S yrs.+) 8 years or less 1 to 3 years of high school of -- -.·-.·-·-:•: ·.· .... :' :-: .-. 60 340 11% 722 323 4,870 15% 1,883 . ·- 386 4,308 17% 954 :-: :-: -.- 278 3,096 6% 592 .:-·::- ::·-, I 95% 5 .. Do Not.S_peak .English well .......................................................................................................Q..........................~.........................?. ......................... 1........................ 2......................... 0 ........................ 2 ................................~ . ... Age 18 years and older Speak only English 92% 96% 69% 93% 59% 93% 88% 96% Other language, Speak English well 7 3 24 6 28 6 9 3 Do Not Speak English well 1 1 6 2 13 1 3 1 SCHOOL ENROLLMENT (Persons-J years and older) 'I ' •, ._.·· 322 3,759 9% 784 415 5,286 16% 1,893 227 2,315 9% 508 898 10,105 8% 1,706 23% 34 9% 30 ··- :- -,_:-:-·.· -. -·- 9% 17 7% 21 20% 30 23% 35 25% 30 6% 20 Hi~h.schoolgraduate . or. GED .......................................................................................................................~. ?........................f.~....................... ~.~ ......................... 22 ......................... 25 .......................34 ....................... 25 ...........................f.~.... . 1 to 3 years of college 23 36 15 15 12 30 15 27 College graduate 32 9 4 4 8 1O 3 5 RESIDENCE IN 198S (1/ hf persons;'S ye= ars=-and olde= r) . Same house Elsewhere in Michigan Outside Michigan WSU/CUS/MIMIC - SEMCC - UCS ·- >< .: -b -:-: -· \l= ,(-· --. ., _//_ ' : : ' 28% 62 10 68% 29 3 8 56% 36 8 ./-/\,/}{': :···,•.·.·<::-·· -:,::-.,·.· 58% 39 3 53% 37 10 54% 42 4 .:) 63% 32 5 53% 43 3 DETROIT SUBCOMMUNITIES " �TABLE 2. SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS DAVISON SUBCOMMUNITIES OF DETROIT PLACE OF BIRTH (% distribution) . DELRAY/ SPRNGWLS DENBY DURFEE EAST RIVERSIDE EVERGREEN FINNEY GRANDMONT •·,; 67% 23 10 Michigan Other Native Born Foreign Born YEAR OF ENTRY (% '. of Foreign Born) . 1980 or later 1970 to 1979 1960 to 1969 Before 1960 66% 24 9 77% 19 3 67% 32 1 59% 40 1 76% 20 67% 32 2 4 1 22% 18 12% 14 23% 29 26 ,; '• Total Foreign Born 69% 28 51% 16 7 26 1,890 29% 25 12 34 2,450 12% 10 15 64 767 15% 36 6 43 232 21% 26 11 41 123 51 839 88% 10 77% 21 95% 4 97% 3 98% 2 97% 2 8 7 67 1,222 22 306 LANGUAGE SPOKEN IN HOME BY AGE (% distribution) IAge 5 to 17 years Speak only English Other language, Speak English well 96% 4 97% 2 .. Do Not.Speak .English well .......................................................................................................~ ......................... ~......................... ~.......................... Q.........................Q..........................~ .........................Q..........................~ ... . IAge 18 years and older Speak only English 80% 76% 94% 97% 95% 95% 92% 96% Other language, Speak English well 16 19 6 3 4 4 8 3 Do Not Speak English well 4 5 0 0 1 1 1 1 ... SCHOOL/ ENROLLMENT (Persons 3 years and older) Preprimary school Elementary or high school % in private school College . ·- ' • 1: ·-· :~ ' ' ,•. 746 5,556 13% 1,121 448 4,338 26% 1,366 511 5,334 9% 1,671 201 2,545 8% 614 565 8,530 13% 2,580 727 5,738 30% 2,042 536 5 ,738 11% 1,828 16% 32 23% 33 6% 20 13% 29 15% 30 6% 20 7% 19 7% 23 YEARS OF SCHOOL COMPLETED (% of persons 25 yrs. +) 8 years or less 1 to 3 years of high school High.schoolgraduate.or GED .................................................................................................. ?:?........................~? .....................~)........................~~...................... ~} ......................}Q _ 1 to 3 years of college 17 14 31 24 23 32 College graduate 6 3 11 8 9 12 RESIDENCE IN198S (% of persons 5 years and older) Same house Elsewhere in Michigan Outside Michigan WSU/CUS/MIMIC - SEMCC - UCS .: 391 4,275 13% 998 . ·.·..•,·. ·. ~- ·-. . ... ::·:: .-..; :-:-·•: ;- 59% 37 40 53% 4 7 9 52% 44 4 59% 38 3 30 16 ' : ~:'.:.. ,:::-•:•:- 32 9 . :-:-··.,·: -· • ..- .................. ~.?. .......................29 .. . 59% 37 4 61% 36 3 53% 43 4 64% 33 3 DETROIT SUBCOMMUNITIES �TABLE 2. SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS GRANT SUBCOMMUNITIES OF DETROIT PLACE OF BIRTH (% distribution) GREENFIELD HARMONY VILLAGE INDIAN VILLAGE .--:. ,: . ,; ,; '•'•· -:•> ... ••. ..,··· .':.. • :• ..... :- .... LANGUAGE SPOKEN IN HOME BY AGE (% distribution) ,. 0:: :=_. !Age 5 to 17 years Speak only English Other language, Speak English well 1 :c:.·.... _,.;:-- .. :-.- .· 23% 42 6 28 542 33% 32 9 26 630 1980 or later 1970 lo 1979 1960 to 1969 Before 1960 Total Foreign Born 13% 19 3 65 238 56% 41 2 69% 30 12% 25 17 47 211 33% 20 0 .:·:.-:-•, ··=.·· -:-:•: 19% 30 22 30 226 61% 39 1 61% 37 2 •'• 49% 21 5 25 177 .. 96% 4 87% 11 2 and older) ..·. ,,·. . ::-;.-: ;: 0% 6 11 84 176 . 0 47 85 :· [ •:·· .. Do Not.Speak: _En~lish well ...................................................................................................... }.......................... SCHOOL ENROLLMENT(Persons 3 years 55% 40 4 le" ··:·t 87% 12 !Age 18 years and older Speak only English Other language, Speak English well Do Not Speak English well 63% 36 1 ·-· •. _:,; 65% 33 2 MACK :, .. 70% 24 5 : .-::;"••'"•:·. LAFAYETTE ,: ·.• Michigan Other Native Born Foreign Born YEAR OF ENTRY(% ofForei2n Born) KETTRNG/ BUTZEL JEFFRIES 97% 3 :: 95% 5 .. ·.·.· : 92% 6 ,·• 97% 2 94% 6 99% 1 g.........................Q......................... g........................ 2......................... 0 ....................... o.........................0 ... 96% 4 0 97% 3 1 95% 4 1 94% 6 1 97% 3 0 95% 4 1 97% 3 0 · .· ·-· Preprimary school Elementary or high school % in private school College .; 126 2,493 11% 621 . 578 6,359 16% 2,438 602 7,298 9% 2,363 54 415 27% 534 203 1,388 4% 586 501 5,317 5% 1,498 124 1,019 13% 689 385 5,577 5% 1,174 8% 19 9% 29 6% 14 23% 27 19% 32 12% 14 13% 40 : YEARS OF SCHOOL COMPLETED(% of persons 2S vrs. +) . 8 years or less 1 to 3 years of high school 12% 27 •,· Hi~h.school~r~duate.or.GED .................................................................................................. ~.?. ....................... ?.g.......................~.~ ....................... ~.~...................... ~.?. .......................~?....................... }.~.......................~~···· 1 to 3 years of college 25 32 26 28 17 19 28 18 College graduate 7 12 6 35 9 4 27 3 .. : : I'\}(:_-,._::: -:/· RESIDENCE IN 1985 (o/,,:'Jfpersons S years and oldel'.).:: :- ,. . ,.::){::;.,: Same house Elsewhere in Michigan Outside Michigan WSU/CUS/MIMIC -SEMCC - UCS 57% 39 69% 28 4 3 10 68% 30 2 54% 40 6 59% 37 4 65% 33 3 55% 41 4 59% 38 2 DETROIT SUBCOMMUNITIES I I I 'I ' ' �TABLE 2. SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS MACKENZIE SUBCOMMUNITIES OF DETROIT PLACE OF BIRTH (%distribution)" . :- .. ··.: . Michigan Other Native Born Foreign Born YEAR OF ·ENTRY (% of Foreign Born) :::::· .- :: :·. :,· ... •.•. • .· ·--:-_•:.--:•.::, '•?-:=: :;:•::' :;:_:= . -·:::•,•. .. .. ·::···-·- ····=····· _,::_./ .. . MCNICHOLS ... 64% 35 1 . : •: 63% 35 2 ._. __ ,· REDFORD . •.• 57% 41 1 68% 30 1 72% 22 4 30% 27 14 29 293 5% 14 6 75 278 29% 13 16 42 1,039 : ;::,:,: -- 11 43 471 . . 37% 7 29 27 143 V'::·'::\:}.,,'·-'.::·: . ·::· PERSHING .· .. 65% 32 3 ',_, .. PEMBROKE . 73% 21 6 59% 40 1 PALMER PARK •,••. : 33% 13 ::•:::--: NOLAN .. •' 1980 or later 1970 to I 979 1960 to 1969 Before 1960 Total Foreign Born LANGUAGE SPOKEN IN HOME BY AGE (% distribution) MOUNT OLIVET •. •~- ,:a: ·- 31% 28 5 36 1,693 ·-·· ·.•.,: .. 46% 15 9 30 466 ...•.•- ::•·· ·- ·--~=··· ···:: ·. ,•. : :-- . .. .... 40% 3 16 40 369 .. ·.· ';::::. ·-::·- . ::· .. ·--· .·-· .--.- .. . ' -: :Age 5 to 17 years Speak only English Other language, Speak English well 97% 96% 91% 97% 96% 97% 98% 95% 3 4 8 2 3 3 2 3 1 1 ........................... 1 ........................... 1 ........................... 0 ........................... 0 0 1 ...[)o Not.S_peak Enslish well .................................................................................. ........................... ··························· ··························· ··························· Age 18 years and older 97% 88% 96% 97% 95% 94% 94% Speak only English 93% 3 3 10 4 2 6 6 Other language, Speak English well 6 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 [)o Not Speak English well 1 .. . . SCHOOL ENROLLMENT {Persons 3 years and older) .. : I .. 602 8,884 10% 2,873 Preprimary school Elementary or high school % in private school College YEARS OF SCHOOL COMPLETED(% of persons 25 yrs.+) 563 6,209 15% 1,471 272 2,451 11% 678 459 4,920 8% 1,328 230 1,992 35% 1,595 225 3,508 15% 2,029 353 4,691 11% 1,379 431 3,673 24% 1,741 ·=· .. ·.· ·-· ·-· ,·•·._. 11% 12% 11% 13% 2% 8% 12% 6% 26 27 24 27 6 20 25 19 30 22 34 13 25 31 32 33 Hi~h.schoolgr~d~.~~~.!?~.GED ................................................................................ ........................... ··························· ........................... ........................... ........................... ........................... ··························· ··························· 27 28 24 30 32 25 25 1 to 3 years of college 30 7 11 6 49 15 4 College graduate 6 12 8 years or less 1 to 3 years of high school RESIDENCE IN 1985 (% of persons S years and older) Same house Elsewhere in Michigan Outside Michigan WSU/CUS/MIMIC - SEMCC - UCS .·,. //\.::=, __ :· ::_:: {;'.,,:;._(:·-"•' ••·,:.••= .-.· I · .. " 66% 31 3 65% 31 3 11 54% 41 5 67% 30 4 60% 35 5 74% 23 3 71% 27 2 55% 39 6 DETROIT SUBCOMMUNITIES �TABLE 2. SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS ROSA PARKS SUBCOMMUNITIES OF DETROIT PLACE OF BIRTH ( % distribution):: _:}':\(}'· \ff:,-: •: •::::: .. r.,::_:::_··:= _; _ _/_·:n/:.::--::·=: -- ::·:·=:. : -;• ST.JEAN ... 69% 27 3 , 63% 37 0 71% 16 0 13 11 20 442 665 34% } ... .... 15% -: -- 54% 20 26 61% 38 1 :-: 9 66 68 .· 20% 25 20 35 3,056 133 /t .-. .•_:;. - .- .- :._.-::)}'{ .. \' :.:i'.:'::_.;\t ,; ::;: .1:•::::' ·•·.· .·. 60% 39 1 49% 40 11 -·. :-:-·· 53% 35 6 5 10 1,338 .. WINTER· HALTER . 19% 16 15 50 34 ,: .•. .. UNIVER· SITY : . . . .-. ··:\:%: t{. ):)!:{;( ::, :•: . .·. .··•:•·· 79% 15 5 ..... TIREMAN STATE FAIR .. . .. 1980 or later 1970 to 1979 1960 to 1969 Before 1960 Total Foreign Born LANGUAGE SPOKEN INHOMEBY:AGE .(%dlstributl\'>n) ROUGE <:: :-:"· :::•,::-:-:-: 59% 39 2 Michigan Other Native Born Foreign Born YEAR OF ENTRY(% ofForeign Bornf ROSEDALE PARK 1,808 171 3 . .. . -;• .. .::.' ___ 14 68% 5 0 26 72% 10 : .. ·,-·, -. Age 5 to 17 years 97% 96% 3 4 0 0 ...Do Not. _peak _English_wen .................................................................................. ........................... ··························· Age 18 years and older 96% 94% Speak only English 4 5 Other language, Speak English well 0 l Do Not Speak English well Speak only English Other language, Speak English well s SCHOOL.ENROLLMENT (Persons·J years and .older)? 86% 13 2 .. 532 5,362 500 4,653 6% 25% 1,912 _:-: YEARS OF SCHOOL COMPLETED(.% of persons 25 yrs.+)- . ·.,- _: 1,972 96% 3 0 ·.•. ._.::::::,.. 488 3,721 -:· ••:•.•.• ·.::-:-: 36% 1,568 ··························· 98% 2 0 10 •·. :;"}'._: 367 4,695 8% 377 5,356 4% 5% 723 1,364 ;:;:-: =_: /{.}\:(_'' . '.\L. / .. t· 7 3 >.:.\) -:·-:-;- 61% 36 3 63% 33 4 59% 37 4 12 ··- ·:.\. ,.:::tt.· ::{=:{{: 63% 24 14 31 32 22 28 ··························· ··························· 16 22 7 4 ::/ \ 97% 3 0 86% 13 l ·:,::::::.::\. -::::: :-:-::::: 34 54% 40 3 6 259 4,294 80 1,487 8% 4% 1,169 2,395 .. .· 10% 18 24 35 35 27 ··························· ··························· 24 18 96% 89% 3 10 1 1 ........................... ··························· .. 236 2,796 1,175 :,,:.-.-: 16% 3% 31 9 25 20 High_school_graduate_or_GED ................................................................................ ........................... ··························· 21 36 1 to 3 years of college 7 32 College graduate RESIDENCE -IN.1985 (~t of'hersons'"s y~ats aia'<f= older)/=t/ 98% 1 0 65% 25 ·'.•: 8 years or less 1 to 3 years of high school WSU/CUS/MIMIC - SEMCC · UCS 99% 63% 1 35 0 ............................ 0 ............................ 2 ........................... 4 ,- -· Preprimary school Elementary or high school % in private school College Same house Elsewhere in Michigan Outside Michigan 96% 10 30 28 20 ............................ ··························· 24 19 8 19 15 28 ·.· .::0/ •.i,:}> ·. ··:.::t.}'.i{')?' .''\ : . .-: :-: ·c-• 66% 31 3 40% 48 12 ::- ::::· 63% ·.•:-: .. 34 3 DETROIT SUBCOMMUNITIES �TABLE 3. INCOME AND POVERTY CHARACTERISTICS SUBCOMMUNITIES OF DETROIT AIRPORT CITY OF DETROIT -:---··- -: -:··· HOUSEHOLD INCOME(% of households) ,:,;. . ·-· ,:, BAGLEY :, Under $5,000 $5,000 to $9,999 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 to $24,999 16% 23% 16 22 11 13 14 16 13 ........................... 10 $25,000_to_$34,999 .................................................................................................... ............................ 14 10 $35,000 to $49,999 10 $50,000 to $74,999 6 2 $75,000 to $99,999 3 1 0 $100,000 or more $18,740 $11,860 Median Household Income $12,460 $22,565 Median Family Income % OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH INCOME FROM .... Earnings Social Security Public Assistance ,: . ...... AVERAGE INCOME BY TYPE ·=·=·-•.·> . . :.{" .. ::·::··- :---,.-,• .-,:-._·.·.•: ·,· : -:-: All persons Persons 65 years of age and older Persons 17 years of age and yowiger ..... .. ·.• • ..·. BURBANK . CENTRAL . 7% 13% 14% 13% 19% 24% 17 16 6 16 14 21 8 12 11 11 11 16 18 16 18 20 17 14 12 ........................... 15 ........................... 11 ........................... 14 ........................... 14 8 ··························· ··························· 14 14 23 13 16 9 17 6 10 9 11 5 8 4 1 2 2 2 3 1 0 1 1 1 $35,515 $20,367 $19,352 $16,010 $21,727 $11,387 $39,275 $25,050 $15,260 $21,482 70% 19% 30% 71% 24% 27% $24,272 $16,590 ·.•: 55% 29% 41% 80% 31% 16% 58% 49% 22% ·• $30,001 $7,363 $4,350 $24,007 $6,723 $4,693 $39,289 $8,194 $4,483 $29,004 $8,209 $3,912 .. : - -;•,•- . •. BROOKS •: •.•.• : Earnings Social Security Public Assistance ,. BRIGHTMOOR : 66% 29% 26% •.,,.:. ·-. ·::::::'c::·· ,:,,:,:-::::,:_\:::. :-·:·· ::. .. •· <·=·=··= POVERTY(% of persons. households and families) . BOYNTON ,:, ···- •. .. 69% 26% 24% 55% 34% 30% -·· $23,507 $7,137 $4,730 $28,518 $7,102 $4,511 $30,819 $8,230 $4,916 $24,089 $6,849 $3,963 32% 13% 47% 39% 27% 52% .•. .· 32% 20% 47% 48% 21% 66% 13% 8% 20% 24% 18% 32% 44% 20% 60% 34% 15% 49% .......................... ........................... ........................... ··························· .......................... ........................... ··························· ····················•··················································································································· ···························· 31% 46% 38% 31% All households Households with householder 65 years + 22% 24% 13% 10% 25% 21% 22% 17% 28% 16% 40% 31% ........................... ........................... ........................... ........................... ··························· ··························· ··························· ········································································································································· ............................ 29% 47% 11% 43% 32% 19% 29% All families Female-headed families with child(ren) WSU/CUS/MIMIC - SEMCC - UCS 57% 72% 13 28% 35% 77% 61% 66% 34% 63% DETROIT SUBCOMMUNITIES �- TABLE 3. INCOME AND POVERTY CHARACTERISTICS CENTRAL BUS. DIST. SUBCOMMUNITIES OF DETROIT HOUSEHOLD INCOME(% of households)Under $5,000 $5,000to$9,999 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 to $24,999 $25,000to$34,999 $35,000.to $49,999 ... $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Median Household Income .·-: .·. ,,:: CERVENY .. ,.}h'.1<:} .... · _ ·.' :, 16% 13 8 13 11 10 7 5 $24,770 9% 10 9 14 16 19 16 5 1 $30,317 $40,815 $33,240 17 Median Family Income ,:,: .. :-·:-: CHADSEY .... :.,•:/ CHENE CLARK CODY CONDON CONNER PARK .. ._ ..;, ·:,··•.;:- :::, ..;.;._ , 17% 19 12 18 11 7 2 1 $16,040 24% 26 16 17 8 6 3 1 0 $10,012 $17,905 $11,832 13 •_:\:. ·: .. •: ,·,· -:•_,:··•: .-.-., ....:•: ·.· ::•: ";:-: /":/' ' .::" •:>-·-:, . _::-:-•. 22% 17 14 17 10 7 1 1 $13,680 10% 12 8 18 17 19 11 3 1 $25,392 4 2 1 $11,632 18% 20 11 15 13 12 8 2 1 $15,602 $15,975 $27,400 $14,957 $15,502 11 20% 25 13 15 9 IO r= :\ :.:,:;: :· : ·_: : /. :-: % OF HOUSEHOLDS WITll'INCOME"FROl\t£f': :,.. Earnings Social Security Public Assistance AVERAGE INCOME BY TYPE :(:::;.,:\::::::· :=: ·.·.··.·,· -:;:, .-.-·,•:•.•,•.•.· All households Households with householder 65 years+ .-.· /· :-::-:,:_. 1· 82% 20% 18% 62% 33% 25% ,: .·.···. $43,534 $6,527 $4,259 Earnings Social Security Public Assistance POVERTY(% of persons, householdsand All persons Persons 65 years of age and older Persons 17 years of age and younger 68% 25% 16% $35,696 $7,052 $4,063 families) ..\\f .• 19% 28% 23% ·:· 59% 29% 36% 78% 20% 17% $18,461 $7,206 $4,435 $24,781 $7,270 $4,320 $31,459 $7,201 $4,432 ·. $25,636 $7,662 $4,718 . :-·.. 47% 38% 45% .. WSU/CUS/MIMIC - SEMCC - UCS $23,372 $7,343 $4,703 $26,865 $7,251 $5,147 :, ·.· ":-:- ;.: _:: ;.::•: :"'·_ 21% 20% 29% 37% 15% 55% 51% 29% 68% 44% 22% 61% 25% 18% 34% 21 % 19% 33% ·50·% · 41 % 23% 30% 20% 17% 31 % 19% 17% 33% 25% 40% 23% 42% 44.% 76% 47% 75% 67% Aii..r~i1i;~····· ............................................................................................................. .....................6r~ ..................'is·i-io .................. 3.sr~ . . . . . . . . . .41'i-io .. Female-headed families with child(ren) 67% 18% 40% 51% 39% 39% 18% 40% 14 74% 72% 46% 33% 65% 44% 25% 58% •U••·············«'f~ .... ._ .............43·;;; DETROIT SUBCOMMUNITIES �TABLE 3. INCOME AND POVERTY CHARACTERISTICS DAVISON SUBCOMMUNITIES OF DETROIT HOUSEHOLD INCOME(% of households) ::·· ..-: ·:,•- . ', . ·. : DELRAY/ SPRNGWLS :-,-··· DENBY ·.:: :• ::·::=••'.•.•:':•···· ·• -:- DURFEE -:·::12··. -... ·-,;·;. EAST RIVERSIDE : EVERGREEN FINNEY ..·.-. .. GRANDMONT -: 23% 17% 21% 5% 24% 9% 8% 12% 16 11 21 20 11 18 10 13 7 13 13 10 13 13 9 8 14 16 18 16 16 19 19 17 12 ........................... 12 ........................... 19 11 16 11 15 13 $25,000_to .$34,999.................................................................................................... ··························· ··························· ........................... ··························· ··························· ........................... 10 11 19 11 19 10 18 $35,000 to $49,999 16 16 6 6 13 7 8 14 $50,000 to $74,999 14 1 0 4 2 2 5 4 $75,000 to $99,999 5 0 1 1 2 2 1 2 $100,000 or more 2 $14,457 $13,520 $30,090 $29,135 $13,057 $14,235 $27,187 Median Household Income $24,995 Under $5,000 $5,000 to $9,999 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 to $24,999 $16,295 Median Family Income AVERAGE INCOME BY TYPE ---:-·- . .Jtt .fj}/f :::: :•: $17,000 $31,325 .. 61% 34% 30% .. . .. -:· •. 60% 31% 34% ..... 77% 26% 12% $31,192 ••❖ $23,495 $7,502 $4,574 -: .,:-•: 58% 35% 30% -·-· $27,485 .·.··:•:·•· ·= •. 81% 19% 19% 63% 24% 36% 76% 26% 14% ·-·· ·•.·· ...·. 78% 18% 24% .· .. Earnings Social Security Public Assistance All persons Persons 65 years of age and older Persons 17 years of age and yowiger $17,002 •.• •. ::=... :, .· POVERTY(% of person~ households and families) $32,225 •: % OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH INCOME FROM._ Earnings Social Security Public Assistance $17,352 $22,734 $6,954 $4,209 $34,181 $8,114 $4,789 $23,334 $7,413 $3,870 $31,228 $6,652 $4,468 $36,463 $7,203 $4,621 ..: : t:\.•: $35,632 $7,946 $4,523 ·---:-:·-· $33,721 $6,865 $4,461 .. . 41% 21% 60% 38% 16% 52% 16% 9% 27% 39% 23% 57% 43% 26% 58% 22% 17% 31% 20% 9% 31% 28% 18% 38% ·························· ........................... ··························· ··························· ........................... ··························· ··························· ·······················································································•················································· ........................... 37% 38% 13% 41% 20% 40% All households 16% Households with householder 65 years + 24% 19% 11% 25% 29% 18% 9% 26% 18% ........................... ........................... ........................... ··························· ··························· ··························· ··························· ··························· ········································································································································· 38% 35% 14% 41% 20% 35% All families 17% Female-headed families with child(ren) WSU/CUS/MIMIC - SEMCC - UCS 74% 76% 15 39% 65% 68% 44% 51% 25% 50% DETROIT SUBCOMMUNITIES �I TABLE 3. INCOME AND POVERTY CHARACTERISTICS GRANT SUBCOMMUNITIES OF DETROIT .... HOUSEHOLD INCOME(% of households) ...,•.•. :••;,.. : GREENFIELD JEFFRIES . 10% 11% 14 10 9 9 20 15 15 ... ........................... 17 $25,000_to_$34,999.................................................................................................... ....................... 18 19 $35,000 to $49,999 10 15 $50,000 to $74,999 4 4 $75,000 to $99,999 1 1 $100,000 or more $23,537 $28,565 Median Household Income - $26,785 Median Family Income .:;:.;: ·.:: •: ,: _.::::'.•:·:: KETTRNG/ BUTZEL LAFAYETTE MACK ' 15% 8% 14 16 10 12 18 13 15 14 ··························· ··························· 13 13 . ' 2 1 $20,432 23% 21 13 11 15 7 10 ............................ ........................... 7 9 10 5 6 5 0 1 7 0 0 $25,045 $7,172 $11,992 $22,285 $46,457 11 $31,307 •: 31% 30 8 $11,017 : 29% 22 12 15 11 9 ··························· ··························· 8 13 5 10 1 3 0 3 $9,512 $17,897 13% 23 10 14 $15,240 •: 78% 23% 20% 70% 26% 28% 66% 40% 8% 45% 34% 37% $11,420 $32,090 54% 39% 36% . .••. ••. ,: 72% 29% 21% ··, .··•: .·. 54% 22% 47% 59% 40% 15% ·•:-. '. POVERTY (% of persons, oouseholds and "families). All persons Persons 65 years of age and older Persons 17 years of age and younger INDIAN VILLAGE : Under $5,000 $5,000 to $9,999 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 to $24,999 % OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH INCOME FROM.- . Earnings Social Security Public Assistance .. .. AVERA GE INCOME u·v TYPK: \:::,: Earnings Social Security Public Assistance HARMONY VILLAGE ::• $31,979 $7,432 $4,252 $35,267 $7,360 $4,125 •. ·~· ..... $29,110 $7,796 $4,580 •: $51,037 $7,371 $4,418 $21,583 $5,713 $3,853 $21,894 $7,068 $3,964 $35,392 $6,509 $3,872 $20,394 $6,023 $4,397 -:•, ,: 26% 10% 41% 22% 15% 32% 30% 18% 44% 13% 17% 23% 51% 50% 65% 42% 28% 59% 24% 31% 37% 54% 33% 66% ··························· ··························· ······················"••·· ··························· ··························· ........................... ··························· ···························•············································································································ ····················•······ 24% 21% All households 29% 52% 13% Households with householder 65 years + 11% 17% 20% 19% 53% 53% 41% 29% 25% 34% .......................................................................................................................................... ··················•········ ........................... ··························· ··························· ··························· ·····················--····· ··························· 24% 20% All families 28% 7% 18% 47% 37% Female-headed families with child(ren) WSU/CUS/MIMIC - SEMCC - UCS 60% 43% 16 53% 40% 68% 63% 40% 35% 51% 74% DETROIT SUBCOMMUNITIES �TABLE 3. INCOME AND POVERTY CHARACTERISTICS MACKEN- MCNICHZIE OLS .-... .-. SUBCOMMUNITIES OF DETROIT HOUSEHOLDINCOME(%·ofhouseholdsf::·· •. . . ,__ ::\··_·:·:'·:·:\::-:, Under $5,000 $5,000 to $9,999 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 to $24,999 16% 16 10 15 19% 18 9 20 $25,000. to .$34,999.................................................................................................... ...................~.?. ...................... }.~.... $35,000to$49,999 14 11 $50,000 to $74,999 11 9 $75,000 to $99,999 3 2 $100,000 or more O 1 Median Household Income $19,925 $16,372 $22,345 Median Family Income % OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH INCOME FROM... Earnings Social Security Public Assistance .. ·:: AVERAGE INCOME BY TYPE Earnings Social Security Public Assistance POVERTY(% of persons. households and families) -. ··.= .. _.: :- ·• :: ·'.•: WSU/CUS/MIMIC - SEMCC - UCS 10% 13 12 18 16% 18 11 19 2% 5 7 16 PERSHING -: .. ·.c:•-·= : .....-.. 7% 8 9 18 10% 14 9 18 7% 10 10 19 17 10 3 0 $23,372 12 8 2 1 $17,222 14 18 11 13 $41,017 19 15 6 2 $30,375 17 12 3 1 $23,570 1 $27,300 $26,100 $19,202 $57,890 $35,017 $26,657 $33,667 71% 27% 18% $30,245 $7,889 $4,884 •. .. 65% 35% 28% $26,046 $7,466 $4,152 ·•· 34% 22% 53% 26% 14% 40% 34% 17% 52% 31 % 35% 22% 17% 26% 14% 30% 33% 60% 65% 21 12 4 ..: .. . 92% 16% 6% .. $52,068 $7,973 $4,356 .··-·· ... 78% 34% 14% . . $37,943 $8,030 $4,564 70% 36% 20% $31,207 $7,854 $4,311 80% 22% 11% $32,557 $8,048 $4,811 .. : ,. 17 REDFORD .. .................!.?........................ ~~···· ...................!.1....................... ~~···· ...................~.?. ....................... 16 ... ---- All households........... Female-headed families with child(ren) $27,332 $7,515 $3,872 ·=•: : 33% 17% 49% All famili~s· .......................... 62% 37% 28% 69% 26% 28% All persons Persons 65 years of age and older Persons 17 years of age and younger Households with householder 65 years + . ·.··.::· PEMBROKE ____ :: 1 $27,978 $7,212 $4,276 ,.,: PALMER PARK .-·.. :-.· ·::: ·-: -. ·=··=--··. ... NOLAN :- ,:Jt· ··=:::·., : .. $18,787 MOUNT OLIVET 7% 4% 10% 15% 11% 25% 24% 12% 40% 16% 14% 24% 32'1~· 6% 14% 22% ··········i"4·;;~ 18% 4% 11% 13% 16% 24% 32% 4% 13% 21 % ·············\2·q~ 56% 63% 18% 40% 51 % 39% DETROIT SUBCOMMUNITIES �TABLE 3. INCOME AND POVERTY CHARACTERISTICS ROSA PARKS SUBCOMMUNITIES OF DETROIT ROUGE ROSEDALE PARK .. HOUSEHOLD INCOME(% of households) ·:·.:•.,..::.;\:> .. •.-·\. .. 25% 20 3% 4 13 5 16 9 14 11 $25,000_to _$34,999.................................................................................................... ··························· ··························· 22 9 $35,000 to $49,999 5 26 $50,000 to $74,999 1 11 $75,000 to $99,999 0 5 $100,000 or more $11,432 $43,327 Median Household Income $14,332 Median Family Income % OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH INCOME F·RoM~~~/:;:}: Earnings Social Security Public Assistance AVERA GE INCOME BY TYPE :-:-. ·.•.· _:: ' ,.;;··-·-·-· .. -. ·.•.:•·•'. •.•.•;•·.•;•~•.•·· .. ·.·.·•.<.·,••.:, . ··-·-· 52% 38% 37% -· ?) 90% 18% 8% -. $21,801 $7,379 $3,886 .. $47,514 $8,613 $4,820 -.-:• $30,670 -- .. ... POVERTY(% of persoris. househol°ds'lld·families))(():·,, $47,390 :.-. t/::- : ·.·· UNIVERSITY WINTERHALTER ,,:-· :- 23% 24% 23 24 12 15 16 15 10 9 ........................... ··························· 7 10 5 5 2 1 0 1 $11,427 $10,860 $11,477 $13,632 54% 34% 40% 59% 23% 40% $16,025 $13,795 :-.·--·-:-:::,:-: -::·,,:,_ :-: -:-::•: _::::·:::-,:::-· .. -:•: 22% 32% 27 19 13 13 12 18 7 9 ··························· ··························· 11 5 6 2 2 1 1 1 $13,245 $7,397 54% 36% 35% 46% 32% 30% :-:- :/' $31,836 $8,215 $5,069 $20,538 $6,999 $4,190 .. :,·, I 8% 8% 12% TIREMAN I·-<<·- $13,950 72% 34% 12% .. 44% 24% 63% -.••:• 6% 25% 12 23 8 13 20 16 18 ........................... 10 ·····················•····· 18 8 14 4 3 1 0 1 $26,700 $10,917 . .(Jf.: _..:: ❖_.:_--., : Earnings Social Security Public Assistance All persons Persons 65 years of age and older Persons 17 years of age and younger . •: Under $5,000 $5,000 to $9,999 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 to $24,999 STATE FAIR ST.JEAN 14% 7% 21% :•:•: 58% 32% 32% :-' :: $21,428 $7,029 $4,672 $21,742 $7,447 $4,297 \. 47% 28% 62% .. .. $24,528 $7,142 $3,967 $19,739 $6,047 $3,509 ··-: :::~-•:• .. . ·-·,::-:::: .-·' 52% 37% 68% 46% 21% 65% 53% 45% 60% 39% 20% 59% ··························· ........................... ........................... ........................... ........................... ··························· ··························· ·······················································•·························································•······················· ··························· 43% 7% 13% All households 39% Households with householder 65 years + 27% 9% 9% 46% 29% 49% 39% 44% 24% 51% 45% 21% ··························· ··························· ........................... ····•······················ ··························· ··························· ··························· ·················································•························•························•·•··································· ·•························· 39% 6% 12% 36% All families 42% Female-headed families with child(ren) WSU/CUS/MIMIC - SEMCC - UCS 70% 22% 18 44% 68% 50% 68% 42% 71% 38% 67% 66% DETROIT SUBCOMMUNITIES I I - �TABLE 4. LABOR FORCE CHARACTERISTICS CITY OF DETROIT SUBCOMMUNITIES OF DETROIT .. ·. ·.• .. LABOR FORCE CHARACTERISTICS 760,623 417,795 335,462 82,333 843 341,985 20% Total persons 16 years and older Total Civilian labor force Employed Unemployed In Armed Forces Not in labor force April, 1990 Unemployment rate (in%) LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES .. .: _.._._.•. ·= .. BAGLEY -:·.-.• ·-· ... 12,506 5,800 3,995 1,805 7 6,699 31% -.-_- ,: OCCUPATION (% of employed) ... ·= .. ,; .- •: -·=·· :• -·=·- ·= ·:: -- •: ... . Detroit city Other Detroit PMSA Outside Detroit PMSA WSU/CUS/MIMIC - SEMCC - UCS . .· : •.· BURBANK CENTRAL 18,707 10,687 8,862 1,825 15 8,005 17% 16,679 7,704 5,715 1,989 27 8,948 26% 57% 51% 53% 46% 40% 47% =· 16,934 10,353 8,913 1,440 18 6,563 14% 8,024 3,545 2,922 623 0 4,479 18% 12,656 7,423 5,780 1,643 4 5,229 22% 25,137 14,924 12,003 2,921 36 10.177 20% ·- •. -_-'.: . 61% 56% 74% .. .- 44% 39% 67% 60% 53% 59% 59% 50% 49% ..•...·· 10% 24% 12% 4 4 3 25 32 27 1 0 0 ........................... ··························· ........................... 24 18 25 8 7 IO 16 9 11 7 13 12 15% 12% 4 3 31 29 0 1 ........................... ........................... 19 19 12 9 10 13 11 11 23% 3 2 23 4 ........................... 14 22 5 4 14% 21% 22% 4 6 3 3 23 22 8 6 ........................... ··························· 12 13 18 19 6 6 5 3 16% 16% 14% 23% 2 2 32 28 0 l ··························· ··························· 19 23 12 6 12 11 8 6 ,•: 21% 5 3 19 6 f.~.~~9.?. . ~!:1;5.~ance. and. real ~~.~~-~.......................................................................... .............................. 11 Business, personal & entertainment services 25 Professional services 8 Public administration 4 Other 20% % of workers employed in public sector Manufacturing Transportation Communication and utilities Wholesale and retail trade -- 46% 40% 45% BROOKS : Il'l>USTRY (% of employed) · .. BRIGHTMOOR .... =,::= 19% 3 28 1 Farmin~, _forestry_and.fishing ............................................................................... ............................. 20 Services 9 Precision production, craft and repair 12 Machine operators, assemblers and inspectors 9 Laborers PLACE OF WORK (% of workers) . .. Managers and professionals Technicians Sales and Administrative support . . .·: •. ·=.,_{_.. : 55% 49% 57% All persons 16 years and older All females 16 years and older Females with child(ren) BOYNTON :-· •·• . -.-••• AIRPORT 19% 23% 4 6 4 5 14 15 6 ........................... 7 ........................... 11 15 31 21 11 6 2 3 27% 19% .. : 56% 42 1 61% 39 0 19 61% 37 2 : 21% 4 15% 3 3 3 24 15 7 6 ··························· ··························· 10 14 20 31 7 8 5 4 16% 24% : .. :,.:· ·-····· . 44% 53 3 41% 58 1 46% 53 2 49% 50 1 69% 30 1 DETROIT SUBCOMMUNITIES �l TABLE 4. LABOR FORCE CHARACTERISTICS CENTRAL BUS. DIST. SUBCOMMUNITIES OF DETROIT CERVENY .,. 1-: LABOR FORCE CHARACTERISTICS . ;:f : /~:: Total persons 16 years and older Total Civilian labor force Employed Unemployed In Armed Forces Not in labor force April, 1990 Unemployment rate (in%) LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES ... ,-<f\}k/,;/:.·· All persons 16 years and older All fem ales 16 years and older Females with child(ren) 1: CHADSEY ... ·,-: CHENE 16,285 10,612 8,761 1,851 17 5,656 17% . 51% 64% 75% 16,052 8,156 6,754 1,402 11 7,885 17% ::: ... 65% 60% 66% 51% 43% 42% ,:. 10,961 3,967 2,540 1,427 12,802 6,197 4,722 1,475 15 6,590 24% 7 6,987 36% :•· =:.r. ·... ·. 36% 32% 40% 47% 4 25 18% 4 30 CONNER .• 8,883 3,870 2,818 1,052 7 5,006 27% .·.. 49% 39% 34% 65% 59% 66% . 14% 3 26 15% 4 20 •: :;,::C 44% 39% 42% ::·'.-: .i .. 11% 1 28 17,379 11,206 9,771 1,435 39 6,134 13% .. .. .•: Managers and professionals Technicians Sales and Administrative support CONDON ........ ·,:,; : .-,• 7,740 3,927 3,607 320 37 3,776 8% CODY .. ..· •· CLARK PARK •·.· 15% 4 29 ·••.. - f -. 13% 1 28 23,604 13,347 9,581 3,766 52 10,205 28% c··· ..-. . ·•: .. 57% 51% 54% . :::.,/?: 16% 3 25 Fanning, .forestry and .fishing,.................................................................................................... o......................... 1.........................1......................... 0 ........................ 1.......................... 0 ....................... o......................... 1.. .. Services 13 18 18 22 17 21 22 22 Precision production, craft and repair 5 9 13 8 11 8 11 9 Machine operators, assemblers and inspectors 4 11 16 15 19 13 11 15 Laborers 2 10 12 11 13 8 12 10 ... .. ... . ···,::INDUSTRY (% of employed) .:\ : ..f).,<,J\t-\?L:_:{ - ,i}. . .. :-. :,::-: ··- ·,·. . . Manufacturing 16% 23% 27% 22% 23% 22% 21% 2610 Transportation 3 6 4 2 5 4 5 5 4 Communication and utilities 3 4 2 2 2 2 4 Wholesale and retail trade 14 17 26 22 21 17 19 21 Finance, insurance and real estate 7 8 5 4 3 7 6 5 Business·. personal·& e~tertainme~t·;~~i~;~··--······························ .. ···· ................................. 'g' ........................9.....................'j"3 ... ·· 10 11 10 14 9 •,•.,·•- Professional services Public administration Other % of workers employed in public sector .; .. Detroit city Other Detroit PMSA Outside Detroit PMSA WSU/CUS/MIMIC - SEMCC - UCS ·:.. ·. ~:•. . 34 12 3 24% 22 8 4 19% 16 3 5 9% 26 8 4 19% 20 6 6 13% 23 lO 3 21% 25 6 3 18% 23 8 3 21% 71% 27 2 54% 44 2 51% 48 2 74% 25 1 65% 33 46% 52 1 2 68% 32 0 61% 39 1 : 20 DETROIT SUBCOMMUNITIES I �TABLE 4. LABOR FORCE CHARACTERISTICS DAVISON SUBCOMMUNITIES OF DETROIT LABOR FORCE CHARACTERISTICS •. : .:· . .. ' " . .. :: ·:: r _._ •• ·.···,·•••• ,-•:.-::: 20,430 10,253 7,701 2,552 0 10,177 ••,•= ,: • II II II II 16,473 10,708 9,412 1,296 29 5,736 12% 7,318 3,964 2,795 1,169 4 3,350 22,610 10,659 7,826 2,833 15 11,936 27% 50% 39% 41% 65% 58% 65% 47% 42% 49% 54% 49% 54% Detroit city Other Detroit PMSA Outside Detroit PMSA WSU/CUS/MIMIC - SEMCC - UCS ~-. ::•;: 55% 44 1 55% 45 1 21 12 5,800 13% 20% 64% 56% 65% 66% 63% 69% .. 21% 21% 5 3 24 29 1 ........................... 0 ........................... 18 22 9 9 9 11 9 9 25% 18% 4 3 27 30 1 0 ··························· ··························· 19 20 9 8 7 12 8 9 : .. 20% . '\t_=: .·. 17,231 11,419 9,085 2,334 ',' 20% 16% 4 3 28 30 1 ........................... 0 ........................... 18 24 7 11 12 9 8 9 19% 5 5 4 3 19 15 7 ........................... 6 ............................ 8 13 22 29 5 7 9 6 5 3 12% 19% 23% .. 5 ·. 65% 61% 69% ,· 4 14% ·.·. .. ,; ,•, PLACE OF WORK (% of workers) .. '. 11% 10% 3 2 25 25 1 1 Farmin~, forestry and .fishing ............................................................................... ··························· ··························· 24 19 Services 10 13 Precision production, craft and repair 16 14 Machine operators, assemblers and inspectors 10 16 Laborers .. ' ' •. : :··.:-::· : : INDUSTRY (% of employed) -··=••. 25% 25% Manufacturing 4 6 Transportation 1 1 Communication and utilities 22 25 Wholesale and retail trade 6 ........................... 4 Finance, insurance and real estate ........................... 12 12 Business, ~~~~~~·&°·~~t~rt·;~~nt services 21 15 Profess1onal services Public administration Other % of workers employed in public sector GRANDMONT 23,081 14,689 12,831 1,858 38 8,354 14% 29% .::=··::.: ...·._ .. : 25,390 16,558 14,262 2,296 18 8,814 ·= . ·.· . 49% 40% 44% -.-- ·.·•· 25% •·. ... FINNEY ; ···::::·::: · =·,~ ,· : EVERGREEN EAST RIVERSIDE ·--: Managers and professionals Technicians Sales and Administrative support II DURFEE ,; ·-· .· .· --~:,:,••. .· DENBY . .•:·:• 25% .. LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES OCCUPATION :·(% of employed) ;, 13,886 6,837 5,122 1,715 0 7,049 Total persons 16 years and older Total Civilian labor force Employed Unemployed In Armed Forces Not in labor force April, 1990 Unemployment rate (in % ) All persons 16 years and older All females 16 years and older Females with child(ren) •:::. DELRAY/ SPRNGWLS 55% 43 1 65% 34 1 .· .•. 17% 22% 5 5 17% 22% 3 4 4 4 3 4 14 17 19 21 6 6 6 7 ........................... ··························· ··························· ··························· 8 9 9 8 27 33 28 24 7 7 10 8 6 3 5 3 23% 21% 21% 18% .. •.·• ·-·-·-·. : ··--·•..· 70% 29 1 52% 47 2 57% 41 1 52% 46 2 DETROIT SUBCOMMUNITIES �TABLE 4. LABOR FORCE CHARACTERISTICS GRANT SUBCOMMUNITIES OF DETROIT LABOR FORCE CHARACTERISTICS :· .,:: .•,,· HARMONY VILLAGE .•: .... 8,981 5,376 4,588 788 16 3,589 15% Total persons 16 years and older Total Civilian labor force Employed Unemployed In Armed Forces Not in labor force April, 1990 Unemployment rate (in%) All persons 16 years and older All females 16 years and older Females with child(ren) :-:. . 21,233 13,300 11 ,161 2,139 42 7,891 16% JEFFRIES 63% 60% 69% 4,958 2,828 2,639 189 0 2,130 7% 56% 52% 62% ...-. Managers and professionals Technicians Sales and Administrative support 14% 2 28 19% 4 31 LAFAYETTE MACK . • .-;~!.: 7,289 2,953 2,233 720 29 4,307 24% 24,232 10,194 7,049 3,145 21 14,017 31% 15,327 7,421 4,772 2,649 7,328 4,008 3,575 433 0 3,320 11% 7 7,899 36% 41% 35% 47% 14% 3 27 46% 5 32 42% 37% 51% :•: ::: 48% 42% 46% 55% 51% 71% ·.. 22% 6 21 14% 2 27 Farmins, .forestry and .fishing .................................................................................................... o......................... 0 ........................ 1.... ..................... 0 ... .................... 2 ........................ ..1.... Services 17 17 24 8 23 26 Precision production, craft and repair 12 8 7 7 9 6 Machine operators, assemblers and inspectors 19 12 14 2 10 13 Laborers 7 8 9 2 8 11 INDUSTRY ( % of employed) . ·• ·:~ . ·;: . ·.. •. ·. •.·_. 57% 48% 59% ·,••, ..··:-· KETTRNG/ BUTZEL :,· ... ',:'· ·• :f}}t< .: : .... 60% 50% 57% . INDIAN VILLAGE 26,292 14,716 11,148 3,568 6 11,570 24% .. LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES -,\ ,_.t ::::::.<\ OCCUPATION (% of employed) . GREENFIELD 44% 3 30 12% 2 23 .................... o......................... 0 ... 13 3 3 4 27 11 13 12 :, Manufacturing 28% 21% 23% Transportation 4 6 4 Communication and utilities 3 4 3 Wholesale and retail trade 21 17 17 Finance, insurance and real estate 5 7 5 Business, personal·& e~tertainme~·t·~~~i~~·;······ .. ······....................................... .....................~/·· ····················"g"··· ···········........i'i""... ................. 12% 5 5 14 7 5 14% 3 2 18 5 13 20% 4 2 18 4 13 12% 4 5 10 7 9 19% 6 2 17 4 13 Professional services Public administration 40 8 36 7 27 7 39 14 26 8 22 7 Other % of workers employed in public sector PLACE OF WORK(% ofworkers)_'}'\)} Detroit city Other Detroit PMSA Outside Detroit PMSA WS U/CUS/MIMIC - SEMCC - UCS '':}\:\ ... ·-··•.. ,•, ,·❖ -.·.- .. . ;:: .• .-·.-.-.- 28 7 26 8 1 3 2 4 2 0 5 16% 20% 20% 24% 20% 20% 33% 21% 72% 26 2 67% 32 1 74% 25 <><tt. 51% 46 2 51% 48 2 22 .3 ,:··.· ;;._.;:: :;:~. 60% 38 2 ·-·-·. 70% 27 2 .:: •,· 1 72% 28 0 DETROIT SUBCOMMUNITIES ' ' ' �TABLE 4. LABOR FORCE CHARACTERISTICS MACKENZIE SUBCOMMUNITIES OF DETROIT .. ,:- MCNICHOLS MOUNT OLIVET NOLAN PALMER PARK PEMBROKE PERSHING REDFORD 16,920 9,284 7,756 1,528 8 7,628 16% 17,822 11,933 10,861 1,072 6 5,883 9% :,: LABOR FORCE CHARACTERISTICS 30,853 17,709 13,772 3,937 51 13,093 22% Total persons 16 years and older Total Civilian labor force Employed Unemployed In Armed Forces Not in labor force April, 1990 Unemployment rate (in %) LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES All persons 16 years and older All females 16 years and older Females with child(ren) OCCUPATION (% of employed) Managers and professionals Technicians Sales and Administrative support .. •:_.•:•• .. ·-:··. :·•-_.•. ._.•:•: __ 9,693 4,923 3,885 1,038 6 4,764 21% ·=.••. ·.•,:: •. ·_-.-.,~. :.. -·-- ·-·-· -- ·.-.- :·, -~= -: . :, 58% 52% 60% ·-• .. ' ::;:::-:-:•. .. -.- -.- 21,211 12,535 10,895 1,640 57 8,619 13% .. 17,437 9,139 7,005 2,134 32 8,266 23% 9,959 7,602 7,123 479 49 2,308 6% 17,671 10,667 9,253 1,414 13 6,991 13% ·-:-. : •.•. ... _,•. :--:. 51% 46% 58% 59% 52% 62% 53% 48% 56% 77% 73% 87% 60% 57% 71% 55% 49% 63% 67% 59% 65% 17% 4 30 13% 4 27 13% 3 28 48% 4 23 25% 3 30 16% 3 29 17% 4 31 ·--:·-,'.- •: •:•.__ •... ·=· 16% 3 29 Farmins, .forestry and .fishing ................................................................................................... 0......................... 0 ........................1......................... 0 ....................... o......................... 0 ....................... o......................... 1... . Services 24 19 19 25 13 16 18 18 Precision production, craft and repair 7 9 11 7 5 7 9 12 Machine operators, assemblers and inspectors 11 13 15 15 4 12 14 9 Laborers 10 9 10 9 3 6 10 8 : INDUSTRY (% of employed) •· Manufacturing 19% 17% 28% 24% 12% 20% 25% 19% Transportation 5 5 5 4 3 5 5 4 Communication and utilities 4 6 3 2 4 3 3 3 Wholesale and retail trade 18 14 19 18 14 16 20 22 Finance, insurance and real estate 7 5 7 7 8 7 5 7 Business, personal & entertainment services 11 11 8 11 9 8 10 1O · Professional services 25 30 20 24 37 28 22 21 Public administration 8 8 7 8 11 11 7 8 Otha 2 4 3 3 2 2 2 4 21% 25% % of workers employed in public sector 17% 27% 21% 25% 17% 17% ,,;;: ·. ·.•,:-· .· _:,:- . -··.. •:;;;: :::;. -••.,: . . PLACE OF WORK . (% of workers) .•. 57% 66% Detroit city 48% 55% 65% 54% 52% 38% 42 33 51 Other Detroit PMSA 43 33 44 48 61 2 0 1 Outside Detroit PMSA 1 2 1 0 1 •.•. ;._ WSU/CUS/MIMIC - SEMCC - UCS ·.• .• 23 DETROIT SUBCOMMUNITIES �TABLE 4. LABOR FORCE CHARACTERISTICS ROSA PARKS SUBCOMMUNITIES OF DETROIT LABOR FORCE CHARACTERISTICS . . .=::: ·.. ::··t:t'.: ._::.:<:{·::i:.\.:.. ~:~. :_.··· (/'\: LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES ,:: ,r·::::tt&t ::/.,: ·;:-· ·:: ..'.:\(... · 14,508 10,770 9,800 970 29 3,709 26% <:::it: . :•: ./ ·• .. -::_:·::t:J 17% 3 26 1 .. Farmin~. _forestry and _fishin& ................................................................................. ..... ..... .. .. ... .. .····· 28 Services 7 Precision production, craft and repair 9 Machine operators, assemblers and inspectors 11 Laborers .•: ···,:· :\\::.:::.:,:. ·-·· :: ······ Detroit city Other Detroit PMSA Outside Detroit PMSA WSU/CUS/MIMIC - SEMCC - UCS 18,959 11,429 10,289 1,140 .... STATE FAIR 20 7,510 10% ·- 7,931 3,593 2,606 987 0 4,338 34% . 60% 52% 65% WINTERHALTER 15,267 6,745 4,986 1,759 JO 8,512 16,817 8,235 6,238 1,997 8 8,574 .. . 19,473 8,766 6,166 2,600 6 10,701 27% ·.. 30% 26% 42% 36% 43% 45% 42% 53% 44% 39% 48% .. ' 45% 36% 40% 13% 2 27 1 25 .. 5 14 12 ... .·. ·. ::. ' 24% 49% 44% 51% .:,·. .. 19% 12% 3 3 28 27 0 ............................ 0 ............................ 19 25 9 8 8 14 14 11 .•: .. . ·• 34% 15% 4 4 25 31 0 ............................ 1 ........................... 14 19 8 12 8 9 6 8 UNIVERSITY .•: .·. 74% 70% 79% TIREMAN :j 17,513 7,334 4,821 2,513 19 10,160 . ·. 16% 35% 3 6 26 25 0 0 ··························· ··························· 23 16 10 6 14 6 7 5 _c.· Manufacturing Transportation Communication and uti.li ties Wholesale and retail trade Finance, insurance and real estate ....................................................................................................................................... Business, personal & entertainment services Professional services Public administration Other % of workers employed in public sector ··/ ·:,/:})/{/ :; PLACE OF WORK ·('~/ of .. workers) : ., ·... Managers and professionals Technicians Sales and Administrative support INDUSTRY ( % of employed) :::;-:,,.•: 9% 43% 38% 50% -: .: 1/: ·::::::;.:\:::-::::=::::::::: •. ·'.····:·:·:. ST.JEAN : All persons 16 years and older All females 16 years and older Females with child(ren) <;. ROUGE -:•• 22,181 9,530 7,063 2,467 0 12,651 Total persons 16 years and older Total Civilian labor force Employed Unemployed In Armed Forces Not in labor force April, 1990 Unemployment rate (in%) OCCUPATION (% of employe"cl) ROSEDALE PARK 17% 19% 19% 4 4 6 3 5 3 15 13 23 6 7 ··························· ··························· .....................6.... 15 8 12 30 29 18 6 12 8 3 3 5 18% 26% 15% l\t.<. .•. . -:'.·, :-: ·.. :-:::: :: 1\/ .. ··_;:;' .·>:::i-:::: .·.··. 70% 29 1 53% 44 2 24 .··. ·,• .. .. .-.·..•::-:-._.:::• 20% 5 18% 19% 2 5 2 1 3 19 36 17 5 7 ··························· ........................... 13 8 13 26 21 27 6 5 6 4 3 3 20% 15% 22% ..................... s.... :.: ·:c@t:nt ·\:\?Ht t ·: : : : : . )\\ :::::-/):?):. :-: 36% 62 2 10% 3 3 16 5 ·······················•··· .............. 11 . 73% 26 1 54% 46 0 7 2 21% ••,•:•.-·-·· :·::::·.. ·- 60% 39 1 'II 27 44 4 4 23% .. 21% 5 2 16 5 13 I ·:, : . ,.,d 77% 21 63% 36 2 1 DETROIT SUBCOMMUNITIES '- �TABLES. GENERAL HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS SU BCOMMUNITIES OF DETROIT - CITY OF DETROIT . -.. HOUSING UNITS AND TENURE AIRPORT .. ;: :.- ·. - . . .-. BAGLEY i . .-. - --·,;- _. __ ._-_ BROOKS : _,: .· BRIGHTMOOR BOYNTON ••: BURBANK •:,• CENTRAL ' -· Total Housing units 410,027 6,336 3 ,801 7,201 13,812 9,936 7.381 10,616 % Vacant 3% 4% ........................... 9% ........................... 9% 8% ........................... 10% 6% 14% ··························· ··························· ········································································································································· ···························· ··························· ··························· 374,057 5 ,769 7,152 3 ,634 6,633 12,363 Total Occupied housing units 9,365 9,091 197,929 2,981 5,508 2,692 2,743 6,866 Owner-occupied housing units 5,973 2,860 176,128 2 ,788 1,644 942 3 ,890 5,497 Renter-occupied housing units 3.392 6,231 53% 52% 77% 74% 41% 56% % Owner-occupied 64% 31% .. ·- .. ·-· .. ·- ·-· : ..•.·•.·•.· : : -· . ,_.:·;i_.::/L ·--:POPULATION PER HOUSEHOLD ·.· ,··.·· ·-·-·-··-· ·--· 2.7 All Households 3.2 2.9 2.7 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.2 2.9 3.1 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.8 Owner households 2.8 2.7 2.5 3.3 2.6 Renter households 2.6 3.0 2.9 3.2 2.0 ... -.··- VALUE ( % of specified owner.occupied units) ·:: .. -·..·.:·-··- ······20% 44% 2% 44% Under $15,000 14% 16% 13% 32% 28 30 $15,000 to $24,999 10 31 29 39 30 27 26 15 $25,000 to $34,999 27 31 17 34 38 14 16 7 ........................... 43 ........................... 17 8 9 17 8 $35,000_to.$49,?99..................................................................................................... ............................ ··························· ··························· ··························· ··························· ··························· 7 3 6 $50,000 to $74,999 16 1 2 2 10 2 1 $75,000 to $99,999 2 1 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 $100,000 or more 0 0 0 0 4 $25,600 $16,750 $38,055 $26,600 $16,670 $23,760 Median Value $26,675 $21,430 . . ·. ·. . MONTHLY CONTRACT RENT(% of specified renter units) 2 to 4 unit structure 5 to 9 uni t structure 10 to 49 unit structure 50 units or more structure Mobile home or other structure type WSU/CUS/MIMIC - SEMCC - UCS .--- --: 4% 1% 2% 6% 5% 5% 0% 5% 18 28 4 25 4 13 5 30 43 62 25 49 31 33 44 50 ............................ ··························· ··························· ··························· ··························· ··························· ··························· ··········-················ 25 10 57 18 52 42 40 11 6 0 7 11 1 6 10 2 3 0 2 0 1 1 1 1 $265 $231 $330 $241 $316 $297 $301 $224 Less than $1 00 $100 to $199 $200 to $299 $300 to $399 $400 to $499 $500 or more Median Rent STR UCTURE TYPE (% of housing units) Single family home - •.•. . :.\.:: -- ---=··::::• .. , -- .. 60% 22 2 8 6 2 68% 24 1 1 0 5 25 75% 21 0 2 0 1 83% 9 0 0 5 3 ·-·· .. 84% 8 4 3 0 1 ·-:-:·-: :,::,:: ·.··.-·.· : 74% 13 4 8 1 1 80% 15 1 2 0 1 29% 28 6 20 14 2 DETROIT SUBCOMMUNITIES �TABLE 5. GENERAL HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS SUBCOMMUNITIES OF DETROIT CENTRAL BUS. DIST. CERVENY CHADSEY CHENE CLARK PARK CODY CONDON CONNER -- HOUSING UNITS AND TENURE Total Housing units % Vacant ............................................................................................................................................ Total Occupied housing units Owner-occupied housing units Renter-occupied housing units % Owner-occupied .- POPULATION PER HOUSEHOLD All Households Owner households Renter households VALUE (% of specified owner-occupied units) Under $15,000 $15,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 6,092 7,521 9,085 6,053 6,968 9,541 11,734 4,894 26% 4% ........................... 11% ............................ 12% 7% 13% 6% 12% ··························· ··························· ··························· ··························· ··························· ··························· 4,527 7,226 8,122 5,330 6,087 8,999 10,888 4,328 342 4,970 4,523 1,908 2,403 5,060 5,238 2,019 4,185 2,256 3,599 3,422 3,684 5,650 3,939 2,309 8% 69% 56% 36% 39% 48% 56% 47% --- - ,.,•: ,••. .... · .. · ,•: - :-. -- 1.4 1.5 1.4 3.0 3.2 2.7 ·.••<·· :, 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.8 .·. ·-:,· . ,•, 2.8 3.0 2.7 ·:.: ...•.•, ,,.·,·, ..• 2.7 2.9 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.7 3.4 3.4 3.3 10% 4% 57% 65% 20% 55% 10% 72% 8 20 33 22 37 29 29 18 2 42 8 8 27 37 9 6 2 .... .... .. .. ..... ...27 2 2 4 12 20 2 $35,000_to.$49,999 ................................................................................................... ........................... ... .. . ··························· ··························· ··························· ·····················--····· ··························· ··························· 7 $50,000 to $74,999 6 0 1 2 3 3 1 0 $75,000 to $99,999 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 71 $100,000 or more 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 $159,400 $31,230 Median Value $13,184 $11,474 $13,604 $23,460 $27,850 $10,394 . -- MONTHLY CONTRACT RENT(% of specified renter units) Less than $100 $100 to $199 $200 to $299 ··············································•·························································································· $300 to $399 $400 to $499 $500 or more Median Rent STRUCTURE TYPE (% of housin2 units) · Single family home 2 to 4 unit structure 5 to 9 unit structure 10 to 49 unit structure 50 units or more structure Mobile home or other structure type WSU/CUS/MIMIC - SEMCC - UCS ): ,:\\/ -'-'.-: .· : . .· -: 7% 1% 1% 8% 0% 2% 3% 3% 10 3 19 43 6 25 5 41 12 ........................... 28 61 41 66 55 51 18 ···········•··············· ··························· ··························· ··························· ··························· ··························· ··························· 21 58 17 6 35 6 56 s 13 8 1 1 3 1 17 0 37 2 0 1 1 0 1 2 $400 $322 $250 $197 $284 $226 $209 $341 .. .>t::::r:::::::::' '?: :::::.)<( ..... ·.·. 1% 4 4 18 73 2 78% 11 1 9 0 1 26 56% 40 1 1 0 3 37% 54 3 2 2 3 .-• :::::[\(} ... ·:=:::~:?.. ·.· 40% 37 4 12 5 2 ······· 74% 8 3 10 3 2 53% 36 2 3 4 3 68% 23 2 5 0 2 DETROIT SUBCOMMUNITIES I �TABLE S. GENERAL HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS DAVISON SUBCOMMUNITIES OF DETROIT HOUS~G UNITS AND TENURE. .. ·.•. ·-··· DENBY DURFEE EAST RIVERSIDE EVERGREEN FINNEY GRANDMONT :: .. :- ·;:•/ DELRAY/ SPRNGWLS Total Housing units 7,387 11,540 8,708 13,196 4,236 12,184 11,985 8,196 % Vacant 7% 9% 5% 10% 15% 4% 5% 6% ........................................................................................................................................ ······················································ ······················································ ······················································ ························-····························· Total Occupied housing units 6,849 10,471 8,312 11,837 3,615 11,638 11,389 7,693 Owner-occupied housing units 4,054 4,731 6,154 4,604 1,740 7,869 7,834 4,667 Renter-occupied housing units 2,795 5,740 2,158 7,233 1,875 3,769 3,555 3,026 % Owner-occupied 59% 45% 74% 39% 48% 68% 69% 61 % ·-•-•.• POPULATION PER HOUSEHOLD : ••:• ._..· •,• :. .. : -:-. .. •·•·· •.•,•- ...·.....· All Households Owner households Renter households VALUE (% of specified owner-occupied units) 2.9 2.7 3.2 :< :.\:.-./ : ... ..::. ·.... ·: :::.;: .. · · Under $15,000 $15,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000ormore Median Value 2.7 2.9 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.3 ·· 52% 33 4 1 0 O $14,309 4% 24 51 18 2 0 O $28,875 2% 23 53 19 2% 24 64 9 1% 3 22 53 19% 30 21 15 11 3 1 $25,465 MONTHLY CONTRACT RENT(% of specified renter units) $400 to $499 $500 or more Median Rent WSU/CUS/MIMIC - SEMCC - UCS 2 O $252 .. :-· :-: .•: .. ::} .·.. : . 23% 28 21 15 9 2 2 $24,635 6% 24 34 26 9 1 0 $30,845 ,••: :•· ,,: ._.;.. ::. :: 0 0 $229 18 4 $344 3% 21 65 11 1 O $235 .... ·.-..· : 2.7 2.7 2.8 3.2 3.3 3.0 .. ,: .... -:. . Less than $100 $100 to $199 $200 to $299 $300 to $399······························.. STRUCTURE TYPE (% of housing units) Single family home 2 to 4 unit structure 5 to 9 unit structure 10 to 49 unit structure 50 units or more structure Mobile home or other structure type 3.0 3.0 2.9 ::.•: 58% 34 6 1 0 0 O $12,809 10 2.9 2.9 2.9 7% 18 31 28 14 1 0 $32,610 10% 27 29 22 10 .. 1 0 $29,480 0% 4 29 42 1% 4 43 . -::/\/ . 6% 26 49 15 3% 7 20 52 3 1 $232 17 3 $339 19 5 $336 ·· ·······43···· 7 2 $302 . ·:-· .. ·'•···· ·-·· •,••·:•: . :, 78% 18 1 0 0 2 52% 33 2 8 3 2 27 82% 9 3 6 0 1 30% 44 3 20 1 47% 39 2 6 2 6 0 86% 5 3 4 2 1 77% 20 0 2 0 1 73% 19 1 5 0 1 DETROIT SUBCOMMUNITIES �TABLE 5. GENERAL HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS GRANT SUBCOMMUNITIES OF DETROIT HOUSING UNITS AND TENURE . . .· ,, ... ·•:•· GREENFIELD HARMONY VILLAGE INDIAN VILLAGE JEFFRIES KETTRNG/ BUTZEL LAFAYETTE MACK ..·._•: 4,590 5% 4,341 2,856 1,485 66% 10,128 4% 9,699 6,664 3,035 69% 12,399 7% 11,550 6,916 4,634 60% 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.9 3.0 2.8 3.0 3.1 2.9 1.6 2.1 1.4 Under $15,000 $15,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 $35,000to$49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 18% 35 31 13 3 5% 23 36 25 9 .. 16% 36 30 13 4 7% 51 % 49% 2% 39% 5 21 29 6 34 2 10 11 14 18 3 10 6 32 7 15 ········ .............8......................... 3 ··· .................. 23···· ..................... 2 · $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Median Value 0 O $24,230 Total Housing units % Vacant Total Occupied housing units Owner-occupied housing units Renter-occupied housing units % Owner-occupied POPULATION PER HOUSEHOLD All Households Owner households Renter households VALUE (% of specified owner-occupied units) .... }.,., ., . , ,,,., .. · ....· ,•.•· . :. / 1 O $31,015 1% 5 35 45 $400to$499 $500 or more Median Rent WSU/CUS/MIMIC - SEMCC - UCS 12,059 9% 10,937 4,750 6,187 43% 2.1 2.6 1.9 2.7 2.9 2.5 5,307 9% 4,850 · 992 3,858 20% 9,192 17% 7,649 2,638 5,011 34% 13 2 $321 '':?. •:.. :,,:,:.,... ·=·:":':/· •'•.· .·.·.· 1 O $24,405 24 43 $92,575 1.7 2.0 1.7 2.9 3.2 2.8 ·· 1 O $14,789 1 1 $15,215 16 7 $47,255 0 0 $17,890 ·.•,; Less than$100 $100 to $199 $200 to $299 s3oo to $399 2 to 4 unit structure 5 to 9 unit structure 10 to 49 wiit structure 50 units or more structure Mobile home or other structure type 6,046 29% 4,307 878 3,429 20% ·-••: MONTHLY CONTRACT RENT(% of specified renter units) STRUCTURE TYPE (% of housing units) Single family home 3,539 8% 3,241 1,006 2,235 31 % 6% 9 24 45 13 2 $320 1% 2% 21% 6% 15% 2% 10 11 37 36 19 27 53 20 24 47 13 59 32···· ................... 19 ..................... io·· ....................... s" ..................... ii.........................i'i' .. . 3 1 $279 :,:::.... ·• - .,.._ 5 11 37 $380 3 2 2 $179 $214 ·.• 85% 6 1 4 4 1 11 0 3 5 1 28 70% 24 1 2 0 2 15% 3 13 66 17% 24 9 20 28 2 2 1 O O $228 .. ·•·· . 78% 12 21 $315 -.-.:-: •: 43% 37 2 9 6 3 1% 30 7 16 43 3 41% 31 4 19 3 2 DETROIT SUBCOMMUNITIES Ill �TABLE 5. GENERAL HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS SUBCOMMUNITIES OF DETROIT .,.. HOUSING UNITS AND TENURE Total Housing units % Vacant Total Occupied housing units Owner-occupied housing units Renter-occupied housing units % Owner-occupied POPULATION PER HOUSEHOLD MACKENZIE ·.•.·. ·: .•:· •,·: -: ·--:.·:'·:.· t .... All Households Owner households Renter households VALUE . (% of specified owner--occupied units) Under $15,000 $15,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Median Value STRUCTURE TYPE (% of housing units) Single family home 2 to 4 unit structure 5 to 9 unit structure 10 to 49 unit structure 50 units or more structure Mobile home or other structure type WSU/CUS/MIMIC - SEMCC - UCS ,: 15,058 6% 14,125 8,051 6,074 57% ...... ·-}::._:· ..· :. · :. :. : .Y< ·· MONTHLY CONTRACT RENT(% of specified renter units) Less than $100 $100to$199 $200 to $299 $300 to $399 $400 to $499 $500 or more Median Rent MCNICHOLS \\:\ ,. MOUNT OLIVET NOLAN 11,080 5% 10,471 7,216 3,255 69% ..):. . 8,673 6% 8,163 5,174 2,989 63% .. 2.7 2. 7 2.7 17% 35 24 16 6 1 2.9 2.8 3.1 28% 31 17 14 8 1 10% 38 37 12 2 0 29% 40 19 8 3 1 O O O O $24,275 $21,445 $25,335 $19,735 · 1% 8 55 33 2 O $278 1% 16 58 21 4 1 $257 0% 4 35 48 11 2 $317 69% 21 59% 31 2 6 0 2 2 7 5 0 2 2 29 2.4 3.1 1.6 .,., . . . 1% 14 57 25 2 1 $268 ····••:-:••. 2 5,321 6% 5,005 2,813 2,192 56% }'/'.: ·:: 2.8 2.8 2.8 .'.: .. •: PEMBROKE PERSHING REDFORD 8,109 4% 7,807 5,746 2,061 74% 10,014 5% 9,523 5,440 4,083 57% I< 5,168 9% 4,722 2,653 2,069 56% 2.9 3.0 2.9 PALMER PARK 80% 10 1 84% 12 0 2 2 1 8,365 3% 8,121 6,157 1,964 76% t\·./,. 2.7 2.8 2.5 ,,-:, (..,.., 5% 18 28 32 14 ·· 2 1 $34,675 0% 1 16 57 1% 11 37 33 ···\,.:" . t··•:··--· 54% 9 2 29 6 1 :: .-.• 17% 39 28 12 4 0 0 $23,700 9% 20 32 27 · ····· 10 ··· .. 82% 12 1 4 0 1 1 O $31,660 6% 1% 9 4 39 11 40···· ···················s"i···· 15 2 $301 . ... :: .•. 2.4 2. 7 2.1 , 0% 1 3 9 33 26 27 $77,725 20 6 $354 2.8 2.8 3.0 5 1 $291 28 5 $372 ·.· : 90% 5 1 3 0 1 69% 4 2 15 10 1 DETROIT SUBCOMMUNITIES �TABLE 5. GENERAL HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS ROSA PARKS SUBCOMMUNITIES OF DETROIT . HOUSING UNITS AND TENL'RE ROSEDALE PARK ROUGE ST.JEAN .. ·. 13,087 TIREMAN UNIVERSITY WINTERHALTER 1: :•:-: Total Housing units STATE FAIR 6,801 9,928 9,221 4,356 10,769 9,991 12,423 3% 10% ........................... 11% 10% 10% 23% ··························· ··························· ··························· ··························· ··························· 6,546 9,587 8,280 3,856 9,709 8,986 9,578 5,625 7,341 3,496 1,369 4,807 3,517 236 921 2,246 4,784 2,487 4,902 9,342 5,469 86% 77% 42% 36% 50% 39% 2% :: .. --~ )( :.:.. ... '· ........ . .. ·•· ..·.·- ..,, 3.0 2.6 2.7 3.0 2.7 2.4 1.6 3.1 2.5 2.9 3.1 2.7 2.7 2.3 2.7 2.8 2.6 3.0 2.7 2.3 1.5 .- ·.- 4% 11% ........................... .... %.Vacant .................................................................................................................. ........................... 11,686 3,849 7,837 33% Total Occupied housing units Owner-occupied housing units Renter-occupied housing units % Owner-occupied POPULATION PER HOUSEHOLD All Households Owner households Renter households VALUE (% of specified owner-occupied units) Under $15,000 $15,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 -:•:'. .~;-. -: .. •.• • -:=::) :::.;; - •. 2.4 2.7 2.3 .. .j\j .. ,. 32% 1% 11% 53% 53% 43% 23% 18% 39 6 37 28 28 29 36 17 15 18 36 10 9 13 21 13 9 33 14 5 4 17 5 12 $35,000_to $49,999 ................................................................................................... ........................... ··························· ··························· ··························· ··························· ··························· ·························-· ··•························ 4 33 $50,000 to $74,999 3 2 3 9 2 31 1 7 $75,000 to $99,999 0 1 2 1 0 8 1 2 $100,000 or more 0 1 1 1 0 2 $19,145 $45,385 Median Value $25,595 $14,069 $14,234 $24,690 $16,590 $37,500 I MONTHLY CONTRACT RENT(% ofspecified renter units) I -: ·= .'. 6% 1% Less than $100 1% 3% 2% 1% 2% 9% 29 $100 to $199 2 4 31 17 21 31 25 51 $200 to $299 19 16 57 61 64 57 39 ··························· ........................... ··························· ······················································•·················································································· ··························· ··························· ........................... ··························· ··························· 10 46 $300 to $399 49 7 12 18 17 9 2 $400 to $499 20 27 I 1 3 0 6 2 $500 or more 12 3 1 0 1 0 3 $224 Median Rent $356 $366 $222 $238 $258 $226 $229 STRUCTURE TYPE (% of housinJ.t units) Single family home 2 to 4 unit structure 5 to 9 unit structure 10 to 49 unit structure 50 units or more structure Mobile home or other structure type WSU/CUS/MIMIC - SEMCC - UCS ·)}{ ··.·. •2.• .. ··•-: . . •.·.·· :-:-: •. .·,•.· : ,: 26% 46 3 93% 3 1 3 0 1 13 10 3 30 93% 4 0 2 1 1 45% 35 1 14 3 2 58% 30 1 5 4 2 .· .., .. 54% 38 2 4 0 2 .· 2% 10 9 34 43 2 34% 49 2 11 2 2 DETROIT SUBCOMMUNITIES �TABLE 6. SELECTED HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS CITY OF DETROIT ISUBCOMMUNITIE OF DETROIT AIRPORT BAGLEY BOYNTO BRIGHTMOOR BROOKS BURBANK CENTRAL YEAR MOVED INTO UNIT (% OF HOUSEHOLDS) 18% 25 14 20 12 11 1989 to March 1990 1985 to 1988 1980 to 1984 1970 to 1979 1960 LO 1969 1959 or earlier Median year moved into unit . . 17% 20 14 24 18 7 1982 8% 12 10 13 23 9% 16 11 23 38 3 1980 . - VEHICLES AV AI LAB LE (% of households) . 34 1973 18% 27 15 24 6 10 29% 35 12 10 6 8 1983 1986 1963 22% 33 13 13 6 12 22% 26 17 11 10 14 1985 1984 .. 33% 39 21 7 None One Two lnree or more 46% 35 15 5 15% 42 30 14 26% 40 23 11 30% 41 22 8 29% 46 19 5 27% 38 26 9 52% 33 11 4 12% 41 40 7 10% 32 47 12 35% 21 21 22 ;. :'\UMBER OF BEDROOMS(% of housing units) - INone or One Two lnree Four or more 17% 32 39 12 9% 37 38 16 2% 25 57 15 9% 31 50 10 12% 1% 1% 8% 1% 0% 15% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 4% 1% 1% 9% 2% 1% 7% 1% 1% 6% 2% 1% 12% 61% 17 22 52% 16 32 62% 17 21 57% 18 26 62% 17 21 63% 17 20 64% 16 20 52% 19 30 14% 9 26 41 10 1% 16 22 43 18 16% 38 25 17 4 .. : 18% 13 26% 18 69 56 44 39 5 HOUSING U1'ITS WITH SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS % of units without complete plumbing % of units that are condominiums % of households reporting no telephone SELECTED MONTHLY OWNER COSTS AS A % OF HOLSEHOLD INCOME IN 1989 (% of owners) Less than 20 percent 20 to 29 percent 30 percent or more - . - GROSS RENT, INCLUDING UTILITIES(% of renters) 10% 20 27 33 8 Less than $200 $200 to $299 $300 to $399 $400 to $599 S600 or more GROSS RENT AS A% OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME .. IN 1989 (% of renters) Less than 20 percent 20 to 29 percent 30 percent or more WSU/CUS/MIMIC - SEMCC - UCS 4% 24 33 34 6 0% 5 24 57 14 5% 6 25 56 8 16% 19 30 29 5 .. ·•:·· •.•··· I,: 26% 18 56 18% 11 71 31 37% 24 38 24% 24 52 25% 13 61 . ·.-::-;.; ,·•,: •. 29% 20 51 -... _ DETROIT SUBCOMMUNITIES �TABLE 6. SELECTED HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS YEAR MOVED INTO UNIT (% OF HOUSEHOLDS) ·.- ~-. . ..·-: ----~- .•:- •._._ .• ;. ·,: .. :::,;•, .. Less than 20 percent 20 to 29 percent 30 percent or more , .. •.· .. ::>::::. <· .. ·. ·-:,·,; •,,· . it : : 1985 17 1985 58% 29 10 2 42% 36 15 6 16% 48 27 9 .•. •.·:·-·' :- 10% 26 53 11 7% 34 41 18 ·..· :,:·, 48% 34 13 5 38% 36 19 7 12% 33 34 22 12% 33 40 15 2% 0% 15% 1% 0% 10% ·,••. 12% 36 34 19 24% 24 31 22 2% 1% 18% 2% 1% 20% 15% 34 46 4 . . ,; 1% 0% 3% 0% 0% 10% 0% 1% 5% ·,•: 'II I .·,: 0% 33 67 62% 16 22 65% 15 20 54% 15 31 68% 13 20 0% 6 30 49 15 5% 25 37 30 4 18% 29 27 20 6 10% 36 30 21 3 .• 63% 16 21 64% 15 20 58% 17 24 5% 16% 28 27 24 6 2% 15 27 46 10 ·. -: :f))\[:t:::: -.• 1985 1981 •.• .· .. . :. ' . ..·. 19% 14 16 17 35 .. 11 1982 26% 30 20 19 2 4 16% 24 13 16 12 20 17 5 9 : Less than $200 $200 to $299 $300 to $399 $400 to $599 $600 or more ... .. 19 20% 32 i ..·.• ·--· ·- .-.-:.•:•.· ..- I .::=··:· 27% 25 15 14 8 11 CONNER CONDON ··•.•:•· .. GROSS RENT, INCLUDING UTILITIES.(% of renters). CODY .· .. •: 1:· .. 30% 43 21 6 .-.- . .•, 1: 18% 24 15 13 •. ,• 2% 5% 13% SELECTED MONTHLY OWNER COSTS AS A .%·Of ,., HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN 1989 (% of owners) . ::::·'.::·:..:_ WSU/CUS/MIMIC - SEMCC - UCS 20% 39 29 12 :-: % of units without complete plumbing % of units that are condominiwns % of households reporting no telephone Less than 20 percent 20 to 29 percent 30 percent or more CLARK PARK ,:-: 73% 19 6 2 HOUSING UNITS WITH SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS :-, IN 1989 (% of renters) ,··· - ._.-.- None or One Two Three Four or more 1982 ..: 42% 41 15 1 NUMBER OF BEDROOMS (% of housing units) . 21% 24 13 15 8 20 1980 ·:::.··· :-· None One Two lnree or more GROS$ _RENT AS A % OF HOUSEIIOLD lNCOM.E t CHENE .- -~_.;, 15% 22 14 40 7 2 1986 :.-:. .·-~ .:: CHADSEY ·::: 31% 36 20 10 2 1 1989 to March 1990 1985 to 1988 1980 to 1984 1970 to 1979 1960 to 1969 1959 or earlier Median year moved into unit VEmCLES AVAILABLE ( % of households) CERVENY CENTRAL BUS. DIST. SUBCOMMUNITIES OF DETROIT .·.·.· =:i; ,ii!ltt' .., 37% 25 38 .· 33% 19 48 32 .. · .. •:::::., 1:: :-:::: .·-:::.:·· ,. 31% 12 57. .· ,::::::: ;:'.:: 20% 15 65 5 26 52 12 :r:=·:::::' :- ,· ·--: . :r::::,·· ,:••. :1:.:;:J\::.::• . . :::::.:- 21% 12 67 ~- ?:llti: .: ):: , ltt::. ·<. 1 . 33% .. •,·, . ·.·, . 20% 24 14 43 66 •.•. 19% 12 69 DETROIT SUBCOMMUNITIES I " �TABLE 6. SELECTED HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS DAVISON SUBCOMMUNITIES OF DETROIT ,;,;- YEAR MOVED INTO UNIT (% ·oF HOUSEHOLDS) ·- 17% 26 14 14 12 18 •,•,•- .-:-··. ,: 1985 NUMBER OF BEDROOMS(% of housin2 units) .· ····:... ·:,:, . -:--: •. ·.. •..·. ., EAST RIVERSIDE •'.•:·--········ . . EVERGREEN -.. ·:-.·- 22% 22 11 13 13 18 1985 .. GRANDMONT . . .. .-.. .. . 15% 27 17 34 3 5 1982 1982 FINNEY ,: 18% 26 14 24 10 8 ·-· 18% 30 14 18 7 13 1982 15% 44 30 11 •· .. .... 16% 23 15 37 6 3 1984 1981 •.• ::;: .. 39% 38 18 5 39% 40 16 5 •'•· DURFEE 18% 32 14 18 6 11 : None One Two Three or more •:·-··••:·• 25% 28 12 13 10 13 1982 ... .- ,.: DENBY ... ·. .•.·-·•-•, 1989 to March 1990 1985 to 1988 1980 Lo 1984 1970 to 1979 1960 to 1969 1959 or earlier Median year moved into unit VE HICLES AVAILABLE (% of households) DELRAY/ SPRNGWLS 44% 38 13 5 42% 35 19 5 18% 41 29 12 16% 43 31 11 25% 38 26 10 22% 26 39 13 11% 38 37 14 7% 27 59 7 5% 35 48 12 9% 27 50 14 :,-:•,: .- .. 5% 43 39 14 None or One Two Three Four or more 16% 35 34 15 11% 33 47 10 -: HOUSING UNITS WITH SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS 1% 0% 9% % of units without complete plumbing % of units that are condominiums % of households reporting no telephone 1% 0% 18% ·-·-· SELECTED MONTHLY OWNER COSTS AS A ~ OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME.IN 1989 (% of owners) •.•.•-·--··-·· Less than 20 percent 20 to 29 percent 30 percent or more .. . ... ,;, : 0% 1% 2% 1% 0% 12% 0% 0% 11% 1% 1% 2% 0% 1% 4% 1% 0% 3% 61% 14 25 67% 15 18 64% 18 18 59% 15 26 56% 17 27 61% 18 20 61% 18 21 60% 15 26 13% 18 26 37 6 9% 35 31 23 2 1% 6 36 46 12 7% 38 31 21 3 8% 26 28 32 6 5% 5 18 52 20 2% 7 26 51 15 1% 7 34 45 13 GROSS RENT, INCLUDING . UTILITIES (% of renters) " Less than $200 $200 Lo $299 $300 Lo $399 $400 lo $599 $600 or more GROSS RENT AS A% OF HOUSEHOLD.INCOME .,._ I N 1989 (% renters) .. : . . .. . . .. . . .: ...:1/=L, of Less than 20 percent 20 to 29 percent 30 percent or more WSU/CUS/MIMIC - SEMCC - UCS :. .. ·•· l e: -: '': ... 22% 13 65 24% 13 63 33 .. ..·::·::·- .. :··:· ,_":'.:?= .•'. -: .-:== .• __ 26% 16 58 ,:·- •.-:·-:·-•. -., ... 24% 13 63 -::'./ :,•:• ;::,:::- : : __;;: .... . ... : 24% 13 63 23% 20 56 ❖ :-:=· -: ·.. ~= ,: 29% 27 44 30% 20 50 DETROIT SUBCOMMUNITIES ~~ -- �TABLE 6. SELECTED HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS GRANT SUBCOMMUNITIES OF DETROIT GREEN- FIELD YEAR MOVED INTO UNIT (% OF HOUSEHOLDS) 1989 to March 1990 1985 to 1988 1980 to 1984 1970 to 1979 1960 to 1969 1959 or earlier HARMONY VILLAGE INDIAN VILLAGE JEFFRIES KETTRNG/ BUTZEL :• 12% 22 18% 27 Median year moved into unit 16% 16% 22% 19 10 33 23 20 20 5 6 19 19 10 8 1984 1983 17 17 7 14 17 38 8 24 30 4 2 1983 1980 1977 LAFAYETTE MACK ,_. ,: 16% 22 13 14 18 21% 21% 30 25 21 21 18 26 7 6 17 3 1 1985 1980 . :: VEHICLES AVAILABLE (% of households) 25% None One Two Three or more 19% 43 28 11 41 24 10 30% 42 57% 48% 37% 54% 37 8 4 1 3 46 16 1 29 20 33 9 NUMBER OF BEDROOMS(% of housing units) ,:.. ·,. 12 ........ ..... 10% 9% 33 36 50 8 44 10 . 27% ,·. None or One Two Three Four or more 1984 53 17 11 . 8% 34 40 52% 26% 17% 52% 28 13 30 32 22 31 18 45 18 10 8 4 :"•, 23% 36 31 14 2 10 HOUSING UNITS WITH SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS % of units without complete plumbing % of units that are condominiums % of households reporting no telephone 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 12% 1% 1% 4% 0% 18% 1% 5% 3% 6% 1% 17% 12% 3% 17% 66% 21 13 51% 13 36 29% 14 15% 31 27 23 SELECTED MONTHLY OWNER COSTS AS A % OF HOUSEHOLDINCOME IN 1989 (% of owners) . Less than 20 percent 20 to 29 percent 30 percent or more GROSS RENT~ INCLUDING UTILITIES(% of renters} Less than $200 $200 to $299 $300 to $399 $400 to $599 $600 or more GROSS RENT ASA % OF HOY.S~HOLD1NCO¥E IN 1989 (% of renterS) ··· .·. ,~; Less than 20 percent 20 to 29 percent 30 percent or more WSU/CUS/MIMIC - SEMCC - UCS 63% 16 60% 55% 58% 55% 58% 20 16 26 17 21 20 29 16 29 15 27 11 % 42% 22 25 17 14 26 17 27 4 6 24 16 1% 12% 8 6 30 57 16 52 13 6 2% 15 13 30 43 12 27 21 25 16% 4 .. :,: . -.- .- . .. ·-· . •: : ::... 32% 16 52 24% 25 52 34 25% 16 30% 21% 23% 29 59 42 25 54 19 58 31% 31 38 ' 19% 17 64 DETROIT SUBCOMMUNITIES 'I II �TABLE 6. SELECTED HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS MACKENZIE SUBCOMMUNITIES OF DETROIT MCNICHOLS MOUNT OLIVET PALMER PARK NOLAN PEMBROKE PERSHING REDFORD YEAR MOVED INTO UNIT (% OF HOUSEHOLDS) · 17% 18 1989 to March 1990 1985 to 1988 1980 to 1984 1970 to 1979 1960 to 1969 1959 or earlier Median year moved into unit 11% 20 23 32 22 18 14 12 25 10 3 1978 1984 1974 18% 14% 33 13 22 4 16 21 19 21 12 21 6 15 1979 1976 1985 13 26 16 20% 29 9% 16 11 13% 22 9 9 13 15 19 1977 23% 27 14 20 7 9 1985 VEHICLES AVAILABLE (% of households) None One Two Three or more NUMBER OF BEDROOMS (% of housing units) 33% 32% 36 22 9 41 21 6 12% 12% 13% 42 30 16 42 33 12 8% 36 41 14 27% 18 31 35 56 9 50 10 1% 1% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 2% 0% 1% 2% 4% 2% 4% 62% 20 19 62% 65% 67% 17 16 21 20 17 16 7% 10 27 47 8 4% 3 31 53 9 38% 18 25 44 41 21% 45 30% 40 25 23 9 6 9% 39 41 10 12% 29 49 10 1% 0% 5% 1% 0% 7% 6% 57% 17 59% 18 63% 62% 13 26 24 17 20 22% 43 26 8 13% 43 30 13 ,: None or One Two Three Four or more 34 42 12 4% 21 34 5% 23% 27 43 8 HOUSING UNITS WITH SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS % of units without complete plumbing % of units that are condominiums % of households reporting no telephone 0% SELECTED MONTHLY OWNER COSTS AS A % OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN 1989 (% of owners) Less than 20 percent 20 to 29 percent 30 percent or more GROSS RENT, INCLUDING UTILITIES(% of renters) ..;·.:,: . 2% Less than $200 $200 to $299 $300 to $399 $400 to $599 $600 or more GROSS RENT AS A .% OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME".:)< ... IN 1989 (% of renters) .. .. : "'.:.: · Less than 20 percent 20 to 29 percent 30 percent or more WS U/CUS/MIMIC - SEMCC - UCS 25 18 31 42 6 :: .-. • ·..: 3% 20 29 39 37 41 5% 14 28 45 9 10 9 1% 11 0% _:;•:•❖' ,•• 12 26 51 9 46 38 6 1:- •:· 2% 9 · .. --._.-:: {\ L .. •. 25% 23% 14 63 15 60 35 26% 19 18% 15 55 67 45% 24 31 45% 16 39 34% DETROIT SUBCOMMUNITIES �TABLE 6. SELECTED HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS s ROSA PARKS BCOMMUNITIES OF DETROIT YEAR MOVED INTO UNIT (% OF HOUSEHOLDS) 1982 13% 28 ,.· STATE FAIR TIREMAN UNIVERSITY WINTERHALTER 17 32 5 5 1982 .. 16% 25 9 15 21 14 1980 28% 28 18 16 3 6 1980 1985 17% 20 20% 23 12 15 20 10 29% 34 17 14 4 2 11 12 18 22 1978 1986 1981 - ·;<···• :: •. 50% 36 11 3 None One Two Three or more NUMBER OF BEDROOMS (% of housing units) · 14% 25 11 13 10 26 ,• •.• ST.JEAN .· 19% 22 15 14 14 15 1989 to March 1990 1985 to 1988 1980 to 1984 1970 lO 1979 1960 to 1969 1959 or earlier Median year moved into unit VEHICLES AVAILABLE (% '·ofhousebolds) ROUGE ROSEDALE PARK 7% 37 41 15 13% 42 33 12 53% 32 11 4 44% 39 6% 33 56 5 0% 0% 3% .. -:·-?' ·-:-, :-·. None or One Two Three Four or more 20% 32 36 11 3% 17 62 18 1% 2% 12% 0% 0% 2% HOUSING UNITS WITH SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS 5 44% 35 17 5 65% 30 4 1 46% 36 14 5 19% 31 34 16 21% 36 29 14 8% 35 43 14 69% 21 7 3 21% 34 37 8 2% 1% 16% 1% 1% 11% 1% 0% 10% 3% 2% 24% 1% 1% 10% 12 '••. •. -~-. .· % of units without complete plwnbing % of units that are condominiwns % of households reporting no telephone SELECTED MONTHLY OWNER COSTS AS A % OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN 1989 (% of owners) .·---~- .. Less than 20 percent 20 to 29 percent 30 percent or more . . •..· " 58% 15 28 65% 21 15 68% 16 15 53% 19 28 52% 21 27 54% 14 31 83% 0 18 56% 14 29 17% 27 28 23 4 2% 2 26 42 28 1% 4 18 61 16 10% 33 27 26 4 12% 18 31 34 6 6% 26 30 32 6 32% 7% 33 31 25 4 GROSS RENT, INCLUDING UTILITIES(% of renters) Less than $200 $200 to $299 $300 to $399 $400 to $599 $600 or more GROSS RENTAS A %_OF HOUSEHOLJ.)JNC9ME L~ 1989 (% of renters) .. -·-·--· ... -· .. . ••.•-•.• Less than 20 percent 20 to 29 percent 30 percent or more WSU/CUS/MIMIC - SEMCC - UCS }?\:(: ,·. --~:-: .. . -••: .. .. ·.•.· •'· . ,:: .. \,:/:/':•: . 34 ,•·•:•· ;. 20 12 1 ,,: ' ,: : }t/t : ·::::::-;. 26% 17 57 36 33% 25 32% 21 41 47 'I 'I . 18% 15 67 18% 15 68 18% 11 72 25% 21 55 .•.:::.· .. 'I 'I I :: \] . . . 24% 17 59 DETROIT SUBCOMMUNITIES II �GLOSSARY II ABILITY TO SPEAK ENGLISH - Represents the person's own perception about his or her ability to speak English or, because census questionnaires are usually completed by one household member, the response may represent the perception of another household member. (For more information, see "Language Spoken At Home.") (2) an academic program primarily in the arts and sciences, and the course work is transferable to a bachelor's degree. Some examples of professional degrees include medicine, dentistry, chiropractic, optometry, osteopathic medicine, pharmacy, podiatry, veterinary medicine, law, and theology, but specifically exclude barber school, cosmetology, or other training for a specific trade. AGE -The age classification is based on the age of the person in completed years as of April 1, 1990. Data on age are used to determine the applicability of other questions for a person and to classify other characteristics in census tabulations. Age data are needed to interpret most social and economic characteristics used to plan and examine many programs and policies. (Review of detailed 1990 information shows that a number of respondents tended to provide their age as of the date of their completing the questionnaire, not their age as of April 1, 1990. It is likely that approximately 10 percent of persons in most age groups are actual! y 1 year younger.) EMPLOYED - All civilians 16 years old and over who were either (1) "at work" - those who did any work at all during the reference week as paid employees, worked in their own business or profession, worked on their own farm, or worked 15 hours or more as unpaid workers on a family farm or in a family business; or (2) were "with a job but not at work"-those who did not work during the reference week but had jobs or businesses from which they were temporarily absent. The reference week is the calendar week preceding the date on which the respondents completed the questionnaire or were interviewed by enumerators. (For more information, see "Labor Force Status" and "Unemployed.") BEDROOMS-The count of rooms designed to be used as bedrooms. That is, the number of rooms that would be listed as bedrooms if the house or apartment were on the market for sale or rent. Included are all rooms intended to be used as bedrooms even if they are currently being used for some other purpose. EDUCATIONALATTAINMENT(YearsofSchoolCompleted)The highest level of school completed or the highest degree received. The category, "Associate degree" includes persons whose highest degree is an associate degree either in (1) an occupational program that prepares them for a specific occupation, and the course work may or may not be creditable toward a bachelor's degree, or WSU/CUS/MIMIC-SEMCC-UCS FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS (FAMILIES)- Consist of a householder and one or more other persons living in the same household who are related to the householder by birth, marriage or adoption. All persons in a household who are related to the householder are regarded as members of his or her family. A household can contain only one family for census purposes. The number of family households always equals the number of families; however, a family household may also include non-relatives living with the family. Families are classified by type as either a married-couple family or other family, which is further classified into "male householder" (a family with a male householder and no wife G-1 SUBCOMMUNITY PROFILES �GLOSSARY present) or "female householder" (a family with a female householder and no wife present). from the count of occupied housing units as a result of the weighting process. GROSS RENT - Monthly contract rent plus the estimated average monthly cost of utilities and fuels, if these are paid by the renter. Gross rent is intended to eliminate differences which result from varying practices with respect to the inclusion of utilities and fuels as part of the rental payment. Renter units occupied without payment of cash rent are shown separately as "No cash rent" in the tabulations. HOUSING UNIT- Includes a house, an apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room that is occupied (or, if vacant, is intended for occupancy) as separate living quarters. Separate living quarters are those in which the occupants live and eat separately from any other persons in the building and which have direct access from outside the building or through a common hall. GROSS RENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN 1989 - A computed ratio of monthly gross rent to monthly household income. Units for which no cash rent is paid and units occupied by households that reported no income or a net loss in 1989 comprise the category "Not computed." HISPANIC ORIGIN-Persons of Hispanic origin are those who classified themselves in one of the Hispanic origin categories listed on the questionnaire-"Mexican," "Puerto Rican," or "Cuban"as well as those who indicated that they were of "other Spanish/ Hispanic" origin. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race. HOUSEHOLD- Includes all the persons who occupy a housing unit. Persons not living in households are classified as living in group quarters. The occupants may be a single family, one person living alone, two or more families living together, or any other group of related or unrelated persons who share living arrangements. In sample tabulations, the count of households may differ WSU/CUS/MIMIC-SEMCC-UCS INCOME IN 1989 - Information on money income received in the calendar year 1989 was requested from persons 15 years and over. "Total income" is the algebraic sum of the amounts reported separately for wage or salary income; net nonfarm self-employment income; net farm self-employment income; interest, dividend, net rental or royalty income; Social Security or railroad retirement income; public assistance or welfare income; retirement or disability income; and all other income. "Earnings" is defined as the algebraic sum of wage or salary income and net income from farm and nonfarm self-employment. Receipts from the following sources are not included as income: money received from the sale of property (un,ess the recipient was engaged in the business of selling such property); the value of income "in kind" from food stamps, public housing subsidies, medical care, employer contributions for persons, etc.; withdrawal of bank deposits; money borrowed; tax refunds; exchange of money between relatives in the same household; gifts and lump-sum inheritances, insurance payments, and other types of lump-sum receipts. (For more information, see. "Public Assistance Income," and "Social Security Income.") Income ofHouseholds - includes the income of the householder and G-2 SUBCOMMUNITY PROFILES I ' I' I ' �GLOSSARY -II II - all other persons 15 years old and over in the household, whether related to the householder or not. Because many households consist of only one person, average household income is usually less than average family income. Income of Families - includes the income of all members 15 years old and over in each family summed and treated as a single amount. INDUSTRY - The industry classification system developed for the 1990 census consists of 236 categories for employed persons, classified into 13 major industry groups. The classification was developed from the 1987 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Manual published by the Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President. Census data, collected from households, differ in detail and nature from those obtained from establishment surveys. Therefore, the census classification system, while defined in SIC terms, cannot reflect the full detail in all categories. LABOR FORCE (EMPLOYMENT) STATUS - All persons classified in the civilian labor force plus members of the U.S. Armed Forces (persons on active duty with the United States Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard.) (For more information, see "Employed" and "Unemployed.") LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME - Persons who spoke a language other than English includes only those who sometimes or always spoke a language other than English at home. It does not include those who spoke a language other than English only at school or limited to only a few expressions or slang. (For more information, see "Ability to Speak English.") WSU/CUS/MIMIC-SEMCC-UCS MORTGAGE ST A TUS - "Mortgage" refers to all forms of debt where the property is pledged as security for repayment of the debt, including deeds of trust, trust deed, contracts to purchase, land contracts, junior mortgages and home equity loans. A mortgage is considered a first mortgage if it has prior claim over any other mortgage or it is the only mortgage on the property. All other mortgages (second, third, etc.) are considered junior mortgages. A home equity loan is generally a junior mortgage. (For more information, see "Selected Monthly Owner Costs.") NATIVITY - Information on place of birth and citizenship were used to classify the population into two major categories: native and foreign born. Native includes persons born in the United States, Puerto Rico, or an outlying area of the United States. The Native population is classified in the following groups: persons born in the state in which they resided at the time of the census; persons born in a different state, by region; persons born in Puerto Rico or an outlying area of the U.S.; and persons born abroad with at least one American parent. Foreign born includes persons not classified as "Native." NONF AMIL Y HOUSEHOLD- Inctudes a householder living alone or with non-relatives only. OCCUPATION - The occupational classification system developed for the 1990 census consists of 501 specific occupational categories for employed persons arranged into 6 summary and 13 major occupational groups. The classification was developed to be consistent with the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Manual: 1980, published by the Office of Federal Statistical Policy G-3 SUBCOMMUNITY PROFILES �- GLOSSARY and Standards, U.S. Department of Commerce. OCCUPIED HOUSING UNIT - A housing unit is classified as occupied if it is the usual place of residence of the person or group of persons living in it at the time of enumeration, or if the occupants are only temporarily absent; that is, away on vacation or business. OWN CHILD-A never-married child under 18 years who is a son or daughter by birth, a stepchild, or an adopted child of the householder. "Related children" in a family include own children and all other persons under 18 years of age in the household, regardless of marital status, who are related to the householder, except the spouse of the householder. OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSING UNIT - A housing unit is owner-occupied if the owner or co-owner lives in the unit even if it is mortgaged or not fully paid for. PER CAPITA INCOME - The mean income computed for every man, woman, and child in a particular group. It is derived by dividing the total income of a particular group by the total population of that group. PLACE OF BIRTH - Respondents were asked to report the U.S. state, commonwealth or territory, or the foreign country where they were born. Persons born outside the United States were asked to report their place of birth according to current international boundaries. POVERTY STATUS IN 1989 - Poverty status was determined for WSU/CUS/MIMIC-SEMCC-UCS all persons except institutionalized persons, persons in military group quarters and in college dormitories, and unrelated individuals under 15 years old. These groups were excluded from the numerator when calculating poverty rates. Poverty statistics were based on a definition originated by the Social Security Administration in 1964 and modified by federal interagency committees in 1969 and 1980 and prescribed by the Office of Management and Budget. The income cutoffs used by the Census Bureau to determine the poverty status of families and unrelated individuals included a set of 48 thresholds arranged in a two-dimensional matrix consisting of family size cross-classified by presence and number of family members under 18 years old. The average poverty threshold for a family of four persons was $12,674 in 1989. PUBLIC ASSISTANCE INCOME - Includes: ( 1) supplemental security income payments made by Federal or State welfare agencies to low income persons who are aged (65 years old or over), blind, or disabled; (2) aid to families with dependent children; and (3) general assistance. Separate payments received for hospital or other medical care (vendor payments) are excluded from this item. RACE-The concept of race as used by the Census Bureau reflects self-identification; it does not denote any clear-cut scientific definition of biological stock. The data for race represent self-classification by people according to the race with which they most closely identify. Furthermore, it is recognized that the categories of the race item include both racial and national origin or socio-cultural groups. The Census Bureau recognizes that there are persons who do not identify with a specific racial group, and thus the 1990 race question G-4 SUBCOMMUNITY PROFILES I �GLOSSARY included an "Other race" category with provisions for a write-in entry. of enumeration. The question included instructions to "include only nursery school, kindergarten, elementary school or a college degree" as regular school. Persons indicated they were enrolled by marking one of the questionnaire categories for either "public school, public college" or "private school, private college." A public school is defined as "any school or college controlled and supported by alocal,county, State or Federal Government." Schools supported and controlled primarily by religious organizations or other private groups are defined as private. Persons who were enrolled in school were classified as enrolled in "preprimary school," "elementary or high school," or "college" according to their response to question 12 (years of school completed or highest degree received). RE FEREN CE WEEK- The data on labor force status were related to the reference week; that is, the calendar week preceding the date on which the respondents completed their questionnaires or were interviewed by enumerators. The week is not the same for all respondents since the enumeration was not completed in one week. The occurrence of holidays during the enumeration period could affect the data on actual hours worked during the reference week, but probably had no effect on overall measurement of employment status. RENTER-OCCUPIED HOUSING UNIT - All occupied housing units which are not owner-occupied, whether they are rented for cash rent or occupied without payment of cash rent, are classified as renter-occupied. RESIDENCE IN 1985 - The questionnaire asked for the state (or SELECTED MONTHLY OWNER COSTS - The sum of payments for mortgages, deeds of trust, contracts to purchase, or similar debts on the property; real estate taxes; fire, hazard, and flood insurance on the property; utilities; and fuels. It also includes, where appropriate, the monthly condominium fees or mobile home costs. (For more information, see "Mortgage Status.") foreign country), county, and place of residence on April 1, 1985, for those persons reporting that on that date they lived in a different house than their current residence. Residence in 1985 is used in conjunction with location of current residence to determine the extent of residential mobility of the population and then resulting redistribution of the population across the various states, metropolitan areas, and regions of the country. of selected monthly owner costs to monthly household income in 1989. The data are tabulated separately for specified owneroccupied units, condominiums and mobile homes. SCHOOL ENROLLMENT-Persons were classified as enrolled SOCIAL SECURITY INCOME - Includes Social Security pen- in school if they reported attending a "regular" public or private school or college at any time between February 1, 1990, and the time sions and survivors benefits and permanent disability insurance payments made by the Social Security Administration prior to WSU/CUS/MIMIC-SEMCC-UCS SELECTED MONTHLY OWNER COSTS AS A PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN 1989-Thecomputedratio G-5 SUBCOMMUNITY PROFILES �-Ill Ill GLOSSARY housing units, both occupied and vacant, are counted. Stores and office space are excluded. I -Unit, Detached - a one-unit structure detached from any other house; that is, with open spaces on all four sides. Mobile Home or Trailer - both occupied and vacant mobile homes, to which no permanent rooms have been added, are counted in this category. Mobile homes or trailers used only for business purposes or for extra sleeping space and mobile homes or trailers for sale on a dealer's lot, at the factory, or in storage are not counted in the housing inventory. deductions for medical insurance, and railroad retirement insurance checks from the U.S. Government. Medicare reimbursements are not included. SPECIFIED OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS- Includes only one-family houses on less than 10 acres without a business or medical office on the property. The data for "specified" units exclude mobile homes, houses with a business or medical office, houses on 10 or more acres, and housing units in multi-unit buildings. (For more information, see "Value.") SPECIFIED RENTER-OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS PAYING CASH RENT- Includes all renter-occupied housing units except one-family houses on 10 or more acres. Housing units that are renter-occupied without payment of cash rent are excluded. (For more information, see "Contract Rent.") UTILITIES - The questionnaire asked for the yearly cost of utilities (electricity, gas, water) and other fuels (oil, coal, wood, kerosene, etc.). These yearly amounts are divided by 12 to derive the average monthly cost and are then included in the computations of "gross rent" and "monthly owner cost." Costs are recorded if paid by or billed to occupants, a welfare agency, relatives, or friends. Costs that are paid by landlords, included in the rent payment, or included in condominium or cooperative fees are excluded. UNEMPLOYED- Civilians 16 years old and over are classified as unemployed if they (1) were neither "at work" nor "with a job but not at work" during the reference week, and (2) were looking for work during the last four weeks, and (3) were available to accept a job. Also included as unemployed are civilians who did not work at all during the reference week and were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off. (For more information, see "Employed" and "Labor Force Status.") VALUE- Value is the respondent's estimate of how much the property (house and lot, mobile home and lot, or condominium unit) would sell for if it were for sale. The lowest value category collected was "less than $15,000." When the median value for an area falls within this category it is reported as $14,999. (For more information, see "Specified Owner-Occupied Housing Units.") UNITS IN STRUCTURE (Structure Type) - A structure is a separate building that either has open spaces on all sides or is separated from other structures by dividing walls that extend from ground to roof. In determining the number of units in a structure, all WSU/CUS/MIMIC-SEMCC-UCS VEHICLES AVAILABLE - The number of passenger cars, vans, and pick-up or panel trucks of one-ton capacity or less kept at home and available for the use of household members. Vehicles kept at G-6 ~ - - - - - - - - - = = --- SUBCOMMUNITY PROFILES - -• II - "II II -II II II �II I I I I I I a person 16 years old or over who had served (even for a short time) but is not now serving on active duty in the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or the Coast Guard, or who served as a Merchant Marine seaman during World War II. Persons who served in the National Guard or military Reserves are classified as veterans only if they were ever called or ordered to active duty not counting the 4-6 months for initial training or yearly summer camps. All other civilians 16 years old and over are classified as nonveterans. I YEAR HOUSEHOLDER MOVED INTO UNIT - Refers to the year of the latest move of the householder. If a householder moved • • back into a housing unit he or she previously occupied, the year of the latest move was reported. The intent is to establish the year the present occupancy by the householder began. The year that the householder moved in is not necessarily the same year other members of the household moved, although in the great majority of cases an entire household moves at the same time. II II II II II GLOSSARY floors were in place used. home but used only for business purposes are excluded. the category "1989 or March 1990" was VETERAN STATUS-Forcensus purposes, a "civilian veteran"is YEAR OF ENTRY - Derived from the question, "When did this person come to the United States to stay?" which was asked of all persons who indicated in the question on citizenship that they were not born in the United States. YEAR STRUCTURE BUILT- Refers to when the building was DERIVED MEASURES MEAN-This measure represents an arithmetic average of a set of values. It is derived by dividing the sum of a group of numerical items (or aggregate) by the total number of items. Aggregates are used in computing mean values. MEDIAN-This measure represents the middle value in a distribution. The median divides the total frequency into two equal parts: one-half of the cases fall below the median and one-half of the cases exceed the median. PERCENT - This measure has been used extensively in this report because it allows the user to easily make comparisons between areas. In some cases the universe is included (i.e., foreign born) so that raw numbers can be calculated from the percentages. In other cas~s (i.e., years of school completed) they are not. fPublication users may obtain raw numbers by contacting MIMIC.] Percentages have been rounded to whole numbers in all cases. Whenever a percent ended in .5, or higher, it was rounded up (i.e., 8.5 percent becomes 9 percent). Whenever it was less than .5, it was rounded down (i.e., 0.4 percent becomes O percent). Due to this rounding, totals may not add up to 100 percent. first constructed, not when it was remodeled, added to, or converted. For housing units under construction that met the h~using unit definition _ that is, all exterior windows, doors, and fmal usable WSU/CUS/MIMIC-SEMCC-UCS G-7 SUBCOMMUNITY PROFILES �GLOSSARY DATA CONFIDENTIALITY In order to maintain confidentiality required by law (Title 13, United States Code), the Bureau of the Census applies a confidentiality edit to assure published data do not disclose information about specific individuals, households, and housing units. The result is that a small amount of uncertainty is introduced into some of the census characteristics to prevent identification. The edit is controlled so that counts of total persons, totals by race and American Indian tribe, Hispanic origin, and age 18 years and over are not affected by the confidentiality edit and are published as collected. In addition, total counts for housing units by tenure are not affected by this edit. The confidentiality edit is conducted by selecting a sample of households from the 100 percent internal census files and interchanging its data with other households that have identical characteristics on a set of selected key variables but are in different geographic locations within the same state. To provide more protection for "small areas," a higher sampling rate was used for these areas. The net result of this procedure is that the data user's ability to obtain census data, particularly for small a.-eas and subpopulation groups, has been significantly enhanced. There will be no suppressed data cells in 1990, as there were in 1980. WSU/CUS/MIMIC-SEMCC-UCS - G-8 -- SUBCOMMUNITY PROFILES - -- - - ,_ II II II II �II I I ---7 PEMBROKE ~\ I 45 GRANT EVERGREEN 43 5 GREENFIEID BAGLEY 44 •I \ ROSEDAl£ I PAR!( 41 CEIMNY HARMONY 40 VILLAGE IINCBI. • • II II II • II \ 33 PARK ,,,. .,,/ 38 II I AIRPORT FINNEY 6 11 MACKENZIE 34 CODY 37 II ROSA PARKS BROOl(S 28 35 I r- I'---7 ROUGE 36 -~WWAIRN I I, I 29 ,J ,~_J I L-\.._J L 25 ' \ } SUBCOMMUNITIES IN THE CITY OF DETROIT I J '-"" ,~ ;-J ' 23 1990 r-- Y;~-J <',mwoo/ I '/ 'v' 0 SCALE © 1991, ucs MUS UNITT:D COMMUNITY SERVICES OF METROPOLITAN DETROIT I I __,,,,,- ,,,.J ' 39 ., l '( ,A_l .,,, / \ HAMTRAMCK I All BRIGHTMOOR DAVISON HIGHIAND \ , GRANDMONT I I I ', 46 �Southeast Michigan Census Council. The Southeast Michigan Census Council (SEMCC) is a non-profit 501(c) (3) corporation organized for the purpose of promoting access to demographic and related statistics. Its members represent governments, private non-profit organizations, educational institutions, and businesses in the ten-county southeast Michigan area and beyond. SEMCC publishes a monthly newsletter for members, creates and sells products such as the Census Tract Coding Guides and the Advance Census Tract Report, and represents the interests of southeast Michigan data users to data producers in the federal government. Michigan Metropolitan Information Center. Michigan Metropolitan Information Center's (MIMIC) mission is to document and investigate trends in urban population and housing. MIMIC conducts a variety of research, education, and service programs designed to improve our understanding of the patterns of population and housing in Detroit and urban America. MIMIC specializes in the use of census data, the computer processing of large public data sets, and computer mapping as tools in the investigation of urban population and housing. In its role as a coordinating agency of the Census Bureau's State Data Center Program in Michigan, MIMIC provides information services to the general public. MIMIC conducts training programs, publishes statistical profiles, and acts as the official processing center for machine-readable census data in Michigan. WSU/CUS/MIMIC-SEMCC-UCS As part of the Center for Urban Studies and the College of Urban Labor, and Metropolitan Affairs, MIMIC strives to further the urban mission of Wayne State University and to promote research and discussion of urban population and housing trends. United Community Services of Metropolitan Detroit. For 76 years, United Community Services of Metropolitan Detroit has been the leading citizen-based, volunteer-driven, problemsolving organization in metropolitan Detroit and the UCS Research and Information Services Division has been a critical component in establishing that tradition. Division volunteers and staff collaborate to conduct social and economic studies and surveys; prepare and analyze data; assess community problems, issues, and needs; and provide information, technical assistance, and consultation on community issues. Through LINK (Linking INformation with Knowledge), a computerized service, the Research Division also provides subject-related data and human service information to agencies and organizations. LINK features data and information on Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb counties and the City of Detroit, as well as state and national data. UCS' 800 committed volunteers and more than 100 staff also collaborate in the areas of community planning, coalition-building, public advocacy, referral, and volunteer recruitment, training, and placement. UCS is funded by the United Way for Southeastern Michigan, foundation and government grants, and private donations. SUBCOMMUNITY PROFILES � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Wyckoff Planning and Zoning Collection Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Planning & Zoning Center (Lansing, Mich.) (Organization) Wyckoff, Mark A. Description An account of the resource Municipal master plans and zoning ordinances from across the state of Michigan, spanning from the 1960s to the early 2020s. The bulk of the collection was compiled by urban planner Mark Wyckoff over the course of his career as the founder and principal planner of the Planning and Zoning Center in Lansing, Michigan. Some additions have been made to the collection by municipalities since it was transferred to Grand Valley State University. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Michigan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1960/2023 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Subject The topic of the resource Michigan Comprehensive plan publications Master plan reports Zoning--Michigan Zoning--Maps Maps Land use--planning Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-240 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Detroit_Census-Profiles_1993 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Southeast Michigan Census Council Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1993-10 Title A name given to the resource 1990 Census Subcommunity Profiles for the City of Detroit Description An account of the resource The 1990 Census Subcommunity Profiles for the City of Detroit report was prepared by the Southeast Michigan Census Council with assistance from the Michigan Metropolitan Information Center at Wayne State University and United Community Services of Metropolitan Detroit in October 1993. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Michigan Metropolitan Information Center, Center for Urban Studies, Wayne State University United Community Services of Metropolitan Detroit (consultants) Subject The topic of the resource Census--Statistics Detroit, Michigan Wayne County (Mich.) Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/3de46e0f031983cc0eb2bd11ab4e1f2e.pdf f6cc9cd3dd9358865e6f1e91180d9cba PDF Text Text ❖ SE~CC SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN CENSUS COUNCIL 2000 Census Population Counts by Race/Ethnicity and Age in Southeast Michigan April 2001 �2000 Census Population Counts by Race/Ethnicity and Age in Southeast Michigan The tables presented in this report have been prepared from the 2000 Census PL94-171 Redistricting file. Several points should be noted: and Some Other Race. Approximately two percent of southeast Michigan residents marked more than one category. For more information on the way race and Hispanic Origin information was collected in the 2000 census, access the internet at <http://www.census.gov/ population/www/cen2000/brief. html> to see the Census Brief, Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin (C2KBR/01- Geography. The geographic units presented here are those used by the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) in its planning work. (Genesee County is not part of the SEMCOG region; the same principles for geographic units apply.) The major difference from census reports is that, in cases where townships include villages, the village data have been subtracted from the township. Thus, the complete list of cities, townships, and villages adds to the totals for each county. In standard census presentations, data presented for townships include the villages. 1). In this report, the overall percentage of Black, Asian, and . Hispanic population in each geographic area includes all persons marking that category, regardless of whether they also marked another race category (including Some Other Race). Undercount Adjustment. In February, 2000, the Census Bureau's Executive Steering Committee for Adjustment Policy (ESCAP) recommend that the 2000 census not be adjusted for undercount at this time. The ESCAP report can be downloaded from <www.census.gov>. As of this date, it is unknown whether adjusted population counts will be released at a later date. Exceptions are made for the following: Novi township is not separated from the city of Novi Unincorporated Southfield township population is added to Beverly Hills The portion of the city of Richmond located in Casco township is not shown separately. Race/Ethnicity. The standard for collection of race data has been changed significantly since 1990. Census respondents were asked to mark one or more categories among a list of six. These are White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaskan Native (AIAN), Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (NHOPI), i �I Officers and Board Southeast Michigan Census Council President: The Southeast Michigan Census Council (SEMCC) is a non-profit (501(c)3) organization whose mission is to promote access to and use of demographic and related statistics in southeast Michigan. Membership is open to any interested party residing in the state of Michigan. Marlys Vickers, Oakland County Planning and Economic Development Vice-President: Kurt R. Metzger. Center for Urban Studies, Wayne State University For more information, see the SEMCC web site at <www.semcc.org>. Secretary: Ronald Ropke, United Way Community Services This report was prepared by Kurt Metzger and Patricia Becker. Treasurer: Gary Petroni, Southeastern Michigan Health Association Board Members at Large: Amy Juntunen, SPEC Associates Sally Lawler, School of Social Work, University of Michigan Ellen McCarthy, Michigan Department of Civil Rights Frank Nagy, Monroe County Planning James Rogers, Southeast Michigan Council of Governments Executive Director: Patricia C. Becker To Contact SEMCC 28300 Franklin Road, Southfield, Ml 48034 248/354-6520 FAX 248/354-6645 info@semcc.org www.semcc.org ii �~ i.e . • -- --- 4 ~ -'""'-2000 Census Population Counts: Summary by County Livingston County Total Population 1990 2000 Percent change Macomb County Monroe County Oakland County St. Clair County Washtenaw County Wayne County Detroit 115,645 156,951 36% 717,400 788,149 10% 133,600 145,945 9% 1,083,592 1,194,156 10% 145,607 164,235 13% 282,937 322,895 14% 2,111,687 2,061,162 -2% 1,027,974 951,270 -7% 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 2% 11% 5% 2% 3% 1% 2% 13% 7% 3% 43% 2% 4% 83% 1% 5% Count of Population by Race One Race Category Checked White Black American Indian Asian Some other race 155,288 152,439 722 682 896 503 774,201 730,270 21,326 2,478 16,843 3,106 144,034 139,264 2,766 405 679 907 1,171,945 988,194 120,720 3,270 49,402 10,064 161,976 155,962 3,451 829 650 1,052 314,602 249,916 39,697 1,161 20,338 3,364 2,009,893 1,065,607 868,992 7,627 35,141 32,020 929,229 116,599 775,772 3,140 9,268 24,199 Two-Six Categories Checked White and Black Other combination 1,663 132 1,531 13,948 2,003 11,945 1,911 425 1,486 22,211 3,564 18,647 2,259 570 1,689 8,293 1,988 6,305 51,269 7,833 43,436 22,041 4,532 17,509 45,125 111,826 29% 189,784 598,365 24% 39,993 105,952 27% 300,760 893,396 25% 43,971 120,264 27% 71,288 251,607 22% 577,680 1,483,482 28% 295,709 655,561 31% Major Race/Ethnic Groups* Percent Black Percent Asian Percent Hispanic Population by Age Under 18 18 and older Percent under 18 *Includes all persons marking this category, regardless of whether other categories are marked as well. Prepared by the Southeast Michigan Census Council; source: 2000 Census PL94-171 Redistricting File County Summary, page 1 �I 2000 Census Population Counts: Summary by County Wayne Co. outside Detroit Total Population 1990 2000 Percent change Two-Six Categories Checked White and Black Other combination Population by Age Under18 18 and older Percent under 18 ~ Genesee County Lapeer County 1,083,713 1,109,892 2% 4,590,468 4,833,493 5% 430,459 436,141 1% 74,768 87,904 18% 8% 2% 3% 23% 3% 3% 21% 1% 2% 1% 1% 3% 1,080,664 949,008 93,220 4,487 25,873 7,821 4,731,939 3,481,652 1,057,674 16,452 123,949 51,016 426,622 328,350 88,843 2,414 3,515 3,408 86,888 84,541 720 337 339 943 29,228 3,301 25,927 101,554 16,515 85,039 9,519 2,193 7,326 1,016 85 931 281,971 827,921 25% 1,268,601 3,564,892 26% 119,601 316,540 27% 24,601 63,303 28% Major Race/Ethnic Groups* Percent Black Percent Asian Percent Hispanic Count of Population by Race One Race Category Checked White Black American Indian Asian Some other race SEMCOG Region Lenawee County Detroit CMSA 91,476 5,187,171 98,890 5,456,428 8% 5% 3% 1% 7% 22% 3% 3% 97,417 5,342,866 91,484 3,986,027 2,094 1,149,331 19,611 408 450 128,253 2,974 58,341 1,473 317 1,156 113,562 19,110 94,452 25,658 1,438,461 73,232 4,017,967 26% 26% *Includes a\l persons marking this category, regardless of whether other categories are marked as well. --- Prepared by the Southeast Michigan Census Council; source: 2000 Censu~ ~L94-171 _Redistricting f::ile - -~· ,___. ~ ~ ~ ntv arv!l@_jif"" 2 ,. �Livingston County CONWAY DEERFIELD COHOCTAH Fowle~ HOWELL TYRONE OCEOLA HARTLAND GENOA BRIGHTON HANDY LL /OSCO UNADILLA MARION PUTNAM Pinckney HAMBURG GREEN OAK �2000 Census Population Counts Livingston County Total Population 1990 2000 Percent change Brighton Brighton twp. Cohoctah twp. Conway twp. Deerfield twp. Fowlerville Genoa twp. Green Oak twp. 115,645 156,951 36% 5,686 6,701 18% 14,815 17,673 19% 2,693 3,394 26% 1,818 2,732 50% 3,000 4,087 36% 2,648 2,972 12% 10,820 15,901 47% 11,604 15,618 35% 1% 1% 1% 0% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 2% 0% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% Count of Population by Race One Race Category Checked White Black American Indian Asian Some other race 155,288 152,439 722 682 896 503 6,639 6,474 23 28 88 26 17,530 17,194 76 52 146 55 3,366 3,323 2 16 9 13 2,687 2,622 7 39 4 15 4,047 4,017 0 21 5 4 2,928 2,862 5 40 9 11 15,719 15,472 30 67 113 35 15,412 14,981 247 73 77 32 Two-Six Categories Checked White and Black Other combination 1,663 132 1,531 62 4 58 143 13 130 28 0 45 3 28 42 40 2 38 44 1 43 182 18 164 206 29 177 45,125 111,826 29% 1,451 5,250 22% 5,307 12,366 30% 985 2,409 29% 855 1,877 31% 1,220 2,867 30% 882 2,090 30% 4,323 11,578 27% 4,564 11,054 29% Major Race/Ethnic Groups* Percent Black Percent Asian Percent Hispanic Population by Age Under18 18 and older Percent under 18 *Includes all persons marking this category, regardless of whether other categories were marked as well. Prepared by Southeast Michigan Census Council; source 2000 Census PL94-171 Redistricting File Livingston County, page 1 �2000 Census Population Counts Livingston County Total Population 1990 2000 Percent change Hamburg twp. Handy twp. Hartland twp. Howell Howell twp. Iosco twp. Marion twp. Oceola twp. 115,645 156,951 36% 13,083 20,627 58% 2,840 4,032 42% 6,860 10,996 60% 8,184 9,232 13% 4,298 5,679 32% 1,567 3,039 94% 4,918 6,757 37% 4,825 8,362 73% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 2% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 4% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% Count of Population by Race One Race Category Checked White Black American Indian Asian Some other race 155,288 152,439 722 682 896 503 20,458 20,054 211 57 90 40 3,993 3,935 8 28 15 7 10,901 10,769 30 33 41 28 9,143 8,860 29 56 114 67 5,610 5,551 10 17 14 17 3,005 2,882 2 15 18 88 6,664 6,607 2 28 18 8 8,244 8,121 10 39 53 19 Two-Six Categories Checked White and Black Other combination 1,663 132 1,531 169 14 155 39 4 35 95 13 82 89 8 81 69 4 65 34 0 34 93 2 91 118 3 115 45,125 111,826 29% 6,107 14,520 30% 1,285 2,747 32% 3,340 7,656 30% 2,228 7,004 24% 1,588 4,091 28% 990 2,049 33% 1,978 4,779 29% 2,681 5,681 32% Major Race/Ethnic Groups* Percent Black Percent Asian Percent Hispanic Population by Age Under18 18 and older Percent under 18 *Includes all persons marking this category, regardless of whether other categories were marked as well. Prepared by Southeast Michigan Census Council; source 2000 Census PL94-171 Redistricting File Livingston County, page 2 �2000 Census Population Counts Livingston County Total Population 1990 2000 Percent change Pinckney Putnam twp. Tyrone twp. Unadilla twp. 115,645 156,951 36% 1,603 2,141 34% 4,580 5,359 17% 6,854 8,459 23% 2,949 3,190 8% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% Count of Population by Race One Race Category Checked White Black American Indian Asian Some other race 155,288 152,439 722 682 896 503 2,115 2,094 3 7 3 8 5,296 5,242 10 18 15 7 8,386 8,274 5 34 52 21 3,145 3,105 12 14 12 2 Two-Six Categories Checked White and Black Other combination 1,663 132 1,531 26 3 23 63 1 62 73 4 69 45 6 39 45,125 111,826 29% 701 1,440 33% 1,380 2,432 828 3,979 6,027 2,362 26% 29% 26% Major Race/Ethnic Groups* Percent Black Percent Asian Percent Hispanic Population by Age Under 18 18 and older Percent under 18 *Includes all persons marking this category, regardless of whether other categories were marked as well. Prepared by Southeast Michigan Census Council; source 2000 Census PL94-171 Redistricting File Livingston County, page 3 �Macomb County ARMADA BRUCE Arma~ RICHMOND Bl WASHINGTON SHELBY UT STERLING HEIGHTS WARREN CE~LINE RAY MACOMB LENOX CHESTERFIELD �.. .. - ·--- 2000 Census Population Counts Macomb County Total Population 1990 2000 Percent change Armada twp. Armada Centerline Bruce twp. Chesterfield twp. Clinton twp. Eastpointe Fraser 717,400 788,149 10% 2,943 3,673 25% 1,548 1,573 2% 6,012 8,158 36% 9,026 8,531 -5% 25,905 37,405 44% 85,866 95,648 11% 35,283 34,077 -3% 13,899 15,297 10% 3% 3% 2% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 2% 2% 1% 2% 4% 1% 2% 4% 1% 3% 5% 2% 2% 5% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Count of Population by Race One Race Category Checked White Black American Indian Asian Some other race 774,201 730,270 21,326 2,478 16,843 3,106 3,637 3,607 3 6 4 17 1,555 1,537 3 9 2 3 8,071 7,822 146 30 33 35 8,397 8,004 264 21 86 22 36,821 34,948 1,110 149 284 324 93,898 87,151 4,461 276 1,605 391 33,530 31,395 1,601 143 296 93 15,142 14,787 139 40 142 32 Two-Six Categories Checked White and Black Other combination 13,948 2,003 11,945 36 1 35 18 0 18 87 13 74 134 41 93 584 154 430 1,750 357 1,393 547 109 438 155 31 124 189,784 598,365 24% 1,063 2,610 29% 459 1,114 29% 2,371 5,787 29% 1,856 6,675 22% 11,150 26,255 30% 21,382 74,266 22% 8,333 25,744 24% 3,705 11,592 24% Major Race/Ethnic Groups* Percent Black Percent Asian Percent Hispanic Population by Age Under 18 18 and older Percent under 18 *Includes all persons marking this category, regardless of whether other categories were marked as well. Prepared by Southeast Michigan Census Council; source 2000 Census PL94-171 Redistricting File Macomb County, page 1 �2000 Census Population Counts Macomb County Total Population 1990 2000 Percent change Grosse Pointe Shores (pt) Harrison twp. Macomb twp. Lenox twp. Memphis (pt.) Mt. Clemens New Baltimore New Haven 717,400 788,149 10% 105 80 -24% 24,685 24,461 -1% 3,069 5,362 75% 22,714 50,478 122% 896 807 -10% 18,405 17,312 -6% 5,798 7,405 28% 2,331 3,071 32% 3% 3% 2% 1% 8% 0% 3% 1% 1% 18% 1% 3% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 21% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 22% 0% 4% Count of Population by Race One Race Category Checked White Black American Indian Asian Some other race 774,201 730,270 21,326 2,478 16,843 3,106 80 71 1 2 6 0 24,081 23,123 604 94 141 109 5,263 4,363 813 40 19 27 49,913 48,518 426 95 713 157 798 788 1 3 6 0 16,863 13,121 3,395 127 85 132 7,311 7,175 39 27 35 34 2,936 2,299 582 22 3 30 Two-Six Categories Checked White and Black Other combination 13,948 2,003 11,945 0 0 0 380 65 315 99 16 83 565 79 486 9 0 9 449 163 286 94 13 81 135 60 75 189,784 598,365 24% 5 75 6% 5,352 19,109 22% 1,100 4,262 21% 15,256 35,222 30% 208 599 26% 3,737 13,575 22% 1,884 5,521 25% 991 2,080 32% Major Race/Ethnic Groups* Percent Black Percent Asian Percent Hispanic Population by Age Under18 18 and older Percent under 18 *Includes all persons marking this category, regardless of whether other categories were marked as well. Prepared by Southeast Michigan Census Council; source 2000 Census PL94-171 Redistricting File Macomb County, page 2 �7'1111!1) ,a 2000 Census Population Counts Macomb County Total Population 1990 2000 Percent change Ray twp. Richmond Richmond twp. Romeo Roseville St. Clair Shores Shelby Twp. Sterling Heights 717,400 788,149 10% 3,230 3,740 16% 4,141 4,896 18% 2,528 3,416 35% 3,520 3,721 6% 51,412 48,129 -6% 68,107 63,096 -7% 48,655 65,159 34% 117,810 124,471 6% 3% 3% 2% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 5% 1% 1% 1% 5% 1% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 5% 1% Count of Population by Race One Race Category Checked White Black American Indian Asian Some other race 774,201 730,270 21,326 2,478 16,843 3,106 3,705 3,657 6 11 14 17 4,839 4,672 12 15 40 91 3,369 3,311 33 13 6 6 3,660 3,448 162 6 15 25 47,375 44,968 1,252 201 785 154 62,401 61,135 435 175 531 111 64,258 61,870 553 158 1,374 291 121,359 112,899 1,614 260 6,123 418 Two-Six Categories Checked White and Black Other combination 13,948 2,003 11,945 35 3 32 57 9 48 47 1 46 61 26 35 754 140 614 695 61 634 901 67 834 3,112 168 2,944 189,784 598,365 24% 963 2,777 26% 1,186 3,710 24% 958 2,458 28% 971 2,750 26% 11,137 36,992 23% 12,740 50,356 20% 16,219 48,940 25% 29,965 94,506 24% Major Race/Ethnic Groups* Percent Black Percent Asian Percent Hispanic Population by Age Under18 18 and older Percent under 18 *Includes all persons marking this category, regardless of whether other categories were marked as well. Prepared by Southeast Michigan Census Council; source 2000 Census PL94-171 Redistricting File Macomb County, page 3 �--~----- ......... - ________. __ 2000 Census Population Counts Macomb County Warren Utica Washington twp. Total Population 1990 2000 Percent change 717,400 788,149 10% 5,081 4,577 -10% 144,864 138,247 -5% 13,087 19,080 46% 3% 3% 2% 1% 3% 2% 3% 4% 1% 1% 1% 2% Count of Population by Race One Race Category Checked White Black American Indian Asian Some other race 774,201 730,270 21,326 2,478 16,843 3,106 4,502 4,292 42 17 117 34 135,168 126,205 3,697 494 4,275 467 18,929 18,552 94 50 118 111 Two-Six Categories Checked White and Black Other combination 13,948 2,003 11,945 75 8 67 3,079 408 2,671 151 36 115 189,784 598,365 24% 961 3,616 21% 31,723 106,524 23% 5,080 14,000 27% Major Race/Ethnic Groups* Percent Black Percent Asian Percent Hispanic Population by Age Under 18 18 and older Percent under 18 *Includes all persons marking this category, regardless of whether other categories were marked as well. Prepared by Southeast Michigan Census Council; source 2000 Census PL94-171 Redistricting File Macomb County, page 4 �. Monroe County S. Rockwood MILAN LONDON EXETER @rteton ASH ybee tJ FRENCHTOWN DUNDEE ~ e e RAISINVILLE PET~BUAG SUMMERFIELD WHITEFORD FRENCHTOWN /DA BEDFORD ERIE �2000 Census Population Counts Monroe County Total Population 1990 2000 Percent change Bedford twp. Ash twp. Berlin twp. Carleton Dundee Dundee twp. Erie twp. Estral Beach 133,600 145,945 9% 4,710 5,048 7% 23,748 28,606 20% 4,635 5,154 11% 2,770 2,562 -8% 2,712 2,819 4% 2,664 3,522 32% 4,492 4,850 8% 430 486 13% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 0% 1% 2% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 4% 1% 0% 3% Count of Population by Race One Race Category Checked White Black American Indian Asian Some other race 144,034 139,264 2,766 405 679 907 4,975 4,910 23 13 11 17 28,344 27,907 114 2,504 2,478 1 11 6 8 2,795 2,760 8 8 19 3,472 3,413 23 14 14 8 4,780 4,623 49 147 118 5,105 5,019 25 19 4 37 10 69 461 452 6 1 0 2 Two-Six Categories Checked White and Black Other combination 1,911 425 1,486 73 8 65 262 26 236 49 5 44 58 6 52 24 5 19 50 17 33 70 5 65 25 0 25 39,993 105,952 27% 1,366 3,682 27% 8,028 20,578 28% 1,380 3,774 27% 728 1,834 28% 769 2,050 27% 1,017 2,505 29% 1,312 3,538 27% 122 364 25% Major Race/Ethnic Groups* Percent Black Percent Asian Percent Hispanic Population by Age Under18 18 and older Percent under 18 56 0 29 *Includes all persons marking this category, regardless of whether other categories were marked as well. Prepared by Southeast Michigan Census Council; source 2000 Census PL94-171 Redistricting File Monroe County, page 1 �2000 Census Population Counts Monroe County Exeter twp. Frenchtown Ida twp. LaSalle London twp. twp. Luna Pier Milan Maybee twp. twp. Total Population 1990 2000 Percent change 133,600 145,945 9% 2,753 3,222 17% 18,210 20,777 14% 4,554 4,949 9% 4,985 5,001 0% 2,915 3,024 4% 1,507 1,483 -2% 500 505 1% 1,659 1,670 1% 2% 1% 2% 7% 0% 1% 2% 1% 2% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 2% 14% 0% 1% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 2% 1% 0% 2% Count of Population by Race One Race Category Checked White Black American Indian Asian Some other race 144,034 139,264 2,766 405 679 907 3,189 2,925 227 11 14 12 20,468 19,845 331 85 110 94 4,924 4,874 8 10 25 4,964 4,899 18 20 13 14 2,980 2,569 391 13 1 6 1,448 1,416 3 15 0 14 503 497 2 0 0 3 1,659 1,640 6 6 1 6 Two-Six Categories Checked White and Black Other combination 1,911 425 1,486 33 16 17 309 47 262 25 6 19 37 3 34 44 11 33 35 0 35 2 0 2 11 3 8 39,993 105,952 27% 876 2,346 27% 5,714 15,063 28% 1,458 3,491 29% 1,272 3,729 25% 895 2,129 30% 433 1,050 29% 157 348 31% 417 1,253 25% Major Race/Ethnic Groups* Percent Black Percent Asian Percent Hispanic Population by Age Under18 18 and older Percent under 18 7 *Includes all persons marking this category, regardless of whether other categories were marked as well. Prepared by Southeast Michigan Census Council; source 2000 Census PL94-171 Redistricting File Monroe County, page 2 �2000 Census Population Counts Monroe County Total Population 1990 2000 Percent change Milan (pt.) Monroe Monroe twp. Petersburg Raisinville South Summerfielc Whiteford Rockwood twp. twp. twp. 74% 22,902 22,076 -4% 11,909 13,491 13% 1,201 1,157 -4% 4,634 4,896 6% 1,221 1,284 5% 3,076 3,233 5% 4,433 4,420 0% 2% 1% 2% 3% 1% 3% 6% 1% 3% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 3% 2% 0% 2% Count of Population by Race One Race Category Checked White Black American Indian Asian Some other race 144,034 139,264 2,766 405 679 907 1,681 1,614 34 4 8 21 21,622 20,060 1,120 53 186 199 13,303 12,807 252 25 111 107 1,134 1,120 4 5 1 4 4,854 4,795 24 8 12 15 1,261 1,253 3 3 1 1 3,226 3,171 8 3 2 42 4,382 4,217 87 3 9 66 Two-Six Categories Checked White and Black Other combination 1,911 425 1,486 29 13 16 454 160 294 188 66 122 23 3 20 42 3 39 23 5 18 7 2 5 38 15 23 39,993 105,952 27% 538 1,172 31% 5,941 16,135 27% 3,537 9,954 26% 353 804 31% 1,301 3,595 27% 342 942 27% 878 2,355 27% 1,159 3,261 26% Major Race/Ethnic Groups* Percent Black Percent Asian Percent Hispanic Population by Age Under18 18 and older Percent under 18 133,600 145,945 9% 980 1,710 - *Includes all persons marking this category, regardless of whether other categories were marked as well. Prepared by Southeast Michigan Census Council; source 2000 Census PL94-171 Redistricting File Monroe County, page 3 �Oakland County Leon§ tonvllle I HOLLY GROVELAND I I BRANDON I OXFORD ADDISON 0~ Lakec® I ROSE SPRINGFIELD I I INDEPENDENCE ORION I I I I I OAKLAND cfilLARKSTON I HIGHLAND 8 MILFORD WHITE LAKE 1 WATERFORD \. Im:~~~ - I I I rd I I COMMERCE I oRcild,m , la<r: •----"""-- r . - - k.- ---r I I I I ROC ROCHESTER HILLS TROY WEST BLOOMFIELD LAKE Fra~ LYON I TH LYON I NOVI ~ I FARMINGTON HILLS I --- -- ~ h I HU~TINGT~N 'la)S. - . ····-LPARK �__,, _ _ _ _ _ _ ,i _ _ _i _ _ _ _ _ _ ., .. - . . 2000 Census Population Counts Oakland County Total Population 1990 2000 Percent change Addison twp. Auburn Hills Berkley Beverly Hills Bingham Farms Birmingham Bloomfield Bloomfield twp. Hills 1,083,592 1,194,156 10% 4,785 6,107 28% 17,076 19,837 16% 16,960 15,531 -8% 10,628 10,463 -2% 1,001 1,030 3% 19,997 19,291 -4% 42,473 43,023 1% 4,288 3,940 -8% 11% 5% 2% 1% 0% 2% 14% 7% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3% 2% 1% 6% 2% 0% 1% 2% 1% 5% 7% 1% 2% 7% 1% Count of Population by Race One Race Category Checked White Black American Indian Asian Some other race 1,171,945 988,194 120,720 3,270 49,402 10,064 6,046 5,939 56 20 13 17 19,320 15,061 2,623 64 1,255 309 15,293 14,923 108 38 160 62 10,312 9,753 318 16 193 30 1,015 942 56 0 15 2 19,081 18,545 175 28 290 36 42,547 37,732 1,849 35 2,783 125 3,911 3,573 65 4 259 10 Two-Six Categories Checked White and Black Other combination 22,211 3,564 18,647 61 7 54 517 107 410 238 30 208 151 22 129 15 1 14 210 28 182 476 59 417 29 1 28 300,760 893,396 25% 1,793 4,314 4,051 15,786 3,542 11,989 2,570 7,893 29% 20% 23% 25% 164 866 16% 4,094 15,197 21% 10,242 32,781 24% 775 3,165 20% Major Race/Ethnic Groups* Percent Black Percent Asian Percent Hispanic Population by Age Under18 18 and older Percent under 18 *Includes all persons marking this category, regardless of whether other categories were marked as well. Prepared by Southeast Michigan Census Council; source 2000 Census PL94-171 Redistricting File Oakland County, page 1 �2000 Census Population Counts Oakland County Total Population 1990 2000 Percent change Brandon twp. Clawson Commerce Farmington Farmington Hills twp. Ferndale Franklin Groveland twp. 1,083,592 1,194,156 10% 10,799 13,230 23% 13,874 12,732 -8% 22,228 30,349 37% 10,132 10,423 3% 74,652 82,111 10% 25,084 22,105 -12% 2,626 2,937 12% 4,705 6,150 31% 11% 5% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 3% 10% 1% 7% 8% 1% 4% 2% 2% 5% 4% 1% 1% 1% 2% Count of Population by Race One Race Category Checked White Black American Indian Asian Some other race 1,171,945 988,194 120,720 3,270 49,402 10,064 13,086 12,900 58 28 47 51 12,580 12,235 102 43 168 32 30,056 29,310 157 61 428 99 10,315 8,929 285 19 1,051 29 80,527 68,107 5,699 142 6,188 376 21,534 20,218 757 121 292 141 2,904 2,637 149 3 105 10 6,079 5,947 52 19 33 28 Two-Six Categories Checked White and Black Other combination 22,211 3,564 18,647 144 25 119 152 18 134 293 30 263 108 9 99 1,584 216 1,368 571 129 442 33 5 28 71 7 64 300,760 893,396 25% 4,025 9,205 30% 2,621 10,111 21% 9,118 21,231 30% 2,088 8,335 20% 18,942 63,169 23% 4,504 17,601 20% 830 2,107 28% 1,699 4,451 28% Major Race/Ethnic Groups* Percent Black Percent Asian Percent Hispanic Population by Age Under18 18 and older Percent under 18 *Includes all persons marking this category, regardless of whether other categories were marked as well. Prepared by Southeast Michigan Census Council; source 2000 Census PL94-171 Redistricting File Oakland County, page 2 �-~- ... - - --I -- ... - ..; ... __, 1111111 . ., .. ., .. ... 2000 Census Population Counts Oakland County Total Population 1990 2000 Percent change Hazel Park Highland twp. Holly Holly twp. Huntington Woods lndependence twp. Keego Harbor Lake Angelus 1,083,592 1,194,156 10% 20,051 18,963 -5% 17,941 19,169 7% 3,257 3,902 20% 5,595 6,135 10% 6,419 6,151 -4% 24,722 32,581 32% 2,932 2,769 -6% 328 326 -1% 11% 5% 2% 2% 2% 2% 0% 1% 1% 3% 1% 3% 2% 1% 3% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 3% 1% 2% 4% 1% 3% 1% Count of Population by Race One Race Category Checked White Black American Indian Asian Some other race 1,171,945 988,194 120,720 3,270 49,402 10,064 18,312 17,374 308 170 344 112 18,944 18,675 58 89 71 48 3,851 3,649 142 19 17 21 6,031 5,837 79 27 25 62 6,112 5,964 42 3 87 16 32,176 31,226 274 79 396 198 2,718 2,605 17 32 29 35 326 314 3 0 9 0 Two-Six Categories Checked White and Black Other combination 22,211 3,564 18,647 651 117 534 225 26 199 51 4 47 104 24 80 39 12 27 405 63 342 51 8 43 0 0 0 300,760 893,396 25% 5,245 13,718 28% 5,562 13,607 29% 1,013 2,889 26% 1,659 4,476 27% 1,634 4,517 27% 9,017 23,564 28¾ 689 2,080 25% 66 260 20% Major Race/Ethnic Groups* Percent Black Percent Asian Percent Hispanic Population by Age Under18 18 and older Percent under 18 *Includes all persons marking this category, regardless of whether other categories were marked as well. Prepared by Southeast Michigan Census Council; source 2000 Census PL94-171 Redistricting File Oakland County, page 3 �2000 Census Population Counts Oakland County Total Population 1990 2000 Percent change Lathrup Village Lake Orion Madison Heights Lyon twp. Leonard Milford twp. Milford Northville (pt.) 1,083,592 1,194,156 10% 3,057 2,715 -11% 4,329 4,236 -2% 357 332 -7% 9,450 11,041 17% 32,196 31,101 -3% 6,610 8,999 36% 5,511 6,272 14% 3,367 3,352 0% 11% 5% 2% 0% 1% 2% 52% 1% 1% 5% 1% 6% 1% 1% 1% 2% 6% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 3% 2% Count of Population by Race One Race Category Checked White Black American Indian Asian Some other race 1,171,945 988,194 120,720 3,270 49,402 10,064 2,683 2,655 7 9 8 3 4,141 1,992 2,110 4 26 9 329 313 13 1 2 0 10,926 10,721 39 45 67 50 30,268 27,866 567 138 1,547 142 8,912 8,778 55 18 39 22 6,193 6,106 10 24 31 22 3,327 3,209 14 6 81 12 Two-Six Categories Checked White and Black Other combination 22,211 3,564 18,647 32 2 30 95 53 42 3 3 0 115 18 97 833 55 778 87 6 81 79 11 68 25 2 23 300,760 893,396 25% 552 2,163 20% 1,042 3,194 25% 87 245 26% 3,182 7,859 29% 6,867 24,234 22% 2,563 6,436 28% 1,793 4,479 29% 877 2,475 26% Major Race/Ethnic Groups* Percent Black Percent Asian Percent Hispanic Population by Age Under18 18 and older Percent under 18 *Includes all persons marking this category, regardless of whether other categories were marked as well. Prepared by Southeast Michigan Census Council; source 2000 Census PL94-171 Redistricting File Oakland County, page 4 �- - . . . - : - - I - • -I- 11111:. .. ·--1- •.... ..; .. - 2000 Census Population Counts Oakland County Total Population 1990 2000 Percent change Novi Oakland twp. Oak Park Orchard Lake Orion twp. Oxford twp. Ortonville Oxford 1,083,592 1,194,156 10% 34,448 47,579 44% 8,227 13,071 59% 30,462 29,793 -2% 2,286 2,215 -3% 21,019 30,748 46% 1,252 1,535 23% 9,004 12,485 39% 2,929 3,540 21% 11% 5% 2% 2% 9% 2% 2% 3% 1% 47% 3% 1% 4% 3% 1% 1% 2% 3% 0% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 3% Count of Population by Race One Race Category Checked White Black American Indian Asian Some other race 1,171,945 988,194 120,720 3,270 49,402 10,064 46,874 41,532 908 90 4,113 223 12,946 12,305 262 12 342 25 28,563 13,989 13,690 52 648 179 2,184 2,035 85 3 59 2 30,367 29,276 416 80 388 200 1,529 1,508 1 7 6 7 12,312 12,075 51 32 62 89 3,503 3,442 21 10 19 11 Two-Six Categories Checked White and Black Other combination 22,211 3,564 18,647 705 91 614 125 13 112 1,230 202 1,028 31 8 23 381 40 341 6 0 6 173 14 159 37 3 34 300,760 893,396 25% 13,127 34,452 28% 3,992 9,079 31% 8,391 21,402 28% 595 1,620 27% 8,979 21,769 29% 497 1,038 32% 3,688 8,797 30% 997 2,543 28% Major Race/Ethnic Groups* Percent Black Percent Asian Percent Hispanic Population by Age Under18 18 and older Percent under 18 *Includes all persons marking this category, regardless of whether other categories were marked as well. Prepared by Southeast Michigan Census Council; source 2000 Census PL94-171 Redistricting File Oakland County, page 5 �..., 2000 Census Population Counts Oakland County Pleasant Ridge Pontiac Rochester Rochester Hills Royal Oak Rose twp. Royal Oak Southfield twp. Total Population 1990 2000 Percent change Major Race/Ethnic Groups* Percent Black Percent Asian Percent Hispanic Count of Population by Race One Race Category Checked White Black American Indian Asian Some other race Two-Six Categories Checked White and Black Other combination Population by Age Under 18 18 and older Percent under 18 1,083,592 1,194,156 10% 2,775 2,594 -7% 71,166 66,337 -7% 7,130 10,467 47% 61,766 68,825 11% 4,926 6,210 26% 65,410 60,062 -8% 5,011 5,446 9% 75,728 78,296 3% 11% 5% 2% 1% 1% 2% 50% 3% 13% 2% 4% 2% 3% 7% 2% 1% 0% 2% 2% 2% 1% 73% 2% 1% 56% 4% 1% 1,171,945 988,194 120,720 3,270 49,402 10,064 2,572 2,505 22 11 23 10 64,015 25,934 31,791 382 1,591 4,291 10,342 9,670 234 26 386 25 67,884 61,084 1,667 139 4,652 322 6,147 6,032 55 14 16 30 59,224 56,941 927 157 939 228 5,264 1,238 3,894 12 79 39 75,955 30,406 42,454 157 2,416 498 22,211 3,564 18,647 22 4 18 2,322 777 1,545 125 16 109 941 119 822 63 12 51 838 96 742 182 49 133 2,341 539 1,802 300,760 893,396 25% 570 2,024 22% 20,320 46,017 31% 2,417 8,050 23% 17,874 50,951 26% 1,647 4,563 27% 10,695 49,367 18% 1,362 4,084 25% 16,876 61,420 22% ... *Includes all persons marking this category, regardless of whether other categories were marked as well. Prepared by Southeast Michigan Census Council; source 2000 Census PL94-171 Redistricting File Oakland County, page 6 �-· - ---·· --- ..................!-2000 Census Population Counts Oakland County Total Population 1990 2000 Percent change South Lyon Springfield twp. Sylvan Lake Troy Village of Clarkston Walled Lake Waterford twp. West Bloomfield 1,083,592 1,194,156 10% 5,857 10,036 71% 9,927 13,338 34% 1,884 1,735 -8% 72,884 80,959 11% 1,005 962 -4% 6,278 6,713 7% 66,692 73,150 10% 54,516 64,860 19% 11% 5% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 14% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 2% 2% 3% 2% 4% 5% 8% 1% Count of Population by Race One Race Category Checked White Black American Indian Asian Some other race 1,171,945 988,194 120,720 3,270 49,402 10,064 9,920 9,703 39 17 109 40 13,214 12,897 146 62 73 35 1,698 1,655 21 8 14 0 79,486 66,627 1,694 125 10,730 292 941 931 3 1 4 1 6,617 6,400 49 21 114 33 71,914 67,777 2,114 259 926 829 63,402 54,644 3,360 78 5,063 246 Two-Six Categories Checked White and Black Other combination 22,211 3,564 18,647 116 12 104 124 15 109 37 4 33 1,473 96 1,377 21 7 14 96 7 89 1,236 176 1,060 1,458 95 1,363 300,760 893,396 25% 2,491 7,545 25% 3,846 9,492 29% 312 1,423 18% 21,218 59,741 26% 247 715 26% 1,431 5,282 21% 16,957 56,193 23% 17,093 47,767 26% Major Race/Ethnic Groups* Percent Black Percent Asian Percent Hispanic Population by Age Under18 18 and older Percent under 18 *Includes all persons marking this category, regardless of whether other categories were marked as well. Prepared by Southeast Michigan Census Council; source 2000 Census PL94-171 Redistricting File Oakland County, page 7 �2000 Census Population Counts Oakland County Total Population 1990 2000 Percent change White Lake twp. Wixom Wolverine Lake 1,083,592 1,194,156 10% 22,608 28,219 25% 8,550 13,263 55% 4,727 4,415 -7% 11% 5% 2% 1% 1% 2% 3% 3% 3% 0% 1% 1% Count of Population by Race One Race Category Checked White Black American Indian Asian Some other race 1,171,945 988,194 120,720 3,270 49,402 10,064 27,859 27,247 219 137 167 83 12,979 11,990 332 68 378 206 4,379 4,316 18 5 26 11 Two-Six Categories Checked White and Black Other combination 22,211 3,564 18,647 360 43 317 284 27 257 36 1 35 300,760 893,396 25% 7,807 20,412 28% 3,300 9,963 25% 1,125 3,290 25% Major Race/Ethnic Groups* Percent Black Percent Asian Percent Hispanic Population by Age Under18 18 and older Percent under 18 *Includes all persons marking this category, regardless of whether other categories were marked as well. Prepared by Southeast Michigan Census Council; source 2000 Census PL94-171 Redistricting File Oakland County, page 8 �--~- LYNN - ---·--- ---- y~ GREENWOOD - GRANT BROCKWAY MUSSEY EMMETT KENOCKEE CLYDE c,~ E BERLIN St. Clair County RILEY WALES KIMBALL COLUMBUS ST. CLAIR CASCO CHINA -- �2000 Census Population Counts St. Clair County Total Population 1990 2000 Percent change Algonac Brockway twp. Berlin twp. Burtchville twp. Capac China twp. Casco twp. Clay twp. 145,607 164,235 13% 4,551 4,613 1% 2,407 3,162 31% 1,609 1,900 18% 3,559 3,956 11% 1,583 1,775 12% 4,552 4,747 4% 2,644 3,340 26% 8,862 9,822 11% 3% 1% 2% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 3% 0% 0% 2% 1% 0% 2% 1% 0% 16% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% Count of Population by Race One Race Category Checked White Black American Indian Asian Some other race 161,976 155,962 3,451 829 650 1,052 4,560 4,491 7 44 9 8 3,133 3,073 28 6 7 18 1,882 1,841 7 6 6 22 3,901 3,853 12 16 12 7 1,739 1,624 7 19 0 89 4,640 4,584 24 12 8 8 3,315 3,280 11 11 8 4 9,737 9,618 20 67 11 21 Two-Six Categories Checked White and Black Other combination 2,259 570 1,689 53 5 48 29 10 19 18 1 17 55 8 47 36 0 36 107 16 91 25 2 23 85 8 77 43,971 120,264 27% 1,178 3,435 26% 912 2,250 29% 545 1,355 29% 967 2,989 24% 590 1,185 33% 1,346 3,401 28% 982 2,358 29% 2,221 7,601 23% Major Race/Ethnic Groups* Percent Black Percent Asian Percent Hispanic Population by Age Under18 18 and older Percent under 18 ~ -· *Includes all persons marking this category, regardless of whether other categories were marked as well. Prepared by Southeast Michigan Census Council; source 2000 Census PL94-171 Redistricting File St. Clair County, page 1 �2000 Census Population Counts St. Clair County Total Population 1990 2000 Percent change Clyde twp. Columbus twp. Cottrellville twp. Emmett twp. East China twp. Fort Gratiot twp. Emmett Grant twp. 145,607 164,235 13% 5,052 5,523 9% 3,235 4,615 43% 3,301 3,814 16% 1,816 2,506 38% 1,519 2,255 48% 297 251 -15% 8,968 10,691 19% 1,210 1,667 38% 3% 1% 2% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 2% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 2% Count of Population by Race One Race Category Checked White Black American Indian Asian Some other race 161,976 155,962 3,451 829 650 1,052 5,475 5,398 16 19 21 19 4,557 4,477 4 26 17 32 3,780 3,764 3 4 6 0 2,496 2,462 6 3 7 16 2,245 2,212 6 2 7 16 251 250 0 1 0 0 10,586 10,202 156 28 143 56 1,655 1,637 2 2 2 12 Two-Six Categories Checked White and Black Other combination 2,259 570 1,689 48 13 35 58 11 47 34 2 32 10 2 8 10 2 8 0 0 0 105 20 85 12 1 11 43,971 120,264 27% 1,466 4,057 27% 1,417 3,198 31% 1,049 2,765 28% 767 1,739 31% 691 1,564 31% 76 175 30% 2,645 8,046 25% 490 1,177 29% Major Race/Ethnic Groups* Percent Black Percent Asian Percent Hispanic Population by Age Under 18 18 and older Percent under 18 *Includes all persons marking this category, regardless of whether other categories were marked as well. Prepared by Southeast Michigan Census Council; source 2000 Census PL94-171 Redistricting File St. Clair County, page 2 �2000 Census Population Counts St. Clair County Total Population 1990 2000 Percent change Greenwood twp. Ira twp. Kenockee twp. Kimball twp. Marine City Lynn twp. Marysville Memphis (pt.) 145,607 164,235 13% 1,037 1,373 32% 5,587 6,966 25% 1,854 2,423 31% 7,247 8,628 19% 921 1,187 29% 4,556 4,652 2% 8,515 9,684 14% 325 322 -1% 3% 1% 2% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 2% 2% 0% 3% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 2% 0% 3% Count of Population by Race One Race Category Checked White Black American Indian Asian Some other race 161,976 155,962 3,451 829 650 1,052 1,351 1,319 13 7 5 7 6,892 6,748 57 44 18 22 2,410 2,379 5 12 1 12 8,516 8,352 77 34 13 38 1,179 1,151 19 5 0 4 4,608 4,526 4 26 12 40 9,629 9,508 17 29 42 32 320 310 7 3 0 0 Two-Six Categories Checked White and Black Other combination 2,259 570 1,689 22 2 20 74 24 50 13 0 13 112 22 90 8 0 8 44 8 36 55 9 46 2 0 2 43,971 120,264 27% 405 968 29% 1,938 5,028 28% 677 1,746 28% 2,289 6,339 27% 365 822 31% 1,284 3,368 28% 2,360 7,324 24% 87 235 27% Major Race/Ethnic Groups* Percent Black Percent Asian Percent Hispanic Population by Age Under18 18 and older Percent under 18 ~ *Includes all persons marking this category, regardless of whether other categories were marked as well. Prepared by Southeast Michigan Census Council; source 2000 Census PL94-171 Redistricting File St. Clair County, page 3 �1 2000 Census Population Counts St. Clair County Total Population 1990 Mussey twp. Port Huron Port Huron twp. St. Clair Riley twp. St. Clair twp. Yale Wales twp. 145,607 164,235 13% 1,530 1,965 28% 33,694 32,338 -4% 7,621 8,615 13% 2,154 3,046 41% 5,116 5,802 13% 4,614 6,423 39% 2,294 2,986 30% 1,977 2,063 4% 3% 1% 2% 0% 0% 10% 9% 1% 4% 4% 0% 2% 1% 0% 2% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 3% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% Count of Population by Race One Race Category Checked White Black American Indian Asian Some other race 161,976 155,962 3,451 829 650 1,052 1,953 1,887 0 8 10 48 31,430 28,034 2,504 281 179 428 8,502 8,066 298 53 30 53 3,005 2,970 15 3 5 12 5,728 5,649 7 14 50 8 6,374 6,306 17 15 19 17 2,972 2,859 97 10 2 4 2,044 2,015 3 12 0 13 Two-Six Categories Checked White and Black Other combination 2,259 570 1,689 12 0 12 908 346 562 113 36 77 41 4 37 74 10 64 49 9 40 14 0 14 19 0 19 43,971 120,264 27% 588 1,377 30% 8,729 23,609 27% 2,224 6,391 26% 889 2,157 29% 1,583 4,219 27% 1,782 4,641 28% 841 2,145 28% 610 1,453 30% 2000 Percent change Major Race/Ethnic Groups* Percent Black Percent Asian Percent Hispanic Population by Age Under18 18 and older Percent under 18 *Includes all persons marking this category, regardless of whether other categories were marked as well. Prepared by Southeast Michigan Census Council; source 2000 Census PL94-171 Redistricting File St Clair County, page 4 �Washtenaw County LYNDON DEXTER WEBSTER NORTHFIELD SALEM SUPERIOR SYLVAN LIMA SCIO NTI SHARON FREEDOM LODI PITTSFIELD YPSILANTI SALINE YORK AUGUSTA Mancheo MANCHESTER BRIDGEWATER ..... --- --- ..... �- - .. - - · .. - ~ - - 'WII .. - - - 2000 Census Population Counts Washtenaw Ann Arbor Ann Arbor twp. County Total Population 1990 2000 Percent change Augusta twp. Barton Hills Bridgewate1 twp. Chelsea Dexter twp. Dexter 282,937 322,895 14% 109,592 114,024 4% 3,473 4,385 26% 4,415 4,813 9% 320 335 5% 1,304 1,646 26% 3,772 4,398 17% 4,407 5,248 19% 1,497 2,338 56% 13% 7% 3% 10% 13% 3% 3% 14% 2% 6% 1% 1% 1% 7% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Count of Population by Race One Race Category Checked White Black American Indian Asian Some other race 314,602 249,916 39,697 1,161 20,338 3,364 110,544 85,151 10,070 332 13,566 1,384 4,309 3,535 101 8 624 39 4,749 4,458 254 16 10 8 322 298 5 0 17 1 1,637 1,632 2 2 1 0 4,356 4,272 31 12 21 17 5,192 5,118 20 15 32 4 2,305 2,258 10 7 24 6 Two-Six Categories Checked White and Black Other combination 8,293 1,988 6,305 3,480 766 2,714 76 6 70 64 15 49 13 0 13 9 0 9 42 3 39 56 4 52 33 5 28 71,288 251,607 22% 19,109 94,915 17% 934 3,451 21% 1,199 3,614 25% 63 272 19% 414 1,232 25% 1,040 3,358 24% 1,495 3,753 28% 618 1,720 26% Major Race/Ethnic Groups* Percent Black Percent Asian Percent Hispanic Population by Age Under18 18 and older Percent under 18 *Includes all persons marking this category, regardless of whether other categories were marked as well. Prepared by Southeast Michigan Census Council; source 2000 Census PL94-171 Redistricting File Washtenaw County, page 1 �2000 Census Population Counts Washtenaw County Total Population 1990 2000 Percent change Freedom twp. Lyndon twp. Lodi twp. Lima twp. Manchester twp. Northfield twp. Milan (pt.) Manchester 282,937 322,895 14% 1,486 1,562 5% 2,585 3,224 25% 3,902 5,710 46% 2,228 2,728 22% 1,739 1,942 12% 1,753 2,160 23% 3,060 3,065 0% 6,732 8,252 23% 13% 7% 3% 0% 0% 9% 1% 1% 1% 3% 2% 1% 7% 1% 2% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 2% 1% 4% 1% 1% 1% Count of Population by Race One Race Category Checked White Black American Indian Asian Some other race 314,602 249,916 39,697 1,161 20,338 3,364 1,548 1,455 0 4 6 83 3,190 3,145 12 7 19 7 5,627 5,381 130 18 80 15 2,694 2,451 167 32 9 35 1,925 1,904 7 9 3 2 2,153 2,122 8 10 4 9 3,038 2,889 49 13 25 61 8,135 7,933 88 38 47 19 Two-Six Categories Checked White and Black Other combination 8,293 1,988 6,305 14 2 12 34 6 28 83 15 68 34 7 27 17 0 17 7 2 5 27 3 24 117 12 105 71,288 251,607 22% 412 1,150 26% 864 2,360 27% 1,677 4,033 29% 643 2,085 24% 502 1,440 26% 576 1,584 27% 779 2,286 25% 2,110 6,142 26% Major Race/Ethnic Groups* Percent Black Percent Asian Percent Hispanic Population by Age Under18 18 and older Percent under 18 *Includes all persons marking this category, regardless of whether other categories were marked as well. Prepared by Southeast Michigan Census Council; source 2000 Census PL94-171 Redistricting File ___ Washtenaw County, page 2 ......... ____ _ ....._ �- - -·.. - .. -------·--2000 Census Population Counts Washtenaw County Total Population 1990 2000 Percent change Pittsfield twp. Salem twp. Saline twp. Saline Sharon twp. Scio twp. Superior twp. Sylvan twp. 282,937 322,895 14% 17,668 30,167 71% 3,734 5,562 49% 6,660 8,034 21% 1,276 1,302 2% 9,580 13,421 40% 1,366 1,678 23% 8,720 10,740 23% 2,055 2,027 -1% 13% 7% 3% 15% 11% 4% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 0% 5% 4% 2% 1% 0% 3% 32% 3% 2% 1% 1% 1% Count of Population by Race One Race Category Checked White Black American Indian Asian Some other race 314,602 249,916 39,697 1,161 20,338 3,364 29,198 21,229 4,311 132 3,005 507 5,480 74 10 38 20 7,945 7,688 45 26 156 26 1,290 1,272 9 0 9 0 13,149 11,851 641 36 559 57 1,663 1,622 7 3 2 28 10,453 6,767 3,309 51 247 76 2,003 1,971 12 8 12 0 Two-Six Categories Checked White and Black Other combination 8,293 1,988 6,305 969 188 781 82 25 57 89 13 76 12 0 12 272 69 203 15 3 12 287 92 195 24 3 21 71,288 251,607 22% 7,228 22,939 24% 1,503 4,059 27% 2,297 5,737 29% 335 967 26% 3,661 9,760 27% 436 1,242 26% 3,106 7,634 29% 544 1,483 27% Major Race/Ethnic Groups* Percent Black Percent Asian Percent Hispanic Population by Age Under18 18 and older Percent under 18 5,338 *Includes all persons marking this category, regardless of whether other categories were marked as well. Prepared by Southeast Michigan Census Council; source 2000 Census PL94-171 Redistricting File Washtenaw County, page 3 �2000 Census Population Counts Washtenaw County Total Population 1990 2000 Percent change Webster twp. York twp. Ypsilanti Ypsilanti twp. 282,937 322,895 14% 3,235 5,198 61% 6,225 7,392 19% 24,846 22,362 -10% 45,307 49,182 9% 13% 7% 3% 1% 1% 1% 13% 1% 4% 33% 4% 2% 27% 3% 3% Count of Population by Race One Race Category Checked White Black American Indian Asian Some other race 314,602 249,916 39,697 1,161 20,338 3,364 5,158 5,052 32 16 45 13 7,290 6,191 940 19 77 62 21,689 13,731 6,838 98 712 295 47,560 33,202 12,525 239 988 590 Two-Six Categories Checked White and Black Other combination 8,293 1,988 6,305 40 7 33 102 4 98 673 241 432 1,622 497 1,125 71,288 251,607 22% 1,586 3,612 31% 1,666 5,726 23% 3,558 18,804 16% 12,933 36,249 26% Major Race/Ethnic Groups* Percent Black Percent Asian Percent Hispanic Population by Age Under18 18 and older Percent under 18 *Includes all persons marking this category, regardless of whether other categories were marked as well. Prepared by Southeast Michigan Census Council; source 2000 Census PL94-171 Redistricting File Washtenaw County, page 4 l �Wayne County SE PT. WOODS. rosse Pt. Shores NORTHVILLE LIVONIA PLYMOUTH HIGHLAND P A ~ DETROIT ~MTRAMCK PLYMout} WESTLAND ~ CANTON WAYNE VANBUREN ROMULUS BELl~.LE SUMPTER HURON - �2000 Census Population Counts Wayne County Total Population 1990 2000 Percent change Allen Park Belleville Brownstown twp. Canton twp. Dearborn Dearborn Heights Detroit Ecorse 2,111,687 2,061,162 -2% 31,092 29,376 -6% 3,270 3,997 22% 18,811 22,989 22% 57,040 76,366 34% 89,286 97,775 10% 60,838 58,264 -4% 1,027,974 951,270 -7% 12,180 11,229 -8% 43% 2% 4% 1% 1% 5% 9% 2% 3% 4% 4% . 4% 5% 10% 2% 1% 3% 3% 2% 3% 3% 83% 1% 5% 42% 0% 9% Count of Population by Race One Race Category Checked White Black American Indian Asian Some other race 2,009,893 1,065,607 868,992 7,627 35,141 32,020 29,002 28,083 214 106 238 354 3,915 3,499 315 16 47 38 22,540 20,464 878 121 880 197 74,905 64,045 3,466 224 6,664 489 88,602 84,931 1,248 258 1,441 710 56,627 53,395 1,236 216 1,306 470 929,229 116,599 775,772 3,140 9,268 24,199 10,887 5,859 4,555 73 21 377 Two-Six Categories Checked White and Black Other combination 51,269 7,833 43,436 374 22 352 82 23 59 449 78 371 1,461 231 1,230 9,173 123 9,050 1,637 83 1,554 22,041 4,532 17,509 342 64 278 577,680 1,483,482 28% 6,509 22,867 22% 877 3,120 22% 6,594 16,395 29% 22,170 54,196 29% 27,209 70,566 28% 13,130 45,134 23% 295,709 655,561 31% 3,125 8,104 28% Major Race/Ethnic Groups* Percent Black Percent Asian Percent Hispanic Population by Age Under18 18 and older Percent under 18 *Includes all persons marking this category, regardless of whether other categories were marked as well. Prepared by Southeast Michigan Census Council; source 2000 Census PL94-171 Redistricting File Wayne County, page 1 �2000 Census Population Counts Wayne County Flat Rock Garden City Gibraltar Grosse lie Grosse Pointe twp. Total Population 1990 2000 Percent change Grosse Pointe Farms Grosse Pointe Park Grosse Pointe Shores 2,111,687 2,061,162 -2% 7,290 8,488 16% 31,846 30,047 -6% 4,297 4,264 -1% 9,781 10,894 11% 5,681 5,670 0% 10,092 9,764 -3% 12,857 12,443 -3% 2,850 2,743 -4% 43% 2% 4% 2% 1% 3% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 0% 3% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 4% 2% 2% 1% 4% 2% Count of Population by Race One Race Category Checked White Black American Indian Asian Some other race 2,009,893 1,065,607 868,992 7,627 35,141 32,020 8,348 8,091 121 42 40 54 29,664 28,904 332 120 215 91 4,203 4,125 22 14 17 25 10,785 10,374 39 37 299 32 5,636 5,510 45 4 59 17 9,723 9,528 63 11 110 11 12,197 11,507 367 44 226 49 2,719 2,577 16 5 109 12 Two-Six Categories Checked White and Black Other combination 51,269 7,833 43,436 140 13 127 383 39 344 61 3 58 109 4 105 34 1 33 41 4 37 246 47 199 24 0 24 577,680 1,483,482 28% 2,483 6,005 29% 7,549 22,498 25% 1,001 3,263 23% 2,711 8,183 25% 1,439 4,231 25% 2,587 7,177 26% 3,420 9,023 27% 636 2,107 23% Major Race/Ethnic Groups* Percent Black Percent Asian Percent Hispanic Population by Age Under18 18 and older Percent under 18 *Includes all persons marking this category, regardless of whether other categories were marked as well. Prepared by Southeast Michigan Census Council; source 2000 Census PL94-171 Redistricting File Wayne County, page 2 �2000 Census Population Counts Wayne County Total Population 1990 2000 Percent change Grosse Pointe Woods Hamtramck Harper Woods Highland Park Huron twp. Inkster Lincoln Park Livonia 2,111,687 2,061,162 -2% 17,715 17,080 -4% 18,372 22,976 25% 14,903 14,254 -4% 20,121 16,746 -17% 10,447 13,737 31% 30,772 30,115 -2% 41,832 40,008 -4% 100,850 100,545 0% 43% 2% 4% 1% 2% 1% 16% 13% 1% 11% 2% 2% 95% 0% 1% 1% 1% 3% 70% 4% 2% 2% 1% 6% 1% 2% 2% Count of Population by Race One Race Category Checked White Black American Indian Asian Some other race 2,009,893 1,065,607 868,992 7,627 35,141 32,020 16,941 16,448 108 11 355 19 20,245 14,007 3,473 98 2,382 262 14,056 12,247 1,460 48 243 57 16,467 688 15,648 45 41 42 13,540 13,182 148 88 49 72 29,283 7,571 20,330 124 1,031 224 39,283 37,312 824 213 204 728 99,432 95,975 951 223 1,951 318 Two-Six Categories Checked White and Black Other combination 51,269 7,833 43,436 139 15 124 2,731 118 2,613 198 52 146 279 74 205 197 18 179 832 317 515 725 97 628 1,113 119 994 577,680 1,483,482 28% 4,460 12,620 26% 6,376 16,600 28% 3,193 11,061 22% 4,867 11,879 29% 3,905 9,832 28% 8,986 9,732 21,129 . 30,276 24% 30% - _..,, 23,958 76,587 24% Major Race/Ethnic Groups* Percent Black Percent Asian Percent Hispanic Population by Age Under18 18 and older Percent under 18 *Includes all persons marking this category, regardless of whether other categories were marked as well. Prepared by Southeast Michigan Census Council; source 2000 Census PL94-171 Redistricting File Wayne County, page 3 �II -- - 2000 Census Population Counts Wayne County Total Population 1990 2000 Percent change Melvindale Northville (pt.) Northville twp. Plymouth Plymouth twp. Redford twp. River Rouge Riverview 2,111,687 2,061,162 -2% 11,216 10,735 -4% 2,859 3,107 9% 17,313 21,036 22% 9,560 9,022 -6% 23,648 27,798 18% 54,387 51,622 -5% 11,314 9,917 -12% 13,894 13,272 -4% 43% 2% 4% 6% 2% 9% 0% 2% 2% 5% 5% 2% 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 2% 9% 1% 2% 43% 0% 5% 2% 2% 2% Count of Population by Race One Race Category Checked White Black American Indian Asian Some other race 2,009,893 1,065,607 868,992 7,627 35,141 32,020 10,426 9,382 565 80 138 257 3,082 2,999 11 6 39 26 20,772 18,787 923 58 905 92 8,910 8,699 51 32 95 27 27,451 25,680 822 76 759 110 50,747 45,418 4,410 222 392 295 9,639 5,214 4,166 77 16 162 13,123 12,497 276 57 249 42 Two-Six Categories Checked White and Black Other combination 51,269 7,833 43,436 309 35 274 25 2 23 264 32 232 112 7 105 347 38 309 875 199 676 278 88 190 149 28 121 577,680 1,483,482 28% 2,621 8,114 24% 661 2,446 21% 4,499 16,537 21% 1,690 7,332 19% 6,295 21,503 23% 13,078 38,544 25% 3,094 6,823 31% 2,833 10,439 21% Major Race/Ethnic Groups* Percent Black Percent Asian Percent Hispanic Population by Age Under18 18 and older Percent under 18 *Includes all persons marking this category, regardless of whether other categories were marked as well. Prepared by Southeast Michigan Census Council; source 2000 Census PL94-171 Redistricting File Wayne County, page 4 �2000 Census Population Counts Wayne County Total Population 1990 2000 Percent change Rockwood Romulus Southgate Sumpter twp. Taylor Trenton Van Buren twp. Wayne -2% 3,141 3,442 10% 22,897 22,979 0% 30,771 30,136 -2% 10,891 11,856 9% 70,811 65,868 -7% 20,586 19,584 -5% 21,010 23,559 12% 19,899 19,051 -4% 43% 2% 4% 1% 1% 3% 32% 1% 2% 2% 2% 4% 13% 0% 2% 10% 2% 3% 1% 1% 2% 13% 2% 2% 12% 2% 2% Count of Population by Race One Race Category Checked White Black American Indian Asian Some other race 2,009,893 1,065,607 868,992 7,627 35,141 32,020 3,402 3,292 22 34 21 33 22,374 15,019 6,891 124 135 185 29,781 28,224 635 151 502 256 11,644 10,040 1,462 62 21 59 64,527 56,731 5,763 448 1,072 492 19,337 18,981 73 81 152 45 23,002 19,468 2,835 128 440 121 18,705 16,072 2,151 117 275 82 Two-Six Categories Checked White and Black Other combination 51,269 7,833 43,436 40 5 35 605 230 375 355 46 309 212 54 158 1,341 323 1,018 247 27 220 557 165 392 346 70 276 577,680 1,483,482 28% 850 2,592 25% 6,711 16,268 29% 6,484 23,652 22% 3,528 8,328 30% 17,910 47,958 27% 4,559 15,025 23% 5,633 17,926 24% 5,028 14,023 26% Major Race/Ethnic Groups* Percent Black Percent Asian Percent Hispanic Population by Age Under18 18 and older Percent under 18 2,111,687 2,061,162 *Includes all persons marking this category, regardless of whether other categories were marked as well. Prepared by Southeast Michigan Census Council; source 2000 Census PL94-171 Redistricting File Wayne County, page 5 �===============-, 2000 Census Population Counts Wayne County Total Population 1990 2000 Percent change Westland Woodhaven Wyandotte 2,111,687 2,061,162 -2% 84,724 86,602 2% 11,631 12,530 8% 30,938 28,006 -9% 43% 2% 4% 7% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3% 1% 1% 3% Count of Population by Race One Race Category Checked White Black American Indian Asian Some other race 2,009,893 1,065,607 868,992 7,627 35,141 32,020 84,837 75,527 5,867 396 2,437 582 12,345 11,680 292 61 205 105 27,560 26,976 146 136 92 202 Two-Six Categories Checked White and Black Other combination 51,269 7,833 43,436 1,765 335 1,430 185 20 165 446 52 394 577,680 1,483,482 28% 20,157 66,445 23% 3,080 9,450 25% 6,343 21,663 23% Major Race/Ethnic Groups* Percent Black Percent Asian Percent Hispanic Population by Age Under18 18 and older Percent under 18 *Includes all persons marking this category, regardless of whether other categories were marked as well. Prepared by Southeast Michigan Census Council; source 2000 Census PL94-171 Redistricting File Wayne County, page 6 �Q Montrose City Montro1e Twp Fluahlng Twp I Cllo co I Thetford Twp I Forest Twp Gene11N Twp I Rlchfleld Twp I Vienna Twp Mount Morrl1 City I -, Mount Morris Twp [J~ Flint City Clayton Twp Davison Twp Onnllllnc~ Gaines Twp Mundy Twp City ~ Atlaa Twp Grand Blanc Twp Fenton Twp Argentine Twp ~ Genesee County Ftnton City ~ - - -~ ___._ 112 .. ... �---- - - - - - - - - - -----2000 Census Population Counts Genesee County Total Population 1990 2000 Percent change 11111 Argentine twp. Goodrich Burton city Atlas twp. Clayton twp. Davison Clio Davison twp. Fenton 430,459 436,141 1% 4,651 6,521 40% 4,635 5,904 27% 916 1,353 48% 27,617 30,308 10% 7,368 7,546 2% 2,629 2,483 -6% 5,693 5,536 -3% 14,671 17,722 21% 8,444 10,582 25% 21% 1% 2% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 4% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 0% 2% 1% 0% 2% 3% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% Count of Population by Race One Race Category Checked White Black American Indian Asian Some other race 426,622 328,350 88,843 2,414 3,515 3,408 6,442 6,339 15 55 12 16 5,844 5,747 21 21 29 17 1,347 1,333 3 2 8 1 29,691 27,910 1,075 230 224 244 7,422 7,198 85 38 58 43 2,423 2,371 12 15 4 20 5,445 5,340 28 32 20 24 17,387 16,712 364 65 155 90 10,459 10,185 63 41 100 70 Two-Six Categories Checked White and Black Other combination 9,519 2,193 7,326 79 5 74 60 7 53 6 1 5 617 110 507 124 16 108 60 6 54 91 16 75 335 57 278 123 22 101 119,601 316,540 27% 1,937 4,584 30% 1,754 4,150 30% 400 953 30% 8,307 22,001 27% 2,013 5,533 27% 602 1,881 24% 1,350 4,186 24% 4,321 13,401 24% 2,685 7,897 25% Major Race/Ethnic Groups* Percent Black Percent Asian Percent Hispanic Population by Age Under 18 18 and older Percent under 18 *Includes all persons marking this category, regardless of wheter other categories were marked as well. Prepared by the Southeast Michigan Census Council; source: 2000 Census PL94-171 Redistricting File Genesee County, page 1 �I 2000 Census Population Counts Genesee County Total Population 1990 2000 Percent change Fenton twp. Flint Flint twp. Flushing Flushing twp. Forest twp. Otisville Gaines twp. Gaines 430,459 436,141 1% 10,055 12,968 29% 140,761 124,943 -11% 34,081 33,691 -1% 8,542 8,348 -2% 9,223 10,230 11% 3,685 3,856 5% 724 882 22% 5,391 6,491 20% 427 366 -14% 21% 1% 2% 0% 1% 1% 55% 1% 3% 17% 3% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 2% 1% 1% 1% 3% 1% 2% Count of Population by Race One Race Category Checked White Black American Indian Asian Some other race 426,622 328,350 88,843 2,414 3,515 3,408 12,819 12,582 36 53 100 44 121,018 51,710 66,560 798 547 1,384 32,833 26,200 5,430 205 740 252 8,243 8,096 53 27 33 31 10,101 9,813 112 47 59 60 3,812 3,761 8 12 10 21 867 848 9 4 0 5 6,394 6,291 22 26 23 31 357 343 Two-Six Categories Checked White and Black Other combination 9,519 2,193 7,326 149 16 133 3,925 1,221 2,704 858 163 695 105 11 94 129 19 110 44 11 33 15 0 15 97 10 87 9 3 6 119,601 316,540 27% 3,264 9,704 25% 38,241 86,702 31% 8,230 25,461 24% 1,920 6,428 23% 2,740 7,490 27% 961 2,895 25% 242 640 27% 1,717 4,774 26% 103 263 28% Major Race/Ethnic Groups* Percent Black Percent Asian Percent Hispanic Population by Age Under18 18 and older Percent under 18 7 0 2 5 " *Includes all persons marking this category, regardless of wheter other categories were marked as well. Prepared by the Southeast Michigan Census Council; source: 2000 Census PL94-171 Redistricting File -- . Genesee_C_ounty. oa~e 2 .- ·1111111 11111ft 1111111 _ �- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ........ ....._ 2000 Census Population Counts Genesee County Total Population 1990 2000 Percent change Genesee twp. Grand Blanc Grand Blanc twp. Linden city Montrose Montrose twp. Mount Morris Mount Morris twp. Mundy twp. 430,459 436,141 1% 24,093 24,125 0% 7,760 8,242 6% 25,392 29,827 17% 2,415 2,861 18% 1,811 1,619 -11% 5,809 5,970 3% 3,292 3,194 -3% 25,198 23,725 -6% 11,511 12,191 6% 21% 1% 2% 9% 0% 3% 6% 4% 2% 7% 3% 2% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 2% 2% 0% 2% 3% 1% 2% 42% 0% 3% 2% 1% 2% Count of Population by Race One Race Category Checked White Black American Indian Asian Some other race 426,622 328,350 88,843 2,414 3,515 3,408 23,613 21,206 1,973 161 72 198 8,097 7,349 413 22 265 48 29,336 26,285 1,998 115 749 182 2,838 2,799 2 14 13 1,595 1,576 2 10 2 5 5,910 5,723 105 50 1 31 22,982 12,940 9,526 148 61 298 12,062 11,708 172 27 100 54 Two-Six Categories Checked White and Black Other combination 9,519 2,193 7,326 512 98 414 145 22 123 491 87 404 23 1 22 24 2 22 60 7 53 68 7 61 743 203 540 129 12 117 119,601 316,540 27% 6,697 17,428 28% 2,027 6,215 25% 7,611 22,216 26% 714 2,147 25% 447 1,172 28% 1,741 4,229 29% 892 2,302 28% 7,140 16,585 30% 2,769 9,422 23% Major Race/Ethnic Groups* Percent Black Percent Asian Percent Hispanic Population by Age Under18 18 and older Percent under 18 10 3,126 2,975 98 19 13 20 . *Includes all persons marking this category, regardless of wheter other categories were marked as well. Prepared by the Southeast Michigan Census Council; source: 2000 Census PL94-171 Redistricting File Genesee County, page 3 �2000 Census Population Counts Genesee County Total Population 1990 2000 Percent change Richfield twp. Swartz Creek Thetford Vienna twp. twp. 430,459 436,141 1% 7,271 8,170 12% 4,851 5,102 5% 8,333 8,277 -1% 13,210 13,108 -1% 21% 1% 2% 3% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 3% 0% 2% 1% 1% 2% Count of Population by Race One Race Category Checked White Black American Indian Asian Some other race 426,622 328,350 88,843 2,414 3,515 3,408 8,015 7,723 201 39 17 35 5,024 '4,889 62 18 32 22 8,175 7,815 241 57 20 42 12,945 12,583 147 67 45 102 Two-Six Categories Checked White and Black Other combination 9,519 2,193 7,326 155 13 142 78 9 69 102 14 88 163 24 139 119,601 316,540 27% 2,164 6,006 26% 1,137 3,965 22% 2,223 6,054 27% 3,252 9,856 25% Major Race/Ethnic Groups* Percent Black Percent Asian Percent Hispanic Population by Age Under18 18 and older Percent under 18 - - - - .... ~--- ___ - - *Includes all persons marking this category, regardless ofwheter other categories were marked as well. Prepared by the Southeast Michigan Census Council; source: 2000 Census PL94-171 Redistricting File _... - r,t:11nt:11coo ,--,.., , ... , .. - - - - ~ �-~~--,_.,_.,_.,_.,-.,a.,-. ~~,. Printed by: Oakland County Planning and Economic Development Services 1200 N. Telegraph Road Pontiac Ml 48341 (248) 858-0720 www.co.oakland.mi.us � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Wyckoff Planning and Zoning Collection Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Planning & Zoning Center (Lansing, Mich.) (Organization) Wyckoff, Mark A. Description An account of the resource Municipal master plans and zoning ordinances from across the state of Michigan, spanning from the 1960s to the early 2020s. The bulk of the collection was compiled by urban planner Mark Wyckoff over the course of his career as the founder and principal planner of the Planning and Zoning Center in Lansing, Michigan. Some additions have been made to the collection by municipalities since it was transferred to Grand Valley State University. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Michigan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1960/2023 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Subject The topic of the resource Michigan Comprehensive plan publications Master plan reports Zoning--Michigan Zoning--Maps Maps Land use--planning Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-240 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Detroit_Census-Population-Counts_2001 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Southeast Michigan Census Council Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2001-04 Title A name given to the resource 2000 Census Population Counts by Race/Ethnicity and Age in Southeast Michigan Description An account of the resource The 2000 Census Population Counts by Race/Ethnicity and Age in Southeast Michigan report was prepared by the Southeast Michigan Census Council in April 2001. Subject The topic of the resource Census--Statistics Detroit, Michigan Wayne County (Mich.) Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/3a5e646010ee8aac1885d3fc560399f0.pdf ce47bfa39e4afe0129adbd8e73146804 PDF Text Text 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan Public Hearing Date: 12.1.2021 Adopted by the Manistee Township Planning Commission: 12.1.2021 Adopted by the Manistee Township Board 12.9.2021 A Manistee Township �PLANNING COMMISSION TOWNSHIP OF MANISTEE MANISTEE COUNTY RESOLUTION 2021-01PC At a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of Manistee Township, held on the 1st day of December 2021, at the Manistee Township Hall, 410 Holden Street, Manistee, MI, 49660 Present: Charlie Schoedel, Ed Seng, John Dontz, Jack Dinsen, Duane Anderson Absent: Richard Edmondson, Mike Willett The following preamble and resolution were offered by John Dontz, and supported by Ed Seng: TOWNSHIP OF MANISTEE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION TO RECOMMEND THE ADOPTION OF THE 2020 MANISTEE TOWNSHIP MASTER PLAN WHEREAS, the Michigan Planning Enabling Act (MPEA), 2008 PA 33, MCL 125.3801, et seq., requires municipal planning commissions to prepare a “master plan” pertinent to the future development of the municipality; and WHEREAS, the Manistee Township Planning Commission (the “Planning Commission”), in collaboration with the Manistee County Planning Department, has prepared a draft master plan for the Township of Manistee, titled “2020 Manistee Township Master Plan,” to update and replace its previous Master plan, dated 2001; and WHEREAS, at a regular meeting of the Manistee Township Board held on September 9, 2021, the Township Board approved the distribution of the draft 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan to the applicable entities as required by Section 41(2) of the MPEA, MCL 125.3841(2), for review and comment purposes; and WHEREAS, the proposed 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan was made available to the general public, and was distributed to the applicable entities as required by Section 41(2) of the MPEA, MCL 125.3841(2), and a public hearing was held thereon by the Planning Commission on December 1, 2021, properly noticed in accordance with the MPEA; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the proposed 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan as submitted for the public hearing is desirable and proper, and furthers the land use and development goals and strategies of the Township; and WHEREAS, the Township’s adoption of the proposed 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan requires the approval of the Planning Commission by resolution carried by the affirmative votes of not less than a majority of the members of the Planning Commission; and 02958774 1 �WHEREAS, the Manistee Township Board has adopted a resolution asserting the right of the Township Board to approve or reject the proposed 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan following approval of the proposed Master Plan by the Planning Commission; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Manistee Township Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Manistee Township Board the adoption of the 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan as submitted for the public hearing held on December 1, 2021, with edits, if any, subsequently identified by the Planning Commission, including all the text, charts, tables, maps, and descriptive and other matter therein intended by the Planning Commission to form the complete Master Plan, including the Future Land Use Map. AYES: Charlie Schoedel, John Dontz, Ed Seng, Duane Anderson, Jack Dinsen NAYS: None ABSENT: Richard Edmondson, Mike Willett RESOLUTION DECLARED ADOPTED. /s/ J. Dinsen Jack Dinsen, Appointed Temporary Secretary Manistee Township Planning Commission CERTIFICATION I, Jack Dinsen, being appointed the Temporary Secretary at the, and for the 12.01.2021 Planning Commission Meeting, in the absence of Mike Willett, Secretary, of the Manistee Township Planning Commission, certify that the above is a true and accurate copy of the resolution adopted by the Manistee Planning Commission at the regular meeting on the 1st day of December, 2021. /s/ J. Dinsen Jack Dinsen, Appointed Temporary Secretary Manistee Township Planning Commission 02958774 1 �Township of Manistee County of Manistee, Michigan Resolution No. 2021-18 Township Board Resolution to Adopt Master Plan WHEREAS, the Michigan Planning Enabling Act (MPEA) authorizes the Planning Commission to prepare a Master Plan for the use, development and preservation of all lands in the Township; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission prepared a proposed updated Master Plan and submitted the plan to the Township Board for review and comment; and WHEREAS, on September 9, 2021, the Manistee Township Board received and reviewed the proposed Master Plan prepared by the Planning Commission and authorized distribution of the Master Plan to the Notice Group entities in the MPEA; and WHEREAS, notice was provided to the Notice Group entities in the MPEA; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 1, 2021 to consider public comment on the proposed updated Master Plan, and to further review and comment on the proposed updated Master Plan; and WHEREAS, the Township Board finds the proposed updated Master Plan is desirable and proper and furthers the use, preservation, and developmental goals and strategies of the Township; WHEREAS, the MPEA authorizes the Township Board to assert by resolution its right to approve or reject the proposed Master Plan; THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Adoption of 2020 Master Plan. The Township Board hereby approves and adopts the proposed 2020 Master Plan, including all of the chapters, figures, maps and tables contained therein. Pursuant to MCL 125.3843 the Township Board has asserted by resolution its right to approve or reject the proposed Master Plan and therefore the approval granted herein is the final step for adoption of the plan as provided in MCL 125.3843 and therefore the plan is effective as of December 9, 2021. 2. Distribution to Notice Group. The Township Board approves distribution of the adopted plan to the Notice Group. 3. Findings of Fact. The Township Board has made the foregoing determination based on a review of existing land uses in the Township, a review of the existing Master Plan provisions and maps, input received from the Planning Commission and public hearing, and with the assistance of a professional planning group, finds that the updated Master Plan will accurately reflect and implement the Township’s goals and strategies for the use, preservation, and development of lands in Manistee Township. 4. Effective Date. The Master Plan shall be effective as of the date of adoption of this resolution. It was moved by Mr. Finout and supported by Ms. Jankwietz that the resolution be adopted. Upon a roll call vote, the following voted: Voting in Favor: Dontz, Finout, Jankwietz, Taylor, Bjorkquist Voting Against: None Absent: None The Supervisor declared the resolution adopted. I, the undersigned, the Clerk of the Township of Manistee, Manistee County, Michigan, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the duly adopted resolution adopted at the regular meeting of the Manistee Township Board, and a true and correct copy is included in the December 9, 2021 Manistee Township Board Minutes. /s/ Dianne Taylor Manistee Township Clerk �Table of Contents Table of contents........................................................................................................................................3 Forward......................................................................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1: Introduction & Methodology .................................................................................................................9 1.1: Regional Context ............................................................................................................................. 9 1.2 Township History .............................................................................................................................. 9 1.3. Local Plans...................................................................................................................................................9 2: Existing Conditions Inventory..................................................................................... 12 2.1: Current Land Uses...........................................................................................................................12 2.1.1: Residential & Housing.............................................................................................................................12 2.1.2: Commercial, Retail Trade & Office...........................................................................................................12 2.1.3: Industrial & Manufacturing.....................................................................................................................12 2.1.4: Agriculture & Forestry..............................................................................................................................12 2.1.5: Recreation Open Space.............................................................................................................................14 2.1.6: Existing Zoning ........................................................................................................................................14 2.1.7: Natural Features ......................................................................................................................................14 2.2: Infrastructure, Employers and Community Services.....................................................................16 2.2.1: Transportation .........................................................................................................................................16 2.2.2: County Drainage Districts........................................................................................................................18 2.2.3: Sewer & Water Infrastructure................................................................................................................. 20 2.2.4: Employers and Business......................................................................................................................... 20 2.2.5: Public Services and Institutions ............................................................................................................. 20 3: Socio-Economic Profile................................................................................................ 22 3.1: Population....................................................................................................................................... 22 3.1.1: Manistee Township Age Trend.................................................................................................................22 (2000-2017)........................................................................................................................................................22 3.1.2: 2017 Population by Age............................................................................................................................22 3.1.3: Manistee Township Population Trend.....................................................................................................23 3.2: Employment, Income & Earnings:................................................................................................. 23 3.2.1: Industrial Employment:...........................................................................................................................23 3.2.2: Employment Income............................................................................................................................... 24 3.2.3: Households with Earnings (past 12 months)......................................................................................... 24 3.2.4: Wage or Salary Income (past 12 months)............................................................................................... 24 3.2.5: Social Security Income (past 12 months) ............................................................................................... 24 3.2.6: Retirement Income (past 12 months)......................................................................................................25 3.2.7: Median Income ........................................................................................................................................25 (Families & Children Status)..............................................................................................................................25 3.2.8: Median Income (Households & Householder Age)................................................................................25 3.3: Housing & Housing Costs:............................................................................................................. 26 3.3.1: Occupied Housing Units (Renter Vs. Owner)......................................................................................... 26 3.3.2: Occupancy Status Housing Units........................................................................................................... 26 3.3.3: Household Size (Renter vs. Owner).........................................................................................................27 3.3.4: Monthly Housing Costs (occupied units)................................................................................................27 3.3.5: Median Monthly Housing Costs..............................................................................................................27 3.4: Education:........................................................................................................................................27 3.4.1: Educational Attainment of Householder.................................................................................................27 3.4.2: Educational Attainment (18-24 Years Old) ........................................................................................... 28 3.4.3: Educational Attainment (25 Years & Older).......................................................................................... 28 3.5: Households & Families:.................................................................................................................. 29 3.5.1: Household Family Characteristics.......................................................................................................... 29 3.5.2: Average Household Size.......................................................................................................................... 29 3.6: Poverty Levels:................................................................................................................................ 29 3.6.1: Population Below Poverty Level ............................................................................................................. 29 3 �3.6.2: Families Percent Below Poverty Level.................................................................................................... 30 3.7: Transportation and Work Commute:............................................................................................. 30 3.7.1: Means of Transportation to Work........................................................................................................... 30 3.7.2: Travel Time to Work............................................................................................................................... 30 3.7.3: Place of Work (State/County)..................................................................................................................31 3.7.4: Place of Work (Township)........................................................................................................................31 4: Public Input................................................................................................................. 32 4.1: Here's what residents said they WANT to see in Manistee Township.......................................... 32 4.2: Here's what residents said they DO NOT want to see in their Township..................................... 33 5: Future Land Use Analysis (Cause and Actions)........................................................... 34 5.1: Natural Resources Actions ............................................................................................................ 34 5.1.1: Shoreline Erosion......................................................................................................................................34 5.1.2: Wetlands...................................................................................................................................................34 5.1.3: Steep Slopes..............................................................................................................................................34 5.1.4: Waterway Buffers......................................................................................................................................34 5.1.5: Floodplains................................................................................................................................................34 5.2: Transportation Actions .................................................................................................................. 35 5.2.1: Primary Trunk-line/Highway Accessibility.............................................................................................35 5.2.2: Appropriate Consideration of Inclusion of Multi-Modal Transportation..............................................35 5.2.3: Incorporation of Multi-Modal Transportation........................................................................................36 5.2.4: Participate/Inclusion in Transportation Planning Efforts......................................................................36 5.3: Airport Actions............................................................................................................................... 36 5.3.1: Airport Overlay Zone Consideration........................................................................................................36 5.3.2: Appropriate Uses & Densities in Airport Overlay...................................................................................37 5.4: Infrastructure Actions.....................................................................................................................37 5.4.1: County Drains & Drainage Districts.........................................................................................................37 5.4.2: Stormwater Management........................................................................................................................37 5.4.3: Water and Sewer Agreements.................................................................................................................37 5.5: Energy and Extraction Actions.......................................................................................................37 5.5.1: Gas and Oil Extraction.............................................................................................................................37 5.5.2: Solar Thermal Energy ............................................................................................................................ 38 5.6: Civic and Governmental Actions.................................................................................................... 38 5.6.1: Community Certification and Promotion............................................................................................... 38 5.6.2: Collaboration........................................................................................................................................... 38 5.7: Housing Actions............................................................................................................................. 38 5.8: Land Uses Category Actions........................................................................................................... 38 5.8.1: Public Land and Public Open Space Actions:......................................................................................... 38 5.8.2: Agricultural and Forestry Actions:..........................................................................................................39 5.8.3: Residential Actions................................................................................................................................. 40 5.8.4: Mixed Use Actions.................................................................................................................................. 40 5.8.5: Commercial Actions................................................................................................................................ 40 5.8.6: Industrial Actions.....................................................................................................................................41 6: Future Land Use Plan................................................................................................... 42 6.1: Forest Recreation and Open Space ................................................................................................ 42 6.1.1: Deductive Reasoning: ............................................................................................................................ 42 6.1.2: District Description:................................................................................................................................ 42 6.1.3: Recommended Bulk Requirements:........................................................................................................43 6.2.4: Recommended Uses:................................................................................................................................43 6.2: Agriculture and Forest Preservation District (AFP)...................................................................... 43 6.2.1: Deductive Reasoning: .............................................................................................................................43 6.2.2: District Description: ...............................................................................................................................43 6.2.3: Recommended Bulk Requirements:........................................................................................................43 6.2.4: Recommended Uses:............................................................................................................................... 44 6.3: Commercial District (C-1).............................................................................................................. 44 4 �6.3.1: Deductive Reasoning: ............................................................................................................................ 44 6.3.2: District Description: .............................................................................................................................. 44 6.3.3: Recommended Bulk Requirements:....................................................................................................... 44 6.3.4: Recommended Uses:............................................................................................................................... 44 6.4: Mixed Use District (M-1)................................................................................................................ 45 6.4.1: Deductive Reasoning: .............................................................................................................................45 6.4.2: District Description: ...............................................................................................................................45 6.4.3: Recommended Bulk Requirements:........................................................................................................45 6.4.4: Recommended Uses:................................................................................................................................45 6.5: Industrial District (I-1)................................................................................................................... 45 6.5.1: Deductive Reasoning: .............................................................................................................................45 6.5.2: District Description: .............................................................................................................................. 46 6.5.3: Recommended Bulk Requirements:....................................................................................................... 46 6.5.4: Recommended Uses:............................................................................................................................... 46 6.6: High Density Residential (R-1)...................................................................................................... 46 6.6.1: Deductive Reasoning: ............................................................................................................................. 46 6.6.2: District Description: ...............................................................................................................................47 6.6.3: Recommended Bulk Requirements:........................................................................................................47 6.6.4: Recommended Uses:................................................................................................................................47 6.7: Medium Density Residential (R-2).................................................................................................47 6.7.1: Deductive Reasoning: .............................................................................................................................47 6.7.2: District Description: ...............................................................................................................................47 6.7.3: Recommended Bulk Requirements:....................................................................................................... 48 6.7.4: Recommended Uses:............................................................................................................................... 48 6.8: Country Residential and Rural Mixed Use (R-3).......................................................................... 48 6.8.1: Deductive Reasoning: ............................................................................................................................ 48 6.8.2: District Description: .............................................................................................................................. 48 6.8.3: Recommended Bulk Requirements:....................................................................................................... 48 6.8.4: Recommended Uses:.............................................................................................................................. 49 6.9: Airport Overlay District (AO)......................................................................................................... 49 6.9.1: Deductive Reasoning: ............................................................................................................................. 49 6.9.2: District Description:................................................................................................................................ 49 6.11: Wetland Overlay District (WO)..................................................................................................... 50 6.11.1: Deductive Reasoning: ........................................................................................................................... 50 6.11.2: District Description: ............................................................................................................................. 50 7: Future Land Use Map................................................................................................... 51 8: Zoning Plan & Matrix................................................................................................... 52 8.1: Zoning Plan Elements.................................................................................................................... 52 Stormwater.........................................................................................................................................................52 Buffering (Uses)..................................................................................................................................................52 Buffering (Water Protection).............................................................................................................................52 Signage................................................................................................................................................................52 Landscaping........................................................................................................................................................52 Parking................................................................................................................................................................52 Sidewalks............................................................................................................................................................52 Lighting...............................................................................................................................................................52 Utility Preservation............................................................................................................................................52 Access/Connectivity...........................................................................................................................................52 8.2: Zoning Matrix................................................................................................................................ 53 Appendix A....................................................................................................................... 54 5 �Maps Map 1: Township Location......................................................................................................................... 9 Map 2: Parcel Classification/Land Use ....................................................................................................13 Map 3: Current Zoning..............................................................................................................................15 Map 4: Natural Features...........................................................................................................................17 Map 5: Transportation..............................................................................................................................19 Map 6: Infrastructure Map........................................................................................................................21 Map 7: High Risk & Areas of Concern..................................................................................................... 34 Map 8: US-31 Curb Cut Recommended Closures ................................................................................... 35 Map 9: Airport Overlay............................................................................................................................ 36 Map 10: Public Land & Open Space......................................................................................................... 42 Map 11: Agriculture & Forest Features Analysis...................................................................................... 43 Map 12: Recommended AFP Boundary................................................................................................... 43 Map 14: Recommended C-1 Boundary..................................................................................................... 44 Map 13: Commercial Features Analysis................................................................................................... 44 Map 15: Recommended M-1 Boundary.................................................................................................... 45 Map 16: Industrial Features Analysis...................................................................................................... 45 Map 17: Recommended I-1 Boundary...................................................................................................... 46 Map 18: High Density Residential Features Analysis.............................................................................. 46 Map 19: Recommended R-1 Boundary.....................................................................................................47 Map 20: Medium Density Residential Features Analysis........................................................................47 Map 21: Recommended R-2 Boundary.................................................................................................... 48 Map 22: Low Density Residential Features Analysis.............................................................................. 48 Map 23: Recommended R-3 Boundary................................................................................................... 49 Map 24: Recommended Airport Overlay................................................................................................. 49 Map 25: Wetland and Floodplain Features Analysis............................................................................... 50 Map 26: Recommended WO Boundary................................................................................................... 50 Map 27: Future Land Use..........................................................................................................................51 Tables Table 1: Current Zoning District Standards..............................................................................................14 Table 2: Zoning Matrix............................................................................................................................. 53 Diagrams Diagram 1: Roadway Sectional................................................................................................................. 36 Diagram 2: Standard Development vs. Cluster Development................................................................ 39 Graphs Graph 1: Township Age Trend.................................................................................................................. 22 Graph 2: Population by Age..................................................................................................................... 23 Graph 3: Industrial Employment............................................................................................................. 23 Graph 3: Population Trend...................................................................................................................... 23 Graph 4: Employment Income................................................................................................................. 24 Graph 5: Households with Earnings........................................................................................................ 24 Graph 6: Wage or Salary Income............................................................................................................. 24 Graph 7: Social Security Income.............................................................................................................. 25 Graph 8: Retirement Income................................................................................................................... 25 Graph 9: Median Income (Families)........................................................................................................ 25 Graph 10: Median Income (Householder Age)........................................................................................ 26 Graph 11: Occupied Housing (Renter vs. Owner).................................................................................... 26 6 �Graph 12: Occupancy Status Housing Units............................................................................................ 26 Graph 13: Household Size (Renter vs. Owner).........................................................................................27 Graph 14: Monthly Housing Costs (occupied units)................................................................................27 Graph 15: Median Monthly Housing Costs...............................................................................................27 Graph 16: Educational Attainment of Householder................................................................................ 28 Graph 17: Educational Attainment (18-24 years old) ............................................................................. 28 Graph 18: Educational Attainment (25 & older)..................................................................................... 28 Graph 19: Household Family Characteristics.......................................................................................... 29 Graph 20: Average Household Size Characteristics................................................................................ 29 Graph 21: Population Percent Below Poverty Level................................................................................ 29 Graph 22: Families Percent Below Poverty Level.................................................................................... 30 Graph 23: Means of Transportation to Work.......................................................................................... 30 Graph 24: Travel Time to Work............................................................................................................... 30 Graph 25: Place of Work (State/County)..................................................................................................31 Graph 25: Place of Work (Township).......................................................................................................31 Images Image 1: Image 2: Image 3: Image 4: Manistee Township Master Plan, 2001...................................................................................... 9 Manistee County-Wide Park & Recreation Plan, 2016.............................................................10 US-31 Corridor Enhancement Plan, 2017 ................................................................................10 US-31 Corridor Management Plan, 2004 ................................................................................10 Image 14: Bar Lake Explore the Shores Dedication ................................................................................16 Image 15: Manistee County Blacker Airport ............................................................................................16 Image 16: McGuineas Drain Repair..........................................................................................................18 Image 17: LRBOI Water Tower................................................................................................................ 20 Image 18: Rural Area................................................................................................................................ 32 Image 19: Suburban Area......................................................................................................................... 32 Image 20: Urban Area.............................................................................................................................. 32 Image 21: Expansive Parking Area........................................................................................................... 33 Image 22: Dirt Path Along Roadway........................................................................................................ 33 Image 23: No Landscaping Along Sidewalk............................................................................................ 33 Image 24: 5 Lane Roadway...................................................................................................................... 33 Image 25: Temporary Sign Board............................................................................................................ 33 Image 26: Commercial Sprawl................................................................................................................. 33 Image 27: Blacker Airport Sign.................................................................................................................37 Image 28: Meijer LID Stormwater Infrastructure....................................................................................37 Image 29: Redevelopment Ready Community Logo............................................................................... 38 Image 30: Manistee State Game Area Marsh.......................................................................................... 38 Image 31: Douglas Valley......................................................................................................................... 39 Image 32: Manistee Blacker Airport Tarmac........................................................................................... 40 Image 33: Industrial Park Entrance.........................................................................................................41 Image 34: Industrial Park Lot #9.............................................................................................................41 7 �Forward This Master Plan Process was undertaken in 2019-2021 as a full development of a new Master Plan for Manistee Township. The previous plan, dated 2001, was utilized as a baseline for the development of the scope of this plan. This plan utilizes the most current data from the US Census Bureau along with GIS data from Manistee County. The plan seeks to provide a road-map for future, orderly development within the Township. Practices and recommendations that seek to protect natural resources, promote density in areas of infrastructure, promote multi-modal transportation options, protect airport runway approaches, preserve farmland and open space while simultaneously promoting rural residential clustering, and managing traffic congestion in the areas of the US-31 corridor are contained within. Acknowledgments Manistee Township Planning Commission Duane Anderson Mike Willett John M. Dontz Ed Seng Richard Edmondson Jack D. Dinsen Charlie Schoedel Manistee Township Staff Guy Finout, Zoning Administrator Karen Clouse, Assistant Zoning Administrator Manistee County Planning Department Robert Carson, A.I.C.P, Planning Director Mike Szokola, Planner I/GIS Technician Nancy Baker, Planning Director Jessica Sorensen, Administrative Assistant This Master Plan was developed by a collaborative effort between the Manistee Township Planning Commission and the Manistee County Planning Department. Section 1: Introduction & Methodology 8 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan �1: Introduction & Methodology The Township of Manistee is creating a new Master Plan, which will define the vision of what the community wants to become and the steps necessary to meet that vision. Having an accurate understanding of the Township’s existing conditions is necessary in order to develop an appropriate and effective new Master Plan that addresses the correct issues and concerns of the community. This Master Plan incorporates several sections which provide a current snapshot of the community, a desired vision for the community and a road map of how to achieve that vision, along with actions to be taken under a future land use plan that will guide a zoning action plan. 1.1: Regional Context Manistee Township is located in Northwest, lower Michigan in the Southwest corner of Manistee County. Manistee Township is one of the fourteen townships in the County. The Village of Eastlake, overlooking Manistee Lake along it’s Eastern shore, is in Manistee Township. The township has a total area of 48.2 square miles, with 92% of that area being land and the remainder being water. The Township is a slowly growing residential community with a commercial base ripe for expansion. The township can be defined by its rolling hills, beautiful beaches, inland lakes, river bayous, farmland, public land, scenic landscapes and residential areas. (See Map 1) Lake Michigan Manistee Township City of Manistee Village of Eastlake 1.2 Township History Manistee Township was one of two other townships established in 1855 by the Michigan State Legislature when Manistee County was organized. Map 1: Location of Manistee Township in Manistee County The Southwest section of the township, along with the City of Manistee, has been the largest population center of the County for over 150 years. With the expanding lumber market in the late 1800s and early 1900s; Manistee township saw significant growth in population with census figures showcasing 3,000 residents in 1900. As the Great Depression sent shock waves throughout the country and state; a steady decline in population occurred. The next 80 years showcased a small though steady increase in the populous with a downturn in the 1980’s. The 2000 census found over 3,700 Manistee Township residents. Manistee Township Manistee Township Master Plan, 2001 The previous Township Master Plan, developed in 2001 in conjunction with Wade Trim, did an excellent job of inventorying the Township Features, obtaining public input and providing a vision for the orderly development of the community. The plan included many desired actions for the community that are supported and replicated within this planning document. These include: • Reducing Traffic Congestion and Conflicts • Improving Pedestrian and Multi-Modal Transportation • Concentrating Commercial and Industrial Uses • Improving Recreation and Park Space • Supporting Economic Development • Working cooperatively with Neighboring Jurisdictions • Protection of Open Space and Agricultural Land 9 Master Land Use Plan 2001-2021 Image 1: Manistee Township Master Plan, 2001 �Manistee County-Wide Park and Recreation Plan, 2016 Manistee County-Wide Park & Recreation Plan Manistee Township was a participant in the CountyWide Recreation Plan which was initiated in late 2014 and completed in 2016. The plan met the State of Michigan requirements for a park and recreation plan for the community, which has led to eligibility for grants through the State. This Master Plan directs the reader to the County-Wide Park and Recreation Plan for all in-depth information pertaining to public land and recreation sites. The “Manistee Lake Area Non-Motorized Trail Plan” was completed in July 2020. The Communities Contained Within This Planning Document Are: Manistee County Arcadia Township Pleasanton Township Onekama Township Onekama Village Bear Lake Township Bear Lake Village Springdale Township Cleon Township Copemish Village Maple Grove Township US-31 Corridor Enhancement Plan, 2017 Kaleva Village Marilla Township Brown Township Dickson Township Stronach Township Norman Township Manistee Township Eastlake Village City of Manistee Charter Township of Filer Plan Prepared by the Manistee County Planning Department and the Alliance for Economic Success Adopted by local municipalities January-February 2016 Adopted by Manistee County Board of Commissioners February 16th, 2016 The US-31 Corridor Plan, as it is often referred to, captured and identified improvements for the entire corridor in Manistee County. The Plan specified character zones for the corridor, with each zone defining specific designs for various sections of the corridor. The plan also outlined the need for access management standards which facilitate ease of vehicular movement and enhance safety. Aspects of the design for sections of the corridor, as well as, access improvements are captured within the Future Land Use Plan and Recommendations of this document, but the reader is encouraged to view the US-31 Corridor Plan for a complete snapshot of the corridor. 1.3.2: Regional Plans Regional Plans in the context of this section refer to the development of plans through State agencies and Regional Planning Agencies such as Networks Northwest. These plans are captured and outlined below. Image 2: Manistee County-Wide Park & Recreation Plan, 2016 2017 Manistee County US 31 Corridor Enhancement Plan ,,, l J .,... ..1 . ' Creating Crea aa Livable Corridor Through: ' -• ... -~ ACCESS..........AESTHETICS..........ACTIVITY July 2017 Image 3: US 31 Corridor Enhancement Plan, 2017 Under direction of the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), development of the US-31 Corridor Management Plan sought to inventory access and features along the corridor within the urban and suburban areas of US-31 (primarily northern Filer Township, City of Manistee and southern Manistee Township). Direct identification of driveways that should be closed or combined for access to parcels, improved road alignment, and intersection improvements are the crux of the inventory with strong recommendations for adoption of access regulations by the Township. Elements of this plan are captured within this document as they are still very relevant and in need of inclusion. US-31 Corridor Management Plan Prepared for: Filer Township City of Manistee Manistee Township Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Manistee County Road Commission Manistee County Northwest Michigan Council of Governments Michigan Department of Transportation Prepared by: Progressive AE 1811 4 Mile Road NE Grand Rapids, MI 49525-2442 616/361-2664 US-31 Corridor Management Plan US-31 Corridor Management Plan, MDOT, 2004 Regional Prosperity Initiative and Networks Northwest The State of Michigan Legislature in 2014 approved the process for the Regional Prosperity Initiative. The initiative, a voluntary grant process, is meant to encourage local private, public and non-profit partners to create vibrant regional economies. In order to be eligible for grants through the Pnigressiiieiif initiative, partnerships must be made with business, non-profit and local/ 1SL regional economic development organizations. Manistee Township is I contained within the Northwest Prosperity Region, along with the whole of Manistee County and the other nine counties comprising Northwest Image 4: US 31 Corridor Management Plan, 2004 Langworthy Strader LeBlanc, Inc. 15 Ionia, SW Suite 450 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 January 2004 Project No: 56820101/002  ~ IHV 1.t:111.,,oc_,. fwocl,\TT~, l,oc.  Section 1: Introduction & Methodology 10 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan �Michigan. The initiative is led by Networks Northwest for our prosperity region. Utilizing Networks Northwest as a lead agency, or review agency, for local plans will help to solidify the Township as a partner in regional processes moving forward. Manistee Township is currently working with Networks Northwest to update the Township's Parks and Recreation Plan. A Manistee Township Our mission is to build stronger communities and enhance the quality of life in Northwest Michigan. Networks Northwest's member counties are: Antrim, Benzie, Charlevoix, Emmet, Grand Traverse, Kalkaska, Leelanau, Manistee, Missaukee, and Wexford. Section 1: Introduction & Methodology 11 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan �2: Existing Conditions Inventory 2.1: Current Land Uses Land use within the Township encompasses a broad range of uses including residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural and open space/forestry. Parcel tax classification, assigned by the Township Assessor reflects the “highest and best use” of a parcel of land. Parcel tax classification doesn’t necessarily follow a community's zoning classification, nor should it in some cases, as zoning also considers neighboring land uses, environmental features and/or community services. Parcel tax assessment does provide us an accurate method of determining “existing” land uses within a community. The parcel tax assessment classification which outlines current land uses is displayed on Map 2. 2.1.1: Residential & Housing Manistee Township has varying residential density. Higher residential densities are located immediately adjacent to the City of Manistee along the southern portion of the Township in the area of US-31 from Lakeshore Road to Perry Street. Higher density can also be found in the vicinity of Bar Lake, and pockets of residential clusters in the area of Kemmer Road, Mar-lawn Drive and Elliot Drive and West Kott Road. The Little River Band of Ottawa Indians (LRBOI) has a cluster of high density housing located on tribal lands off of Dontz Road. Lower density or rural residential uses can be found throughout the remainder of the Township. Significant areas of the Township are classified as residential improved or residential vacant, with these same land areas having parcel sizes of 20 acres or greater. Lot size analysis, kernel density mapping, along with infrastructure locations and the inclusion of agricultural uses will detail strategies for meeting residential needs of the community, while maintaining the rural character which is sought after by residents and visitors. The Township has a predominant housing type of single-family residential, with very few two-family or multi-family housing options. Data for our region points to limited housing opportunities as an issue. Limiting workers options for housing impacts local employment and other facets of the community. 2.1.2: Commercial, Retail Trade & Office Commercial development within Manistee Township is located primarily along the US-31 Corridor from the boundary with the City of Manistee to Manistee Blacker Airport. This corridor is the appropriate location for commercial development as infrastructure is present, neighboring residential areas are more dense and residents of the community have convenient access through primary transportation routes. The commercial corridor of US-31 doesn’t currently support multi-modal transportation as there are few sidewalks or bike-lanes. Excessive amounts of curb cuts and the lack of interconnectivity of developed parcels increases the number of conflict points for motorists. This leads to delays in vehicular movement and higher chances of vehicle crashes. Neighboring residential clusters within the vicinity of the commercial corridor provide a mix of uses that supports retail and services along the corridor. Existing and expanded commercial development should be planned appropriately to protect these residences and the character of the community. 2.1.3: Industrial & Manufacturing There is very little current industrial land use within Manistee Township, as much of the manufacturing base for the County is located immediately adjacent to Manistee Lake, within the City of Manistee and Filer and Stronach Townships. A few oil and gas wells are located within the Township and are classified as industrial. Other industrially classified parcels are located in proximity to the Oaks Correctional Facility along Pine Creek Road. This area of the Township, with appropriate infrastructure and proximity of M-55 and US-31, is a sound location for these uses. Thought should be given to areas adjacent to the airport for future development of light industrial uses that may compliment the areas commercial uses. 2.1.4: Agriculture & Forestry Agricultural areas can be found throughout the Township. Orchards are located in several areas, and benefit from the micro-climate created by Lake Michigan. This climate allows for the growing of fruit crops such as apples, pears, peaches, cherries and grapes. Beyond the economic production of these crops, some farms also include value added ventures such as u-pick operations, a winery and other “agri-tourism” related business operations. Several areas within the Township are farmed in more traditional row crop operations, although rather minimal in land area, these farms add to the scenic landscape and open space that is sought after by residents and visitors. Section 2: Existing Conditions Inventory 12 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan �E R EY PIN D F ARR R D MILLER RD ASP RD DA S R D SCHOEDEL RD C KD E PP I H A W HW Y DONTZ RD S I UD A R D HILL RD POLEN RD CA RIVER RD V AL E A BE HAHN RD HO C EDAR R D E KOT T R D E PAR CO YAGER RD Bar Lake KERRY RD ORCHARD HWY LA KE SH OR E R D BAR LAKE RD FALK RD Manistee Twp Parcel Tax Classification Map AE RF PET E CA BE AE H W Lake Winnogene HARRIS RD Y PAW S TRL RF Manistee Lake NI N EM ILE BR I Parcel Classification DG E Claybank Lake PINE CREEK RD AY BA RD CJ Commercial - Vacant 1111 Industrial - Improved 1111 Retired Split/Combined CJ Non-Accessable Permanent Reference 1111 Industrial - Vacant CJ Residential - Improved 1111 Agricultural - Improved CJ Residential - Vacant 1111 Agricultural - Vacant CJ Exempt Federal Property 1111 Commercial - Improved CJ Commercial Building on Leased Land 1111 Exempt State Property 0 1 2 4 Gambs Lake D R NK O RS RD L Y OLSON RD N NC HW Peters Bayou CJ ...... -i.......,.-l DNR Act 513 - AG on 513 City/Township Boundary CJ Adjacent Boundaries CJ Water Bodies Canfield Lake Streams Roads Highways 6 Miles ± Map 2: Parcel Assessment Classification Map 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan 13 Section 2: Existing Conditions Inventory �2.1.6: Existing Zoning • • • • • Big Manistee River Corridor District (BM-1) Wetlands District (W-1) Ag-Forest Preservation District (AP-1) Multiple Use District (M-1) Country Residential District (R-2) • • • • High Density Residential District (R-1) Commercial District (C-1) Industrial District (I) High Risk Erosion Overlay Zone District (OZ) The existing zoning of Manistee Township incorporates eight zoning districts within the Township. All lands of the Township are currently zoned except the lands held in trust by the LRBOI. Zoning Districts are provided below and displayed on Map 3: The zoning districts provided for in the zoning ordinance outline purposes that range from protection of open space to orderly high density residential and commercial development. A synopsis of the densities and allowed uses are provided for in table 2.1. Zoning District Density Uses BM-1 10 acre min Lower density residential, rural non-noxious incidental commercial business, home occupations W-1 5 acre min Lower density residential, home occupations AP-1 *10 acre min Lower density residential, rural agricultural business, home occupations, light commercial M-1 5 acre min Lower density residential, low density commercial, many commercial uses allowed under special use R-2 25k ft Medium density residential development, some commercial uses allowed under special use R-1 15k ft C-1 15k ft2 Commercial development, many uses allowed as by right and many uses allowed as special use I 3-5 acres Industrial development that is considered light by most definitions, very limited uses with chemicals OZ n/a Does not restrict uses, creates increased setbacks from Lake Michigan bluff-line 2 High density residential development, limited commercial uses allowed under special use 2 *The AP-1 District allows development of dwellings on parcels ranging from 1 to 5 acres in size. 2.1.7: Natural Features Manistee Township has nearly eight miles of frontage along Lake Michigan making it an outdoor enthusiasts paradise. Of the lake frontage, over half of it is considered a critical dune area (CDA). These CDAs represent some of the tallest and most spectacular dunes along the shoreline in the lower peninsula of Michigan. Development in these areas requires extra concern, thus the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) dictates more stringent permitting. Similar to EGLE, the Army Corps of Engineers maintains a presence in the County, providing permit and review of structures that are to be placed within federal waters. Section 2: Existing Conditions Inventory 14 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan �Manistee Township Zoning Map Manistee Twp Zone 1111 AP-1 1111 BM-1 1111 C-1 1111 I-1 1111 M-1 CJ R-1 CJ R-2 CJ W-1 D ~ East Lake Rivers CJ Water Bodies CJ Parcels CJ Adjacent Townships .-••·-·-:. _ ..__.;I Manistee Township Border LRBOI In United States Trust 0 0.5 ¯ 1 2 Miles Map 3: Existing Zoning Map 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan 15 Section 2: Existing Conditions Inventory �Federal waters incorporate all of Lake Michigan and Manistee Lake within the Township. The purpose of this is to regulate and balance development within the natural environment to maintain present usage as well as prepare for future generational use. As of this as all writing in 2020, all of Michigan has been dealing with near historic water levels of the Great Lakes. These historic water levels have been shocking, as Lake Michigan experienced an all time low as recent as 2013, with an unprecedented rise of more than three feet by the end of 2015. These high water levels have been vexing lakefront property owners who have been dealing with significant shoreline erosion and the prospect of their homes being in jeopardy of inundation by floodwaters or collapse due to the undermining of shoreline and Image 14: Resident Group seeks Bar Lake ecosystem Credit: Manistee News Advocate bluffs. Nearly 10% of the Township is covered by surface water. These surface waters provide great recreational benefits as tourists and citizens maximize these areas to fish, enjoy paddle sports, motor boating and swimming. With the benefits, bring natural impediments to development. The Southern part of the township has significant wetlands that traverse the whole width, from East to West, along the Manistee River from the border with Brown Township to Lake Michigan . Wetlands are also located within the Township along Bar Lake heading northeast into the expansive Bar Lake Swamp. Wetlands have always been important for the retention of floodwaters and cleansing of stormwater, but have become ever more so with the continued high water tables and the flooding that has occurred in recent years. Floodplains are the areas adjacent to surface waters and wetlands that become inundated with surface water following storm events (such as along rivers and streams) or due to rising water levels of the Great Lakes or inland lakes. Manistee Township has been experiencing increased flooding of low lying areas adjacent to Lake Michigan and Manistee Lake. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), recently remapped the coast of Lake Michigan, including Manistee Township for determination of floodplain areas. The Township is a member of the Flood Insurance Rate Map Program, which provides structure owners within the 100year floodplain the opportunity to buy flood insurance. Standards are set by FEMA for floodplain development which incorporate design features into the structure for placement in a floodplain. Steep slopes are common in the Township, with the soils being predominantly a glacial till that consists heavily of sand. These natural eroding soils give way to a rolling landscape that influences overland stormwater and water flow. Watersheds are the boundaries between separate areas of overland water flow. Watershed protection groups work to educate and perform improvements to the landscape to promote improved water quality. Although there is not an overarching watershed group within the Township, the Portage Lake Watershed Forever and Greater Bear Watershed are active in respective watersheds that include portions of the Township. The different watersheds within the Township include: Little Manistee River at Manistee Lake, Local Drainage from Bar Lake, Manistee River Outlet and Manistee Lake, Manistee River below Clay Bank Creek and Portage Lake watershed. See Map 4 for all Natural Features. 2.2: Infrastructure, Employers and Community Services 2.2.1: Transportation Manistee Township has a significant auto centric focus as there are three major highways that cross through the jurisdiction into surrounding areas. M-55 is located along the Southern border of the township separating Manistee Township from Stronach Township. This state trunk-line highway runs east to west extending across the whole Lower Peninsula from Lake Huron to Lake Michigan and goes through rural forest, urban areas and farmlands. The highway is maintained by the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT). See Map 5 for transportation features. Intersecting M-55 and extending Northeast throughout the township is Highway US-31 connecting Manistee Township with Bear Lake Township to the north and to the City of Manistee to the south. This major north-south U.S. highway connects Northern Michigan all the way to southern Alabama. This is the common route for individuals traveling from Traverse City in the north as well as the southern Cities Image 15: Manistee County Blacker Airport of Ludington, Muskegon, and Holland. This highway eventually Credit: Manistee County Blacker Airport converges with interstates including I-94 and I-96 connecting to large cities like Ann Arbor, Detroit and Grand Rapids. Section 2: Existing Conditions Inventory 16 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan �Portage Lake Existing Natural Features of Manistee Township I' \ -~ · ~, ,..,tl~ ·~ : _::r)· f. ~ './~'-~,~ Bar Lake ;,>:. ~.( ,.}:/r ~ IJ , - Peters Bayou Claybank Lake Manistee Lake Lake Winnogene Legend 1•11 ■-­ Gambs Lake i......i City/Township Boundary Watersheds Slopes 25% or Greater CJ Surrounding Townships and Municipalites 1111 Little Manistee River at Manistee Lake 1111 25+ CJ Local Drainage-Bar Lake CJ Water Bodies Canfield Lake Streams CJ Manistee River Outlet-Manistee Lake Wetlands CJ Manistee River below Clay Bank Creek 0 0.5 1 Critical Dunes Area CJ Portage Lake ¯ 2 Miles Map 4: Natural Features Map 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan 17 Section 2: Existing Conditions Inventory �Like M-55, this highway system is also managed by the Michigan Department of Transportation. The route is a major transportation corridor for shipping and other trucking industries. Connecting with US-31 and heading north to neighboring townships is M-22. This designated scenic highway, a Michigan state trunk-line, is a tourist attraction based on its picturesque surroundings. The trunk-line connects Manistee Township to nearby Onekama winding it’s way around Portage Lake, then continuing north to Arcadia and eventually Benzie County. Manistee Township is home to Manistee County Blacker Airport which is a public use airport located about 3 miles north of the City of Manistee. Most of its usage is general aviation with its current commercial destination being daily service to Chicago-Midway Airport. Total passenger usage in 2015 was just under 10,000 people. There are two total asphalt runways equating to over 8,000 ft of surface length. The airport covers an area of 290 acres and functions year round pending weather events. The Federal Aviation Administration has recommended incorporation of standards to facilitate protection of flight paths adjacent to the airport runways and in keeping with sound aviation incorporated land use planning, the Township should also consider the future land uses adjacent to the airport that support airport services and fit with the more “industrial and commercial” aspects of airports. Freight transportation is a component of the transportation activity and infrastructure in areas of Manistee Township where both highway and rail routes converge. Rail operations in the Township pass through and over sensitive landscapes including Peters Bayou and the Manistee River. The Township has nearly 2.5 miles of total track that is owned by private entities. There are two railroad bridges in the Township and the track follows the Manistee Lake shoreline throughout the jurisdiction. The Township has a minimal sidewalk network, but hosts the initial section of a non-motorized rail-trail within the County. Zimmerman Trail starts behind Burger King at Lakeshore Road and runs to Hill Rd terminating behind Wesco. Some localized trail networks include Orchard Beach State Park which offers trails for the casual hiker and the Manistee State Game Area which has areas of maintained dikes that can be utilized for hiking and walking. Recreation and Trails are fully detailed in the County-Wide Recreation Plan, the Manistee Lake Area Non-Motorized Trail Plan and the Manistee County Multi-Use Regional Trail Plan & Initiative. 2.2.2: County Drainage Districts County Drainage Districts are under the authority of the Manistee County Drain Commissioner. The County Drain Commissioner has an important position in Manistee County as the State of Michigan Drain Code provides the Drain Commissioner almost unchecked authority when acting on petitions regarding drains and the maintenance of existing drainage districts. The Drain Code allows for the yearly assessment for maintenance of existing drainage districts at a rate of $5,000 per linear mile of drain. Petitions brought forth for the maintenance of drains or for the creation of new drains must be acted upon by the Drain Commissioner according to the act. The property owners within the drainage districts, including local units of government and road agencies, are the responsible parties for covering expenses related to drainage district maintenance and establishment. The three Drainage Districts in Manistee Township are shown on Map 6. 1. The Cemetery Drain is located along the boundary with the City of Manistee in the vicinity of Lakeshore Road and US-31. This drain has Image 16: McGuineas Drain Repair Credit: Manistee News Advocate in ground infrastructure that carries water from the high areas west of US-31 and southwest of Lakeshore Road under the roadway and adjacent development emptying directly into Manistee Lake. 2. The Bar Lake Drain is a series of open ditches and flow paths that surround the Bar Lake Swamp in the area of Bar Lake and Schoedel Roads. This district was likely established to drain the lands surrounding the swamp to facilitate agricultural production. 3. The McGuineas Drain was created through combination of the existing Crommer and McGuineas Drains and the expansion of the drainage district boundaries out to the watershed boundary in 2012. This action was completed in response to a petition for maintenance by residential property owners to the Drain Commissioner. The petition was due to flooded basements brought about by a clogged drain inlet. Subsequent investigation identified a buried drainage pipe was eminent to fail. The open ditch drain runs along River Road, crossing under US-31 just north of the airport continuing west until it enters an in ground pipe and runs southerly under residential areas, US-31 and Munson Hospital before daylighting and dumping into the wetlands adjacent to the Manistee River. Section 2: Existing Conditions Inventory 18 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan �I -~~ ASP RD MILLER RD FALK RD Manistee Township Transportation Map ·.~ F ARR R D Portage Lake .• ~l~ ¬ « KERRY RD ,0 r D YAGER RD Bar Lake SCHOEDEL RD C KD E PP HI A W HW Y £ ¤ DONTZ RD S I UD A R D HILL RD POLEN RD CA US - 31 RIVER RD V AL E A BE HAHN RD DA S R D CEDA R R D E KO TT R D E PAR HO ORCHARD HWY R EY CO BAR LAKE RD D R E SH OR KE LA IN EP M - 22 AE RF BE AE H HARRIS RD Y PAW S TRL RF NI W Lake Winnogene NE MI LE BR ID D Claybank Lake \ L PET E CA Manistee Lake R O RS RD NK Y OLSON RD N PINE CREEK RD GE RD AY BA NC HW Peters Bayou ¬ « M - 55 Legend Gambs Lake Canfield Lake ± Manistee County Blacker Airport Water Bodies Airport Runways Streams Highways Manistee Township Roads Adjacent City/Townships Railroad 0 1.5 Miles 3 Map 5: Transportation Map 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan 19 Section 2: Existing Conditions Inventory �2.2.3: Sewer & Water Infrastructure Sewer and Water Infrastructure are present in the Township through cooperative agreements with the City of Manistee and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians (LRBOI). Tribal sewer infrastructure in the Township is in place with lines running from the US-31 and M-55 intersection northeast along US-31 to the Tribal lands in the vicinity of M-22. This infrastructure was developed through cooperative agreements with the LRBOI. City Of Manistee sewer infrastructure is available for connection for any new or existing developments from the US-31 & M-55 intersection to the south and west. Image 17: LRBOI Water Tower Credit: Brandon Bartoszek Development of dense multi-family, two-family and singlefamily housing should be considered adjacent to the corridor. Commercial and industrial development along the corridor should also connect to this infrastructure. Water infrastructure through a cooperative agreement with the City of Manistee provides water service to a substantial area. From City wells adjacent to Manistee Blacker Airport, water lines run the length of US-31 to the City of Manistee city limits. Water lines also run from the intersection of US-31 and M-55 east to the Oaks Correctional Facility and the Village of Eastlake. Separate from the City's water district, the LRBOI also has water infrastructure in the Tribal land areas in the vicinity of US-31 and M-22 intersection. The availability of water and sewer within this Tribal area will allow for more residential density and commercial opportunity. 2.2.4: Employers and Business The Little River Casino Resort is owned and operated by the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians and is situated at the corner of US-31 and M-22. This is an entertainment destination that includes hotel rooms, an RV Park, restaurants, and pools. The Casino is one of the largest employers in the Township and County. Manistee Township has a robust health care service presence. Munson Healthcare – Manistee Hospital offers the following feature services: cancer & infusion center, diagnostic imaging, emergency services, heart services, laboratory & pathology, orthopedics, rehabilitation, sleep disorders center, surgery, & walk-in clinic. This hospital provides high quality medical care and advanced diagnostic service to residents of Manistee County and surrounding communities. Manistee Hospital is staffed by more than 350 employees and served by 50 specialists. Meijer is the largest retail outlet within the Township that draws customers from far ranging areas of Manistee County. A retail study conducted around 2010 displayed large retail leakage outside of Manistee County. This study identified millions of dollars that were being spent by Manistee County residents outside of the County in retail destinations such as Traverse City, Ludington and Cadillac. It was thought that the siting of Meijer in the Township would assist in preventing this retail leakage, and it likely has, but no follow-up study has been conducted to determine to what degree. Manistee Township is home to Oaks Correctional Facility which is comprised of eleven main buildings containing approximately 262,673 square feet of floor space. These buildings include: one segregation unit; five general population housing units; two Level II units; and three Level IV units. Male prisoners aged 18 years of age or older reside in seven of the buildings. 2.2.5: Public Services and Institutions The Manistee County Sheriff Department is situated along US-31 in Manistee Township. Law enforcement divisions of the Sheriff’s Department include public safety, jail, K-9, Animal Control, Court Security, Marine Division, and Snowmobile Patrol. The services performed by the Department include civil, process, gun registration, incident & insurance claims, patrol & property checks, FOIA requests, and citizen complaints. Located in Manistee Township is the Manistee Intermediate School District. This is a regional service agency that provides instructional and administrative service to four public schools districts, two public academies and two non-public schools. These entities include Bear Lake schools, Kaleva Norman Dickson schools, Manistee Area Public schools, Onekama Consolidated schools, Manistee Catholic Central, Trinity Lutheran Schools, Casman Academy and Michigan Great Lakes Virtual Academy. The Manistee Township Fire Department is located on Hill Rd and provides Fire Protection for the Township and surrounding area through mutual aid agreements. The fire department is staffed by 21 volunteers and 1 cadet under a chief and captain; see appendix A for a full equipment list. Manistee Township Hall is located on Holden Street and houses the elected and staff offices for the Township. The Township Board meets the second Thursday of each month. The Township Planning Commission meets the first Wednesday of each month. The Township Hall is open for residents inquiring about tax collection, zoning and/or other services provided by the Township. Section 2: Existing Conditions Inventory 20 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan �Portage Lake KERRY RD CO M - 22 BAR LAKE RD R EY D Bar Lake S I UD A R D HILL RD POLEN R CA £ ¤ D KD US -31 DONTZ RD C A EW P P HI HW Y McGuineas Drain RIVER RD V AL E A BE Cemetary-Kaap Drain SCHOEDEL RD CEDAR RD E KOTT R D E PAR DA S R D ORCHARD HWY D R RE KE SH O LA IN EP HO FISK RD ¬ « Bar Lake Drain F A R R RD ASP RD MILLER RD FALK RD Manistee Township Infrastructure Portage Lake AE RF . Legend Gambs Lake 0 LE BR Highways Sewer lines ~ 0 ID GE R Water lines 1 D - D AY NK R \ PINE CREEK RD L R MI Claybank Lake BA I j ¬ « M - 55 Manistee Township Drains Streams Roads 170 Canfield Lake Y NE HARRIS RD ....:.- Lake Winnogene ._ NI PAWS TRL H W PE TE AE RF BE CA Manistee Lake S RD NC O Y OLSON RD N STAFF RD HW Peters Bayou CJ Water Bodies CJ Manistee_Township_Outline :1-■■•-· i.......i City/Township Boundary CJ Surrounding City/Village/Township 2 1111 Bar Lake Drain 1111 Cemetery-Kaap Drain 1111 McGuineas Drain 4 ¯ 6 Miles Map 6: Infrastructure Map 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan 21 Section 2: Existing Conditions Inventory �3: Socio-Economic Profile This socio-economic profile was developed using data from the US Census Bureau American Factfinder 2017 Community Survey Data and in a few cases the 2015 American Community 5-Year Estimates. The data gathered from the 2017 survey is considered short-form when a comparison is drawn to what is typically gathered during the Decennial Census, but still provides valuable data for land use planning purposes. It is important to note some of the data is skewed, as prisoners are counted in certain statistical measures. The distortion of data occurs strictly to population and gender in the data captured within this profile. Income, poverty and household data are not impacted, as they are strictly gathered for households and householders. The prison population can be utilized for correction of the skewed data of total population and gender as the prison is for male convicted offenders with a population of 1,154 inmates. 3.1: Population 3.1.1: Manistee Township Age Trend (2000-2017) Manistee Township Age Trend (2000-2017) 16% The following graph depicts 14% the number of individuals comprising 12% the total population of Manistee 10% Township over a 17 year period . 8% Residents are broken into different 6% age cohorts based on 5-year ranges from under 5 years old up to 85 years 4% and over. The graph depicts that the 2% population is aging over a 17 year 0% Under 5 to 9 10 to 15 to 20 to 25 to 30 to 35 to 40 to 45 to 50 to 55 to 60 to 65 to 70 to 75 to 80 to 85 5 years years 14 19 24 29 34 39 44 49 54 59 64 69 74 79 84 years period as expected, and that the older years years years years years years years years years years years years years years years and over age cohorts are gaining population 2000 2010 2017 more rapidly than it is being replaced. • • • One has to take into Source: 2017 American Community Survey - U.S. Census consideration that this particular data, as it deals with population, is influenced by the inmates of the Oaks Correctional Facility. It is next to impossible to obtain the inmates demographics at the facility and determine their distribution across the age cohorts, but in researching overall statistics of the prison population in Michigan, a few details can paint a bit of a picture. The average age of a male prisoner in a Michigan correctional facility is 32.5 years old, with 41% of individuals sentenced to prison between 20 and 29 years old, and 27% of the population sentenced between 30 and 39 years of age. In looking at the current age of prisoners in Michigan, 75% of the prison population is under 50 years of age. From this information we can deduce that the graph above is likely impacted by age cohorts that outline ages 20 to 45. Until we do know the actual demographics of the prison, this is the best estimation as to the impact on the data. Regardless, the data does display that the population is aging and shifting in the cohorts of 55+ and the population is not being replaced in the younger cohorts. 3.1.2: 2017 Population by Age The following graph depicts the number of individuals comprising the 2017 population for three different locations including Manistee Township, Manistee County and the State of Michigan. Residents are broken into different age brackets based on 5-year cohorts. Percentages in each category equate to 100% of the total population for the specific category. Manistee Township displays fewer residents that are younger than 19 years of age than both Manistee County and the State of Michigan. Similar to the data capturing the Township Age Trend, the prison population at the Oaks Correctional Facility is also impacting this data. It is obvious that there is a very large increase in population to the 20-24 and 25-29 age cohorts and there is little doubt that this is directly linked to the prison population. It is obvious that the data does display that the Township has a much greater population of residents 45 years of age and older. Section 3: Socio-Economic Profile 22 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan �3.1.3: Manistee Township Population Trend 2017 Population by Age Population 16% Population change is simply 14% the change in the number of people in 12% a specified area during a specific time 10% period. Demographics is the study of 8% population statistics, their variation 6% and its causes. These statistics include 4% birth rates, death rates, migration 2% rates and sex ratios. The population 0% of Manistee Township has seen mostly a steady increase since the 1960 data sets through 1980, with a significant decrease in 1990. This coincides with observations of long ■ Manistee Township ■ Manistee County ■ Michigan time residents whom have stated that Source: 2017 American Community Survey - U.S. Census migration from the area occurred after the closing of industrial sites and operations around Manistee Manistee Township Population Trend Lake, which supported many households. 4500 3752 A sharp increase in population in the 2000 census 4000 3209 3500 year aligns with the siting of the Oaks Correctional Facility 2952 2875 3000 and the subsequent addition of the prison population. 2173 2500 Since 2000, the Township has seen a modest increase in 2000 population. 3.2: Employment, Income & Earnings: 4087 r 1500 1000 500 0 1950 3.2.1: Industrial Employment: 4084 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Year Source: 2017 American Community Survey - U.S. Census Industries The employed civilian population over 16 years of age in Manistee Township was 1,243 individuals according to the 2015 Five-Year Estimate. Industries which employ the most individuals in Manistee Township are Public Administration, Health Care & Social Assistance, Retail Trade and Manufacturing. These industries accounted for almost half of the Industrial Employment (Population 16 & Over) employment for the employed population. Public administration Other services, except public administration This is of no surprise with Accommodation and food services the Munson Medical Campus and Arts, entertainment, and recreation ancillary medical offices, the Oaks Health care and social assistance Correctional Facility (Public Educational services Administrative and support and waste management… Administration) and Meijer all sited Management of companies and enterprises within the Township and the Professional, scientific, and technical services manufacturing facilities that remain Real estate and rental and leasing around the Manistee Lake Area in Finance and insurance Information adjacent local units of government. Utilities The industries that are Transportation and warehousing providing employment Retail trade opportunities for the public should Wholesale trade Manufacturing be supported by working with and Construction promoting these industries through Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction local economic efforts. Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting 0 50 100 150 200 250 Civilian Employed Population Source: 2015 American Fact Finder 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan 23 Section 3: Socio-Economic Profile �3.2.2: Employment Income Employment Income (past 12 months) Self-employment income is earned from carrying on Michigan 9% 91% a “trade or business” as a sole proprietor, an independent contractor, or some form of partnership. Non-selfManistee County 11% 89% employment income means income which consists of salary, wages, allowances, overtime pay, pension, annuity, directors’ fees, bonuses, management fees, gratuities, retiring Manistee Township 8% 92% allowances, extra salary or any emolument of any other kind paid or payable in relation to the taxpayer’s employment. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Manistee Township has a lower rate of self-employment ■ Self Employment ■ No self-employment Income than both Manistee County and the State of Michigan. Source: 2017 American Community Survey - U.S. Census This merely conveys that the employment income in the Township is largely derived from an hourly or salaried position within a business or company. A lower percentage of employed civilians within the Township than both the State and County own or operate their own business according to this data. 3.2.3: Households with Earnings (past 12 months) Household earnings is a measure of the combined incomes of all people sharing a household or place of residence. It includes every form of income including salaries and wages, retirement income, near cash government transfers like food stamps, and investment gains. The Michigan average for households with earnings is greater than both the Township and County average. With inclusion of all forms of income including retirement it can be difficult to decipher the lower percentage. The lower percentage may be due to the aging population. These aging households may not be listing any earnings within the households, as they may be living off of investments which would not count towards earnings, and this may account for a lower percentage of Township households with earnings. Households with Earnings (past 12 months) Michigan 74% 26% Manistee County 65% 35% Manistee Township 65% 35% 0% 20% 40% ■ With Earnings ■ 60% 80% 100% No Earnings Source: 2017 American Community Survey - U.S. Census 3.2.4: Wage or Salary Income (past 12 months) The essential difference between a salary and a wage is that a salaried person is paid a fixed amount per pay period and a wage earner is paid by the hour. Someone who is paid a salary is paid a fixed amount in each pay period, with the total of these fixed payments over a full year summing to the amount of the salary. Manistee Township and Manistee County show a lower percentage of households with wage and salary income than compared to the State of Michigan. This is very likely due to the higher level of retirees within both the Township and County as a whole. This lower percentage is nothing to cause concern as will be reinforced later in this chapter when interpreting poverty levels. Wage or Salary Income (past 12 months) Michigan 72% 28% Manistee County 62% 38% Manistee Township 62% 38% 0% 20% ■ With Wage or Salary Income 40% 60% 80% 100% ■ No wage or salary income Source: 2017 American Community Survey - U.S. Census 3.2.5: Social Security Income (past 12 months) Social Security benefits are payments made to qualified retirees, disabled people, and to their spouses, children, and survivors. The current law, after several amendments, encompasses several social insurance and social welfare programs, including the issuance of Social Security benefits. Social Security benefits can be collected as early as age 62 depending on circumstances, but are typically paid out between the retirement ages of 65 and 67. Section 3: Socio-Economic Profile 24 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan �The Township has a higher percentage of households receiving social security than both Manistee County and the State of Michigan. Manistee County doesn’t lag too far behind the Township in terms of percentage, again, an indication that both the Township and the County encompass many retirees among other qualifiers that are entitled to Social Security benefits Social Security Income (past 12 months) Michigan Manistee County 3.2.6: Retirement Income (past 12 months) Retirement income is the amount of money an individual earns after retiring based on retirement assets such as, Social Security allowances, pensions, stocks, mutual funds, savings accounts, CDs, home equity funds, annuities, insurance, rental income, royalties, or inheritances. The data continues to reinforce other statistical measures that acknowledges that the population harbors many retirees in both the Township and County. Again, the Township leads the County by several percentage points, but both lead the State of Michigan by a significant margin, with the Township having 13% more households with retirement income than the State. 66% 47% Manistee Township 53% 53% 0% 47% 20% 40% ■ Total with Social Security 60% ■ 80% 100% No Social Security Source: 2017 American Community Survey - U.S. Census Retirement Income (past 12 months) Michigan 23% Manistee County 77% 31% Manistee Township 3.2.7: Median Income (Families & Children Status) Median income defines an exact of the amount of income each family unit within a jurisdiction makes annually. Household type and children status are quantified in the graph. The data displays that the Township maintains a higher median income for families across all ranges than the County, but lags behind the State in all but one family status. It is tough to draw a comparison against State-wide statistical medians as other areas of the State have higher costs of living which also often coincides with greater wage or salary incomes. 34% 69% 36% 0% 64% 20% 40% ■ With Retirement 60% 80% 100% ■ No Retirement Source: 2017 American Community Survey - U.S. Census middle Median Income (Families & Children Status) $89,831 $74,290 $80,833 Families - Married-couple families - With own children under 18 years Families - Married-couple families $60,953 $64,427 $67,762 $54,837 $63,073 Families - With no own children of householder under 18 years $64,591 $53,571 $71,806 Families - With own children of householder under 18 years $66,653 $54,708 $64,271 Families $0 3.2.8: Median Income ■ Michigan ■ $80,246 Manistee County $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 ■ Manistee Township Source: 2017 American Community Survey - U.S. Census (Households & Householder Age) A householder is a person who owns or rents a house and is considered the head of a household. This graph denotes the median income for households broken out by age, amount of income and location. Manistee Township has a greater median income for households than both the State of Michigan and Manistee County in all but one circumstance: householders 45-65 years of age, where the median income is only $561 less than the State. The income data presented within this graph coupled with the data presented within this Income and Earning sub-section of the plan provide a positive outlook for sustaining households and families. 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan 25 Section 3: Socio-Economic Profile �Median Income (Households & Householder Age) $40,784 $38,065 $41,250 Householder- 65 years and over Householder- 45 to 64 years $64,259 $53,052 Householder- 25 to 44 years $57,816 $43,750 $26,823 $24,135 Householder- 15 to 24 years $44,882 $10,000 ■ Michigan ■ $20,000 $30,000 Manistee County $64,688 $53,654 Households $0 $63,698 $40,000 $52,668 $54,005 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 ■ Manistee Township Source: 2017 American Community Survey - U.S. Census 3.3: Housing & Housing Costs: 3.3.1: Occupied Housing Units (Renter Vs. Owner) Owner- occupied means that the owner lives in the unit. Renter-occupied refers to those units where the owner does not live in the unit. Owner-occupied + renter-occupied is equal to total occupied housing units. Manistee Township has both a larger percentage of owner occupied housing units than both the State and County. This status of owner occupied bodes well for home ownership, but also provides a snapshot that is known from other studies. That snapshot results in fewer opportunities for rental housing within the community. Occupied Housing Units (Renter vs. Owner) Michigan 71% Manistee County 29% 82% Manistee Township 87% 0% 20% 40% ■ Owner Occupied 3.3.2: Occupancy Status Housing Units 18% 13% 60% 80% 100% ■ Renter Occupied Source: 2017 American Community Survey - U.S. Census A housing unit is vacant if no one is living in it at the time of the census. In addition, a vacant unit may be one which is entirely occupied by persons who have established residence elsewhere. This describes seasonal residents. New units not yet occupied are classified as vacant housing units if construction has reached a point where all exterior windows and doors are installed, and final usable floors are in place. There are more occupied housing units in the State of Michigan at 85% than both the County and Township. This data points to the seasonal population that is present in both the Township and County, and is supported by the NW Michigan Seasonal Population Study through Networks Northwest. Occupancy Status Housing Units Michigan 85% Manistee County 15% 62% Manistee Township 38% 75% 0% 20% 25% 40% ■ Occupied 60% 80% 100% ■ Vacant Source: 2017 American Community Survey - U.S. Census Section 3: Socio-Economic Profile 26 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan �3.3.3: Household Size (Renter vs. Owner) Most households in Manistee County, Manistee Township and the State of Michigan are occupied by 1 or 2 individuals. As you increase the household size, the trend in percentages decreases for Manistee Township and the County when compared across government units. The same can be said for both owner and rental occupied units. Household Size (Renter vs. Owner) 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 3.3.4: Monthly Housing Costs (occupied units) Selected monthly owner costs are the sum of payments for mortgages, deeds of trust, contracts to purchase, or similar debts on the property (including payments for the first mortgage, second mortgages, home equity loans, and other junior mortgages; real estate taxes; fire, hazard, and flood insurance on the property; utilities (electricity, gas, and water and sewer); and fuels (oil, coal, kerosene, wood, etc.). It also includes, where appropriate, the monthly condominium fee for condominiums and mobile home costs (installment loan payments, personal property taxes, site rent, registration fees, and license fees). The following graph depicts Monthly Housing Costs for 15 different ranges that display 100% of housing costs for the jurisdictions listed. Manistee Township displays a greater percentage of housing costs in the $200-$299, $300-$399 and $400-$499 range than the State, and to a lesser extent Manistee County. This is a relative low range for housing costs and may be in part due to the demographics of the community having greater amounts of retirees that have paid off their mortgages lowering housing costs. ■ Manistee Township ■ Manistee County ■ Michigan Source: 2017 American Community Survey - U.S. Census Monthly Housing Costs (occupied units) 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% •Manistee Township •Manistee County ■ Michigan Source: 2017 American Community Survey - U.S. Census Median monthly housing costs 3.3.5: Median Monthly Housing Costs Michigan Monthly housing costs are developed from a distribution of “Selected Monthly Owner Costs” for owner-occupied units and “Gross Rent” for renteroccupied units. The data displays lower costs than the State and County, and could be accounted for through retirees who have paid off their mortgages. $869 Manistee County $686 Manistee Township $0.00 3.4: Education: 3.4.1: Educational Attainment of Householder $643 $200.00 $400.00 $600.00 $800.00 $1,000.00 Source: 2017 American Community Survey - U.S. Census Educational attainment is a term commonly used by statisticians to refer to the highest degree of education an individual has completed. The educational attainment of a householder is indicative of the highest amount of education as well as house ownership status. Educational attainment by a householder is the most important educational statistical measurement for Manistee Township as it incorporates only householder data. Educational data that is not tied to households, householder or family is impacted by the presence of the Oaks Correctional 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan 27 Section 3: Socio-Economic Profile �Facility as inmates are captured within Educational Attainment data that applies to the population as a whole. As is displayed in the graph, Manistee Township Householders have a High School Education or higher at 83%. This is greater than the County average at 76% and the State average at 66%. This bodes well for educational attainment and the prospect that greater education leads to homeownership. Educational Attainment of Householder 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 3.4.2: Educational Attainment (18-24 Years Old) 0% The following graph depicts the educational attainment of the State, County, and Township residents aged 18-24 years old broken into percentages with a sum of 100% for each cohort. The educational data for population is impacted by the Oaks Correctional Facility and the inclusion of inmates within the data. As is displayed in the graph there is a large proportion of 18-24 years old that have less than a High School Graduate when compared to the County and State. This doesn’t align with the ownership and renter data of a householder displayed above, which shows strong educational attainment. A high percentage of the population having a low educational attainment would show in the householder data if prison population were to be included as a renter or owner. 3.4.3: Educational Attainment (25 Years & Older) ■ Manistee Township Manistee County •Michigan Source: 2017 American Community Survey - U.S. Census Educational Attainment (18-24 Years Old) 60% 48% 50% 41% 42% 40% 30% 30% 29% 29% 24% 23% 20% 13% 10% 10% 5% 5% The following graph depicts the educational attainment of the State, County, and Township 0% Less than high school High school graduate Some college or Bachelor's degree or residents aged 25 years or older broken into graduate (includes associate's degree higher percentages with a sum of 100% for each cohort. equivalency) Similar to the educational attainment for Manistee Township ■ Manistee County ■ Michigan 18-24 years old, this data is impacted by the Oaks Correctional Facility inmates, Source: 2017 American Community Survey - U.S. Census as it does not account for households or Educational Attainment (25 Years & Older) families, but rather the entire prison 60% population. In reviewing the data, it looks to have less of an impact on the statistical 50% sample in the less than High School 41% 40% education cohorts. One thought is that 36% 29% inmates whom started their incarceration 30% 22% 24% between the age of 18 and 24 have worked 23% 17% 20% to obtain a high school diploma or 13% 11% 11% 10% 10% 9% 8% equivalency by the time they reach the age 10% 8% 7% 6% 7% 2% 2% 3% of 25. Regardless of the circumstances for closer alignment to the County and State in 0% Less than 9th 9th to 12th High school Some college, Associate's Bachelor's Graduate or educational attainment for the population grade grade, no graduate no degree degree degree professional diploma (includes degree aged 25 years and older, these statistics equivalency) support a more educated population as a ■ Manistee Township whole. •Manistee County Michigan •• 1 • --- h t I ... tt1 ..i • Section 3: Socio-Economic Profile Source: 2017 American Community Survey - U.S. Census 28 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan �3.5: Households & Families: 3.5.1: Household Family Characteristics Household size is defined by the number of individuals residing in a household based on different characteristics. The graph displays households in Manistee Township consisting of more married couples with family than both the County and State. In the case of female householder with no husband present, the township is less than the County and less than half of that of the State. This bodes well for family households in the Township. Non-family households are at pace with the State and slightly lower than the County. Household Family Characteristics 60% 55% 51% 50% 40% 35% 12% 10% Married-couple family household 5% 5% 5% Male householder, no Female householder, no Nonfamily household wife present, family husband present, family household household ■ Manistee Township ■ Manistee County ■ Michigan Source: 2017 American Community Survey - U.S. Census Average Household Size Characteristics 5 4.45 4.5 Persons 3.5 3 2.5 3.73 3.82 3.78 4 2.35 2.34 2.49 2.69 2.86 3.3 3.26 3.13 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan 7% ••• ••1 6% 3.6.1: Population Below Poverty Level The Federal Poverty Level (FPL), or the “poverty line” is an economic measure that is used to decide whether the income level of an individual or family qualifies them for certain federal benefits and programs. The FPL is the set minimum amount of income that a family needs for food, clothing, transportation, shelter, and other necessities. Poverty is a state or condition in which a person or family lacks the financial resources and essentials for a minimum standard of living. Poverty means that the income level from employment is so low that basic human needs can’t be met. Poverty-stricken people and families might go without proper housing, clean water, healthy food, and medical attention. The Percentage of population below poverty line in Michigan is 15.6%, while Manistee County is 14.7% and Manistee Township is 11.1%. Poverty statistics are not impacted by the prison inmates. 35% 20% 3.5.2: Average Household Size 3.6: Poverty Levels: 37% 30% 0% Household size is defined by the number of individuals residing in a household based on different characteristics. The graph displays that total average household size for the Township is less than both the County and State, which may point towards an aging population with less children in the household. This is reinforced with the married couple household statistic which displays that family size for married couples is less in the Township than the County and State, which would point towards a larger percentage of “empty nesters”. An interesting statistic is the larger family size of a male householder with no wife than both the County and State. 47% Total; Estimate; Married-couple family Male householder, no Average household size household wife present, family household ■ Manistee Township ■ Manistee County Female householder, no husband present, family household ■ Michigan Source: 2017 American Community Survey - U.S. Census Population Percent Below Poverty Level 18% 16% 14.70% 15.60% 14% 12% 11.10% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Manistee Township Manistee County Michigan Source: 2017 American Community Survey - U.S. Census 29 Section 3: Socio-Economic Profile �3.6.2: Families Percent Below Poverty Level With both the population poverty data displayed above and the family population percentages portrayed to the right, Manistee Township displays a lower level of poverty than both the County and State. This shows that much of the population and families in the Township are in a strong financial position, although having any percentage of poverty amongst the population is a hindrance to aspects of the community and the Township. Support for those in poverty through increased education, assistance with childcare, transportation and healthcare should be on the radar whether through a private or public network. 3.7: Transportation and Work Commute: Families Percent Below Poverty Level 12% 10.90% 9.50% 10% 8.10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Manistee Township Manistee County Michigan Source: 2017 American Community Survey - U.S. Census 3.7.1: Means of Transportation to Work Means of Transportation to work include any of the different kinds of transportation used to carry people from home to the workplace. The following graph depicts the Means of Transportation to Work for Manistee County and Township for workers aged 16 years or older. The vast majority of workers in the Township drive alone, and at a greater percentage than the County. The number of Township workers carpooling is 6% less than that of the County. As we’ll see in the remaining commuter data, Township workforce travel time to work is minimal. Therefore, with lower commuter times it is not surprising that more of the workforce commutes alone and not in a carpool. Means of Transportation to Work 100.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Section 3: Socio-Economic Profile 4% 10% 1% 1% 1% 0% ■ Manistee Township 3.7.2: Travel Time to Work 3% 3% 0% 1% 2% 1% 3% 4% ■ Manistee County Source: 2017 American Community Survey - U.S. Census Travel Time to Work 60 or more mins 1.90% 45-59 mins 4.30% 35-44 mins 1.40% 30-34 mins Travel Time Commuter travel time to work is the length of time of a commute in minutes from home to the workplace for workers aged 16 years and older in Manistee Township. It is evident from the data that the majority of commuters, 60.7% travel less than 15 minutes to work during their commute. With 82.3% of commuters traveling less than 20 minutes to work. The location of Manistee Township just north of the City of Manistee is in a position that workers traveling 20 minutes or less to work are most likely working in Manistee Township or in the vicinity of Manistee Lake. The majority of the industry in Manistee County is located around Manistee Lake, with other large employers such as the casino, hospital, Meijer and prison all being located within the confines of the Township. 87% 80% 4.20% 25-29 mins 1.50% 20-24 mins 4.50% 15-19 mins 21.60% 10-14 mins 36.10% Less than 10 mins 24.60% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Percent of Workforce Source: 2015 American Fact Finder 30 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan �3.7.3: Place of Work (State/County) Place of Work (State/County) Worked outside State Place of Work Following the commuter statistics that display the vast majority of workers are remaining within 20 minutes of their residence, the place of work in relation to the State and County provides direct information on how many workers are remaining within Manistee County. The graph shows that 89.3% of the workforce is staying within the County for their place of work, this aligns well with the 82.3% of workers who travel 20 minutes or less to work each day. Traveling greater than 20 minutes North or South of the Township in many cases carries one over the County line into a neighboring County. Work outside County of Residence 0.40% ■ 10.30% Work in County of Residence 89.30% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percentage of Workforce Source: 2015 American Fact Finder 3.7.4: Place of Work (Township) Place of Work (Township) Place of Work The place of work graph in (Township/City) details if the worker is remaining within their Worked outside Township/City of Township of residence for work. As one can see, a 59.10% residence substantial amount of workers remain within the Township for employment at 40.90%. The remaining majority of workers that are traveling outside of the Township, are still remaining within Worked in Township/City of Residence 40.90% the County for work. Travel times correlate to these workers having employment in the industries and 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% other employment positions around Manistee Lake, Percentage of Workforce within the City of Manistee, Stronach and Filer Source: 2015 American Fact Finder Townships. This data is important, as it shows that employment opportunities are close to a workers residence in the vast majority of cases, and information concerning workers and employment point towards the importance of maintaining a residence close to the work place. The need for housing as has been shown through other studies. It would be interesting to gather a profile from employers of the residence locations of their workers according to Township/City. 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan 31 Section 3: Socio-Economic Profile �4: Public Input 4.1: Here's what residents said they WANT to see in Manistee Township 4.1.1: Rural Areas • • • • • • Areas devoted to agricultural crops. Natural vegetation lining the road (rather than prescribed landscaping). Views of lakes, orchards, and open space. Agricultural and residential buildings set back from roadways protecting the view shed. Overhead utility lines with lighting affixed to poles. Two travel lanes on roadway and at key intersections areas with left turn and right turn deceleration lanes provided to maintain traffic flow. 4.1.2: Suburban Areas • • • • • • • • • Section 4: Public Input Landscaped vegetation along roadway, between parking/ building areas and pedestrian walkaways. Designated pedestrian sidewalk adjacent to roadway. Designated bike lane along roadway. Signage is placed on monument structures and/or on building; Single row of parking allowed in front of building with additional parking on sides or rear. Building set at a "zero lot line" allowing for placement up to the right-of-way. Two travel lanes with a boulevard for controlled left land turns and for protection of pedestrians at road crossings. Overhead utilities buried underground. Pedestrian level lighting adjacent to walkway. 32 4.1.3: Urban Areas • • • • • • • • Vegetation along roadway separating pedestrian walkways from roadway. Designated pedestrian sidewalk adjacent to roadway. Signage is placed on a monument structure and/or on buildings. Parking situated along side and rear of building. Buildings set at a zero lot line immediately adjacent to roadway. Two travel lanes with a center left hand turn lane. Overhead utilities buried underground. Pedestrian level lighting adjacent to walkway. 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan �4.2: Here's what residents said they DO NOT want to see in their Township Dirt paths rather than sidewalks Large, extensive parking in front of buildings without any landscaping No landscaping between sidewalks and the road Two travel lanes with a center left turn lane and multiple curb cuts Views in rural areas disturbed by encroaching development Temporary, pole, and very tall signs 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan 33 Section 4: Public Input �5: Future Land Use Analysis (Cause and Actions) 5.1: Natural Resources Actions The Natural resources contained in this section are regulated by State and Federal Agencies. Manistee Township works cooperatively with these agencies to ensure that High Risk & their development standards are achieved. 5.1.1: Shoreline Erosion Cause: Fluctuating water levels have played havoc along the Lake Michigan shoreline. Due to increasing water levels, property owners have had to take immediate and costly action to protect structures which are threatened by excessive shoreline erosion. Action: Support bluff setbacks enacted and regulated by the Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy (EGLE) with the State of Michigan. See map 7. D Areas of Concern 5.1.2: Wetlands Cause: Wetlands connected to the Great Lakes, Great Lakes waterways, and those that are 5 acres or greater are regulated by the State of Michigan. The State requires a wetland permit in order to perform dredging, filling or construction within wetland areas. Action: Article 25 of the current Manistee Township Zoning Ordinance regulates wetlands through the provisions of a wetland district. The current district does not align with the wetland boundary provided by the State of Michigan (*The State of Michigan Wetland Boundary is created by overlaying the “National Legend - ~ Critical Dunes FEMA Flood Zones Slope Percent [Zl High Risk Erosion D A D 0 - 24.99% 25 - 100% □ Wetlands (DEQ) D AE D Water Bodies D D VE Streams 0 1 2 Wetland Inventory Boundary” with the “Hydric Soils Boundary” from the Soil Survey Geographic database Map 7: SSURGO and displaying where the two datasets intersect.) The Township should amend Article 25 to become a wetland overlay district that applies to all wetlands of 5 acres or more within the Township. 3 c::, 4 Miles Highways Roads City/Township Boundary Adjacent Municipality ´ High Risk and Areas of Concern 5.1.3: Steep Slopes Cause: Development on excessively steep slopes can enhance erosive forces of water, destabilize soils and lead to increased erosion. Action: Limit development in areas of steep slopes by protecting slopes of 25% or greater. See map 7. 5.1.4: Waterway Buffers Cause: Lack of vegetation along surface waters may negatively affect water quality, promote erosion and limit wildlife habitat. Action: Implement a vegetative buffer around all surface waters. A determination for the preservation of trees of a certain size (measured by diameter at breast height, DBH) should not be allowed to be removed unless dying, diseased or invasive. Provide provisions for removal of brush and tress for riparian access and preservation of view-sheds. 5.1.5: Floodplains Cause: Manistee Township is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. FEMA is preparing to adopt new Section 5: Future Land Use Analysis 34 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan �floodplain maps for the Lake Michigan coastline and connected waters. Adjustment in flood zone boundaries may include additional property owners who may be required to obtain flood insurance. Development within the 100 year floodplain requires structures to be built to a flood standard, and for structures currently in the floodplain to meet standards if they were to be expanded or reconstructed. Action: Enforce FEMA standards regarding floodplain development as required. 5.2: Transportation Actions 5.2.1: Primary Trunk-line/Highway Accessibility Cause: Significant vehicular traffic along the US-31 corridor, along with excessive curb cuts, limited shared access and limited interconnections among neighboring parcels has led to traffic congestion, particularly during peak hours and seasons. Action: Access Management Standards of varying regulatory levels should be implemented along the entirety of the US-31, M-22 and M-55 corridors. These standards should include provisions for: • Shared Access • Frontage drives • Cross-lot connections • Closure of Curb Cuts (See map 8 for recommended curb cut closures provided by MDOT, this data should be updated as MDOT updates plans.) 5.2.2: Appropriate Consideration of Inclusion of Multi-Modal Transportation US 31 Curb Cuts & POLEN RD Recommended Curb Cut Closures D Manistee County Blacker Airport D Manistee Township ·•-•1. Highways Roads 11..., =t:=t:J, Railroad 0 ( Water Bodies Adjacent City/Townships Miles 1 0.5 CONDOND . RD ´ C) GUTHRIE RD D Curb Cuts (US 31) FROST RD ! ( Streams Recommended Curb Cut Closures HILL RD k ! ( ! ( ( (! (! ! ( ! ! (! ( !! ( ( (! k k CA k kk k k k kkk k k k ! (! ( ! ( ( ! (! (! ! (! ( ! (! ( (( ! ( ! ! (! IVY LN HAHN RD ! (( ( ! ( ( ( ! (! ! (! ( (! ! (! ! (! ! ! ( (! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ( ! ! ( ( ! ! ( ( (! (! ( (! ! ( ! (! ! ( ( ! (! (! (! !! ! ! ( ( ! (( (! ( (! (! (! ( (! ! (! ! ! ( ! ( ( ! (( (! ( ! (! ( !! ( (! ! ( (! ! ( (! ! ( ! (! ( ! ! (! ( !! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( (! ! (! ( (! ( ! (! ( ( ! (! ! (! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( (! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ( ! HO ( ! ! LDEN ST ( ( ( ! (! (! (! ! ( (! (! ( ! (! ( ! ( ! (! ! ( ! ( ( ! (! ! ( ! ( ! ( KEMMER RD Legend BE AE RF HW Y Manistee Lake Map 8: US 31 Curb Cut Recommended Closures Peters Bayou Cause: The State of Michigan, through enabling legislation, created a “Complete Streets Policy” which promotes the inclusion of multi-modal transportation features such as sidewalks, crosswalks and bike-lanes. Action: Adopt complete streets resolution and policy, which promotes inclusion of these non-motorized transportation features in roadway design and construction. 5.2.3: Incorporation of Multi-Modal Transportation 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan 35 Section 5: Future Land Use Analysis �Cause: Limited routes for non-motorized transportation and lack of safe pedestrian crossings along major roadways. Action: Incorporate roadway design that includes multi-modal transportation options such as sidewalks, bike-lanes and pedestrian crossings. See multi-modal roadway sectional below: 5.2.4: Participate/Inclusion in Transportation Planning Efforts 4’ Sidewalk Bike Lane w/pavement markings Pedestrian Refuge Island Diagram 1: US 31 Road Sectional Recommendation Cause: Participation in past and on-going planning efforts that have provided sound recommendations for future actions relating to multi-modal and non-motorized transportation. Actions: Recommend and adopt existing plans which promote multi-modal transportation and continue participation in similar processes. Plan actions are listed below: • Recommend/Adopt: 2017 US-31 Corridor Enhancement Plan. • Recommend/Adopt: 2020 Manistee Lake Area NonMotorized Transportation Plan • Participate: Manistee County Multi-Use Regional Trail Initiative. Airport Overlay Recommendations 5.3: Airport Actions Recommended Airport Overlay 5.3.1: Airport Overlay Zone Consideration Cause: The Michigan Department of Transportation, the Federal Aviation Administration and the Michigan Aeronautics Commission have recommended that Manistee Township institute an “Airport Overlay Zone” in order to regulate land uses within the vicinity of the Manistee Blacker Airport. Further, the Michgan Aeronautics Commission has created an airport approach plan for Manistee Blacker Airport. Regulations would pertain to compatible land uses, height of buildings, communication towers and natural features along with restrictions on lighting that may create a hazard to safe landing or taking off of aircraft. Action: Establish an Airport Overlay District per the recommendations of the FAA, Michigan Aeronautics Commission and MDOT. ~ - -----~ ·~••a,t, ~~ -- ~ --===---oe:===----- 5.3.2: Appropriate Uses & Densities in Airport Overlay Section 5: Future Land Use Analysis ···1C<y(I---. - - ,.._ 2 36 Wlt.iltfeoditt , • Map 9: Airport Overlay Recommendations 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan �Cause: Zoning Districts located within the recommended airport safety zones, currently allow multi-family housing, retail establishments, professional services, commercial operations as well as indoor and outdoor recreation facilities. The airport approach plan for Manistee Blacker Airport is incorporated herein by reference, and a copy is available for public inspection at the Manistee Township Hall. Action: Modify Zoning District areas and uses in the vicinity of Manistee County Blacker Airport to compliment airport activities not inconsistent with the recommendations in the airport approach plan. 5.4: Infrastructure Actions 5.4.1: County Drains & Drainage Districts Cause: Image 27: Manistee Blacker Airport Entrance Communication and transparency issues have surrounded some drainage district expansion and maintenance efforts. Action: Only support petitions for the creation, expansion, and/or maintenance of drainage districts that are brought about by free land holders of property within the Township. Action: Support closure of all non-essential drains as identified by the Manistee County Drain Commissioner. 5.4.2: Stormwater Management Cause: Stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces carries pollutants such as heavy metals, nitrogen, phosphorus, fecal matter and other pathogens that can be carried to surface waters resulting in nonpoint source pollution. Action: Continue support of the Drain Commissioner's Office “Stormwater Guidelines” which require on-site infiltration of stormwater for commercial, industrial and residential sub-division site plans that are under authority of the drain commissioner's office. 5.4.3: Water and Sewer Agreements Cause: Water and Sewer infrastructure through joint Image 28: Meijer Low Impact Development Level Spreader agreements with local units of government, promote development within areas of Manistee Township. Increased density should follow infrastructure. Action: Continue cooperative agreements with the City of Manistee and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians. Locate and promote zoning districts that increase density where infrastructure is present. 5.5: Energy and Extraction Actions 5.5.1: Gas and Oil Extraction Cause: Existing gas and oil wells are present throughout the Township and lend to economic development and the sustainability of employment. 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan 37 Section 5: Future Land Use Analysis �Action: Permit use of natural resources through the allowance of gas and oil extraction that has been properly permitted through the State of Michigan. 5.5.2: Solar Thermal Energy Cause: The Township has been approached for placement of solar farms for the harnessing and distribution of energy. Action: Manistee Township should continue to allow solar farms in areas of low density residential development and agricultural production. Solar energy should compliment agricultural production by working with landowners to sustain a mode of agriculture that may coexist with solar panels and ancillary equipment. 5.6: Civic and Governmental Actions 5.6.1: Collaboration Cause: Collaboration with adjacent local units of government has led to cost savings through shared services. Action: Continue collaboration with local entities to improve fiscal responsibility. 5.7: Housing Actions Cause: Studies have shown that there is a shortage of attainable housing for workers and working families within our communities. Action: Manistee Township, with it’s location close to employers and services is in a position to provide actions towards improving the housing issue. Land use districts in the Southwestern portion of the Township should promote greater density with allowances for multi-family housing and smaller lot sizes and decreased minimum square footage for smaller single-family dwellings. Flexibility may be achieved while maintaining conditional control through special uses. 5.8: Land Uses Category Actions 5.8.1: Public Land and Public Open Space Actions: Cause: Public lands lend to the character of the Township and region, drawing outdoor enthusiasts and protecting substantial areas from development activities and promoting the use of resources and protecting wildlife habitat. Action: Create a land use district which contains all public lands within the Township. Establishing knowledge of locations of public lands assists staff, visitors and would be residents/property owners when actively viewing parcels. 5.8.2: Agricultural and Forestry Actions: Cause: Protection and preservation of agricultural lands and forestry is a desire of residents and visitors. This was identified through various public input efforts within the Township and County. Parcel size within the current AP-1 Zoning District allows 10 acre parcel minimums with a provision for 1 to 5 acre parcels for non-farm use. Image 30: Manistee State Game Area Marsh Section 5: Future Land Use Analysis 38 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan �Action: Existing minimum parcel sizes do not promote agricultural protection, and will, with time lead to land fragmentation and the dwindling of farmlands within the Township. Recommend, a modern, agricultural preservation zoning district which promotes cluster development and density bonus standards for sustainability of farm-land and development value. This offers greater flexibility for both condensed residential development and active farm operations. Common base densities prior to addition of a “density bonus” are 20 or 40 acre parcel minimums. See example below: 5.8.3:Residential Actions: Cause: Cost of Community Services studies show that sprawling residential development is more costly to service than condensed development where infrastructure is present. Action: Dense residential developments should be encouraged to be placed where appropriate infrastructure is present. This decreases demand on tax dollars, and allows those saved dollars to go towards other services. Cause: Land fragmentation and residential sprawl commonly occur through allowance of medium density development over large areas of land. Medium density commonly ranges from 2 to 10 acres in minimum parcel size. Image #31 Douglas Valley Standard Development vs. Cluster Development with Density Bonus • • 40 Acre Parcel Current AP-1 Zoning Allowance Model 1 to 5 acre minimum per dwelling is allowed 20 new homes on 40 acres *40 new homes is permissible under current zoning 40 Acre Parcel Cluster Development with Density Bonus Model • • • • 10 acre parcel minimum would allow 4 homes per 4o acres. Offer a Density bonus of 1 additional home if the homes are clustered on 2 acre parcels. Allow for a dwelling to be constructed or maintained on the remaining 30 acres Development would occur over 10 acres and leave 30 acres to be permanently preserved for farmland through conservation easement Conserved 30 acres Farmland Farm House Diagram 2: Traditional vs. Cluster Development Example 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan 39 Section 5: Future Land Use Analysis �5.8.3: Residential Actions cont. Action: Dense residential districts should be buffered by multi-use and medium density residential districts. These districts should be located adjacent to higher density residential areas, but should not cover large swaths of undeveloped land, where larger parcel sizes exist. Cause: The current structure of zoning districts within the Township limits the opportunities to have a more focused approach upon varying areas for different residential density. The approach of a “Mixed Use” district is encouraged for a portion of the Township, but not for the purpose it is currently utilized. The current mixed use district is really a medium density residential district with allowances for rural, non-residential uses. Action: Creation of three residential districts provides a range of options for High, Medium and Low Density. The low density district should also continue to allow rural mixed uses and the purpose and title should convey such. The three residential districts to be recommended are: • • • High Density Residential (Allows for Planned Unit Development & Multi-Family as a Special Use) Medium Density Residential (Allows for Planned Unit Development & Multi-Family as a Special Use) Country Residential & Rural Mixed Use (Allows for Planned Unit Development) 5.8.4: Mixed Use Actions Cause: The mixed use district that is currently in place within the Township covers large swaths of land. Lands that are both assessed residential as well as agriculture are captured within this district. The purpose of the district may indeed meet it’s “title” of allowable mixed uses, but as stated above it would be better conveyed as Country Residential and Rural Mixed Use. This would allow for amending of the Mixed Use District to a more commercial/ residential approach. Action: Adjust the uses within the mixed use district to allow for commercial and varying densities of residential development. The district should be placed adjacent to commercial and residential districts where uses such as office and retail can coexist with retirement homes, and higher density residential development. 5.8.5: Commercial Actions Cause: Commercial development is located largely along the US-31 corridor, where both water and sewer infrastructure currently exists. Action: Continue to promote development along the US-31 corridor and other locations of existing infrastructure, and look to expand to areas adjacent to the airport with consideration of an airport overlay zone. Action: Infrastructure expansions should direct the location of proposed commercial development. District boundaries should be amended as needed. Cause: Commercial uses typical of retail and service businesses are located within the commercial district of Manistee Township, with the City of Manistee allowing isolated retail uses for marijuana sales. Action: Manistee Township did not authorize the sale of marijuana or marijuana products under State Law and directs those uses to the nearby City of Manistee. Image 32: Airport Tarmac 40 �5.8.6: Industrial Actions Cause: Industrial areas have been provided along the M-55 corridor in the vicinity of the Renaissance Park. Action: Continue industrial development where water infrastructure exists and sewer can be expanded. Action: Zone light industry uses adjacent to City Renaissance Industrial Park. Action: As infrastructure expands, revisit industrially zoned areas to ensure that they are still compatible with the needs for industrial space within the Township. Cause: Cultivation of marijuana has been directed to industrially zoned districts of communities under State law, and only permissible in communities that have opted in for medical marijuana or opted out for recreational marijuana. Image 33: Industrial Park Entrance Action: Manistee Township has not authorized the cultivation, processing or transport of marijuana within the Township and directs those uses to the nearby City of Manistee where appropriate areas are zoned for allowance of those uses. Image 34: Industrial Park Lot #9 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan 41 Section 5: Future Land Use Analysis �6: Future Land Use Plan The Future Land Use Plan outlines the recommended Future Land Use Districts for Manistee Township. Evidence provided throughout this planning document directs the placement of higher density residential districts to achieve necessary densities for promoting focused growth in areas of existing services and population densities. Similarly, commercial and mixed use districts are focused in areas of transportation corridors that allow ease of access (US-31) as well as having both sewer and water services available. Certain uses of a commercial nature rely upon these services in order to allow for operation. Mixed use provides flexibility off of the primary transportation corridors adjacent to the commercial districts. The placement and expansion of both commercial and mixed use districts align with the recommendations from MDOT and the FAA for development and uses within the Airport Safety Zone Overlay. The Industrial District aligns with it's current placement upon the zoning map, which is adjacent to M-55 and neighboring industrial areas within close proximity of Manistee Lake. The industrial district also contains the City of Manistee Renaissance Park. Industries within the industrial district have the ability to connect to both water and sewer infrastructure, which expands the types of uses that can be placed in the area Rural areas which are desired by many for their unique charm of existing agriculture and forestry should be protected and preserved. This preservation may occur by appropriately directing low density residential development to 10 acre parcels or greater in areas adjacent to active farmland, forests managed for timber and wetland areas which limits the buildable area. Areas of active farmland, forest management and wetlands should be appropriately zoned to a lower density of 1 unit per 20 or 40 acres, which promotes farmland over residential dwelling development. The utilization of density bonuses in trade for farmland conservation easements protects portions of agricultural land and forests. This balances the need of large acreage, rural land owners who rely upon the land for both sustaining a farm/ forestry use but allows portions of the land to be sold and developed for income when needed. Public lands and recreation spaces should be afforded their own district which separates these lands from parcels that are zoned for allowed uses and densities. These public lands will most certainly not be developed, and if and when a parcel of public land becomes transferred to private ownership, a rezoning to a neighboring zoning district should occur at no cost to the landowner. The institution of overlay zones helps to simplify processes by allowing both applicants and the Township to more easily identify the regulations of certain areas. Two overlay zones are recommended within the Township: 1. Airport Overlay Zone: Safety zones which limit tall structures and other hazards to airport operations. 2. Wetland/100 Year Floodplain Overlay Zone: Identifies areas that require State approval for development activities, where the township will authorize land uses of the underlying zoning district with increased setbacks from delineated wetlands and riparian corridors. Public Lands & Open Space 6.1: Forest Recreation and Open Space 6.1.1: Deductive Reasoning: Forest Recreation and Open Space are lands that are held in public ownership through Manistee Township, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources or the United States Forest Service. The lands are not available for development in the traditional sense. Development activities that occur on these lands are for passive and active recreation, which often takes the form of trails, water & land access sites and sport fields, courts or playgrounds. Map 10 displays the locations of lands that are under public ownership and are recommended for inclusion within this district. Legend Highways Roads 6.1.2: District Description: This district is intended to be a holding zone for lands owned and managed in public trust by the United States, Forest 0 D 1 Streams Water Bodies 2 - Public Lands 3 ,::, D 4 City/Township Boundary Adjacent Municipality Miles ´ Map 10: Public Lands and Open Space Map Section 6: Future Land Use Plan 42 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan �Service, the State of Michigan and Manistee Township. The Township should support the forest management plans created and incorporated by both State and Federal agencies. Uses promoted within these lands should be primarily passive recreation in the form of camping, hiking, fishing, hunting and other similar type activities. In the event of the sale or trade of a public land within this district, the Planning Commission shall waive an application fee for the re-zoning of the property to a zoning district which aligns itself with neighboring districts and land uses. 6.1.3: Recommended Bulk Requirements: • No bulk requirements are recommended. Agriculture & Forest Preservation Features 6.1:4 Recommended Uses: • • • • • Passive and active recreation Trails and associated infrastructure Boat & watercraft riparian access and associated infrastructure Public camping facilities and associated infrastructure Park pavilions, playgrounds, courts and associated infrastructure. 6.2: Agriculture and Forest Preservation District (AFP 6.2.1: Deductive Reasoning: The existing AP-1 District contains areas within the Township with active agricultural activity and medium and lower density residential development. The existing district provisions allow for medium density residential development which may create sprawl in areas of agriculture. Through analysis of property assessments which allows isolation of active agriculture, coupled with parcel size analysis isolating parcels 20 acres or greater; the authors were able to identify areas that should be protected through appropriate agriculture and forest preservation densities. Map 11 displays locations of active agricultural lands greater than 20 acres and the existing boundaries of the AP-1 District. Legend Highways Streams Roads D Water Bodies 0 - D Agriculture Parcels 20 acres Existing AP-1 District 1 2 3 c::,City/Township Boundary D Adjacent Municipality ´ Miles 4 Map 11: Agriculture and Forest Pres. Features Analysis Map Recommended Agriculture and Forest Preservation 6.2.2: District Description: The AFP District contains and protects valuable farmland and forestry areas of the Township. The primary focus of these lands should be agricultural production with residential use being secondary. Large parcel sizes are recommended to maintain and promote farmland. Residential development is allowed through cluster development provisions with density bonuses, providing landowners the flexibility to maintain active farmland while also allowing limited and focused residential development upon a portion of a property. Map 12 provides the boundaries for the AFP District. 6.2.3: Recommended Bulk Requirements: - Legend Agriculuture and Forest Preservation • • Minimum parcel size of 20-40 acres Cluster development individual dwelling parcel size of 25,000 square feet to 2 acres 43 Roads 0 1 Airport_Runways D Highways 2 3 Water Bodies Streams Miles 4 ...... I.mi City/Township Boundary D Adjacent Municipality ´ Map 12: Recommended AFP District Boundary Section 6: Future Land Use Plan �• • Cluster development of 5 (new dwellings) per 40 acres (all located upon 10 acres or less) Allow existing or new farm home on remaining acreage to remain in agricultural production 6.2.4: Recommended Uses: • • • • • • • • Farming Operations Forestry Operations Agricultural Tourism Wineries, Cider Mills, Breweries and Distilleries Energy Extraction (Gas and Oil) Solar Energy and Ancillary Activities Single-Family Home Cluster Development (Encouraged through density bonuses) Passive and active recreation & associated infrastructure Commercial Features 6.3: Commercial District (C-1) 6.3.1: Deductive Reasoning: The existing commercial district is located along the US-31 corridor in the Southern portion of the Township. This area is serviced by both water and sewer infrastructure allowing for dense commercial development. The location of the Manistee Blacker Airport influences the expansion of this commercial district boundary as commercial uses are more harmonious with and supported by the Airport Overlay Safety Zones. Map 13 provides the base for analysis of parcels assessed as commercial, the location of water and sewer districts, the airport overlay safety zones and the existing C-1 Zoning District. Legend Highways Roads Streams Water Bodies Sewer District Water Districts 0 1 Commercial Parcels Airport Overlay Zones Existing C-1 District 2 3 Miles 4 City/Township Boundary Adjacent Municipality ´ Map 13: Commercial Features Analysis Map 6.3.2: District Description: This district is intended to provide for a variety of typical retail and service type businesses. Special uses will include certain businesses with outdoor storage, and regulations will seek to condition these businesses to appropriately display and screen outdoor storage when necessary. Residential uses shall be secondary to commercial uses. See map 14 for the recommended boundary of the Commercial District. Recommended Commercial L___ I I 6.3.3: Recommended Bulk Requirements: • Minimum parcel size of 15,000 square feet 6.3.4: Recommended Uses: • • • • All retail uses (adult entertainment and other like uses by special use permit) All service industry uses (including vehicle repair) (junk yards are allowable only by special use permit) All restaurant, eatery and drinking establishment uses All professional office uses Section 6: Future Land Use Plan Legend Commercial Highways Roads 0 44 1 D Airport_Runways City/Township Boundary Water Bodies Adjacent Municipality Streams 2 3 Miles 4 ´ Map 14: Recommended C-1 Boundary 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan �6.4: Mixed Use District (M-1) 6.4.1: Deductive Reasoning: Recommended Mixed Use Parcel analysis of assessed uses of a commercial nature along with both high and medium density residential uses provide guidance to the siting of this district, when considered against the established commercial corridor of US-31. The presence of water and sewer in close proximity provide the services needed to develop increased density. This mixed use district combines density aligning to neighboring high density residential districts and also acts as a buffer to lower density country residential that exists further off of the corridor. This district replaces the existing Mixed Use, M-1 District, with a condensed version that is more flexible in a range of allowable commercial uses and residential uses (with higher density approved through special use permit). 6.4.2: District Description: Located around the commercial district, just off the US 31 corridor and adjacent to the existing Legend Mixed Use Airport_Runways City/Township Boundary higher density residential, are areas that are mixed use. Highways Water Bodies Adjacent Municipality This is a true mixed use district, that more closely Roads Streams Miles resembles a neighborhood commercial district with 0 1 2 3 4 allowances for some high density residential Map 15: Recommended M-1 Boundary (apartments/condos) through special use permit along with single-family home allowances, small retail and offices. More noxious commercial uses, such as gas stations and the like are either prohibited or approved only through a special use permit. See map 15 for the location of the M-1 District Boundary. ´ 6.4.3: Recommended Bulk Requirements: • Minimum parcel sizes of 25,000 - 45,000 square feet are recommended for this district. 6.4.4: Recommended Uses: • • • • • • Industrial Features All professional offices Limited retail (excluding gas stations and the like) Restaurants and Eateries (excluding fast food and drivethru restaurants) Professional service establishments of a non-noxious nature Residential dwellings (single-family by right, multi-family by special use) Planned Unit Development (by special use) 6.5: Industrial District (I-1) 6.5.1: Deductive Reasoning: Analysis of the existing I-1 District boundary overlaid with assessed Industrial parcels and water and sewer districts provides supporting data for the placement of the Industrial District (see map 16). The current boundary of the Industrial District is to be modified slightly to remove the lands that are under ownership of the United Stated Forest Service. 45 Legend Highways Roads Streams Water Bodies Sewer District Water Districts Industrial Parcels Exising I-1 District 0 1 City/Township Boundary Adjacent Municipality 2 3 Miles 4 ´ Map 16: Industrial Features Map Section 6: Future Land Use Plan �6.5.2: District Description: The Industrial District is composed of those areas of the Township whose principal use is or ought to be heavier types of manufacturing and other industrial uses. These uses may generate noise, glare, odor, dust, vibration, air and water pollutants, fire, explosive and radioactive hazards, and other harmful or obnoxious matter in amounts unsuitable for certain areas of the Township. This district has been located within the Township close to neighboring community industrial districts and industrial uses. The siting of the district seeks to protect adjacent agricultural, residential, and commercial areas from the encroachment of incompatible uses, and to lessen congestion on public streets and highways. To these ends, certain uses which would function more effectively in other districts and would interfere with the operation of these industrial activities and the purpose of this district, have been regulated as Special Land Uses or excluded. See map 17 for the recommended boundary. Recommended Industry - Legend Industry Highways 6.5.3: Recommended Bulk Requirements: • • Roads 0 Airport_Runways D Streams 1 2 ......i 1.... D Water Bodies 3 City/Township Boundary Adjacent Municipality ´ Miles 4 Map 17: Recommended I-1 Boundary 3 acre minimum if connected to a public sanitary sewer or an on-site sewage system is used for the disposal of only human waste and not a part of the industrial process. 5 acre minimum if an on-site sewage system is used for anything more than human waste 6.5.4: Recommended Uses: • • • • • • • • • Light manufacturing Municipal water treatment, public works garages Packaging of prepared materials Printing and similar uses Lumber yards Warehousing Contractor Yards Wholesale of goods Uses approved as similar in nature by the Zoning Board of Appeals High Density Residential Features 6.6: High Density Residential (R-1) 6.6.1: Deductive Reasoning: High density residential development is primarily located within the southwestern portion of the Township. These locations are suitable due to the proximity of employment, services and access to primary roads and highways. Analysis of the existing R-1 district along with identification of assessed residential parcels of 2 acres or less, overlaid with water and sewer districts provides a vision for directing higher density residential development (see map 18). Expansion of the high density residential district to capture parcels previously contained within the R-2 district is reasonable due to the nature of the size of the parcels and the density of the areas immediately outside of the established Section 6: Future Land Use Plan 46 Legend Highways Roads Streams Water Bodies Residential Parcels 2 acres or less Existing R-1 District Sewer District Water Districts 0 1 City/Township Boundary Adjacent Municipality 2 3 Miles 4 ´ Map 18: High Density Residential Features 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan �high density residential district. Single and multifamily dwellings are included within the district in order to promote continued dense growth in these appropriate areas. Recommended High Density Residential 6.6.2: District Description: The High Density Residential District is designed to provide sites for single family residences on more compact lots than other residential districts. Non-residential uses permitted are limited in order to avoid future conflicts between land uses on relatively small lots. Special uses should include multi-family allowances with specific conditions that direct these uses to areas where they are serviced by both municipal water and sewer and are more closely situated to primary transportation corridors and employers. See map 19 for the recommended boundary of the R-1 district. 6.6.3: Recommended Bulk Requirements: • Legend Minimum parcel size of 15,000 square feet 0 6.6.4: Recommended Uses: • • • • • High Density Residential Airport_Runways City/Township Boundary Highways Water Bodies Adjacent Municipality Roads Streams 1 2 3 ´ Miles 4 Map 19: Recommended R-1 District Boundary Single-family residential dwellings Home Occupations Bed and Breakfast (by special use) Churches (by special use) Multi-family dwellings (by special use, connection to municipal water/sewer mandatory) 6.7: Medium Density Residential (R-2) Medium Density Residential Features 6.7.1: Deductive Reasoning: Analysis of assessed residential parcels that are greater than 2 acres and less than 10 acres provides a visual for the location of residential density which doesn’t meet the exact definition of low density, but is rural in nature and located outside of higher density residential areas (see map 20). These parcels are candidates to remain at their established size, but also could be allowed to split in order to create higher density. The R-2 District should buffer areas of high density residential development with medium density. This medium density should also be established in locations of critical dunes and high risk erosion where feasible with identified buildable area. 6.7.2: District Description: The R-2, Medium Density Residential District is designed to provide sites for single-family dwellings on slightly larger lot sizes than the R-1 District. Where appropriate municipal water and sewer infrastructure is available, multi-family dwellings should be permitted as a special use. See map 21 for the recommended district boundary. Legend D Highways Residential Parcels 2.1 to 10 acres 12,l Sewer District Roads Streams 1::zl Water Districts Water Bodies 0 1 City/Township Boundary Adjacent Municipality 2 3 4 Miles ´ Map 20: Medium Density Residential Features 47 Section 6: Future Land Use Plan �6.7.3: Recommended Bulk Requirements: • Recommended Medium Density Residential Minimum parcel size of 25,000 square feet 6.7.4: Recommended Uses: • • • • • • • • Single-family residential dwellings Home Occupations Bed and Breakfast (by special use) Churches (by special use) Multi-family dwellings Clinics (by special use) Vet Clinics (by special use) Retail Convenience Stores without gas pumps (by special use) 6.8: Country Residential and Rural Mixed Use (R-3) Legend D 6.8.1: Deductive Reasoning: Medium Density Residential Airport_Runways D Highways Water Bodies Roads Streams 0 1 2 Analysis shows many parcels that are of existing lower residential density (see map 22). Map 21: Areas outside of the high and medium residential districts and wetlands that are not assessed agricultural properties and have existing parcel sizes in Low Density the 10 acre range are ideally situated to be contained in Residential Features a Country Residential and Rural Mixed District. Currently much of the Township is contained within a “Mixed Use” district, that is really a medium density district with allowable rural mixed uses. Orderly growth should promote more density towards services, employment and existing dwelling density. Rural residential character is supported by the current 5 acre minimum parcel size. 3 ...... 1....1 City/Township Boundary D Adjacent Municipality ´ Miles 4 Recommended R-2 District Boundary 6.8.2: District Description: The R-3, Country Residential and Rural Mixed Use District is established to allow for the orderly growth of low density rural residential dwellings, with allowances for rural mixed uses that compliment the rural character of the Township. The district is a buffer between medium density residential districts and areas contained within the agriculture and forestry preservation district. This district should protect rural dwellings with larger parcel sizes and permit rural commercial uses that are compatible with the countryside. The recommended boundary for the R-3 is displayed on map 23. Legend 6.8.3: Recommended Bulk Requirements: • - ,::, Highways City/Township Boundary D Residential Parcels 10.1 acres or greater Roads Existing R-2 District D Adjacent Municipality Streams l'ZI Sewer District Miles D Water Bodies iz::a Water Districts 0 1 2 3 4 ´ Map 22: Low Density Residential Features Minimum parcel size of 5 acres Section 6: Future Land Use Plan 48 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan �6.8.4: Recommended Uses: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Single-family residential dwellings Agricultural Operations Agricultural Storage Processing of Agricultural Products (by special use) Forestry Home Occupations Bed and Breakfast Churches Vet Clinics (by special use) Retail Convenience Stores without gas pumps (by special use) Planned Unit Development (by special use) Contractors Yard (Construction, Landscape) Agricultural Tourism Greenhouses Roadside Stands Wineries, Cider Mills, Breweries and Distilleries (by special use) Rental Cabins (by special use) Boarding Stables Recommended Country Residential and Rural Mixed Use Legend D Country Residential and Rural Mixed Use D Highways Roads 0 6.9: Airport Overlay District (AO) 1 Airport_Runways 2 3 Water Bodies Streams Miles 4 ...... I.mi City/Township Boundary D Adjacent Municipality ´ Map 23: Recommended R-3 District Boundary 6.9.1: Deductive Reasoning: Reoo.mmen.dedl Airpon Overlay The Federal Aviation Administration, the Michigan Aeronautics Commission and Michigan Department of Transportation have made recommendations to the manager of the Manistee Blacker Airport to institute an airport overlay zone. This overlay is necessary to ensure the safety of air traffic, further the Michigan Aeronautics Commission has created an airport approach plan for Manistee Blacker Airport. The airport approach plan created by the Michigan Aeronautics Commission for Manistee Blacker Airport is incorporated herein by reference. A copy of the airport approach plan is on file with Township staff and available for public inspection at the Manistee Township Hall. 6.9.2: District Description: The Airport Overlay Zone is located around the Manistee Blacker Airport and seeks to limit the height of towers and other features and uses that may present a hazard to airport operations not inconsistent with the recommendations provided in the airport approach plan. Please see the airport overlay map 24. Map 24: Recommended Airport Overlay Zone 49 Section 6: Future Land Use Plan �6.11: Wetland Overlay District (WO) □ Wetland & Floodplain Features 6.11.1: Deductive Reasoning: Existing wetland locations that are 5 acres or greater or connected to a surface water of the State fall under EGLE jurisdiction for permitting. Those wishing to develop within wetlands that meet this criteria must obtain a permit from the State of Michigan. The use of an overlay to convey the requirement for a permit from EGLE eases processing of permits as it identifies the high likelihood of the presence of wetlands within the area. See map 25. 6.11.2: District Description: The wetland overlay district identifies the location of wetlands that are 5 acres or greater in size. These wetlands are under the authority of the State of Michigan for activities that include filling, dredging, development or construction. The vast amount of wetlands which meet this criteria necessitate the utilization of an overlay district in order to allow flexibility of regulatory measures that rest within the underlying zoning district. The wetland overlay district doesn’t dictate parcel sizes, rather it identifies the need of the applicant to confirm with EGLE whether a permit is needed for a particular activity and establishes a setback from wetland areas and limits uses that may impact wetlands and associated surface waters. See map 26 for recommended wetland overlay boundary. Legend - c::, Highways Streams City/Township Boundary al Existing W-1 District Roads D Water Bodies D Wetlands 5 Acres D Adjacent Municipality Flood Zone A 0 1 2 Miles 4 3 ´ Map 25: Wetland and Floodplain Features Map I_ Recommended EGLE Identified Wetland Area Legend D Wetlands ≥ 5 Acres Airport_Runways Adjacent Municipality Highways Streams City/Township Boundary Roads 0 1 D 2 Water Bodies 3 Miles 4 ´ Map 26: Recommended Wetland Overlay Boundary Section 6: Future Land Use Plan 50 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan �7: Future Land Use Map Manistee Township Future Land Use Map I I I 1 I I All Districts r -1- - 1--------· I I -- - I -1- -1- -1- -1I I Township Future Land Use Districts Agriculture and Forest Preservation Commercial D D CJ I..__..,, Water Bodies L _1 Parcels High Density Residential l!ZI Airport Overlay Safety Zones □ Wetland Overlay eOO LRBOI In United States Trust Medium Density Residential Manistee County Public Lands Mixed Use 0 D Rivers Country Residential and Rural Mixed Use Industry D g 1 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan Miles 2 Adjacent Townships East Lake Township Border ² 51 Section 7: Future Land Use Map �8: Zoning Plan & Matrix 8.1: Zoning Plan Elements Stormwater Development activities should meet the requirements of the Drain Commission Stormwater Guidelines. These regulatory measures are required for commercial, industrial and larger scale residential projects. Buffering (Uses) Vegetated buffering should be maintained/required in districts where commercial/industrial abut residential uses, as found within the Manistee Township Zoning Ordinance, 2009 as amended. Buffering (Water Protection) Vegetated buffers should be maintained along surface waters, streams and wetlands where accurately delineated. Signage Specific requirements which denote sign number, height, size and specifics for illumination (no flashing, strobing, flickering, etc.) as found within the Manistee Township Zoning Ordinance, 2009 as amended. Landscaping Landscaping requirements should be maintained as found within the Manistee Township Zoning Ordinance, 2009 as amended. Parking Outline requirements for off-street and shared parking and establish a maximum allowance to limit impervious surface area and promote pervious parking areas. Sidewalks Maintain existing and add sidewalks or preserve space where warranted along US31, commercial and high density residential land use districts. Lighting All lighting in Non-Residential Districts should be required to be full cut-off fixtures, directed downward that meet dark sky standards, and light must remain within parcel boundaries as found within the Manistee Township Zoning Ordinance, 2009 as amended. Utility Preservation Preserve utility easements along side and rear lot lines. Access/Connectivity Shared drives, frontage roads and connectivity of parcels along the US31 corridor should be encouraged. Seek to adopt access management standards in the Township Zoning Ordinance. Facade Materials Encouragement of complimentary and high quality building materials for facades (brick, hardy wood plank, vinyl) within the commercial and mixed use districts will allow for the built environment to be aesthetically pleasing as well as maintaining higher values. Section 8: Zoning Plan & Matrix 52 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan �8.2: Zoning Matrix The zoning matrix provides a concise method of displaying which regulatory measures and/or uses should be applied within a specific land use district. Check marks within the boxes of the matrix identify what districts and uses should be applied. Boxes which are empty are implied to not warrant those specific standards or uses. This matrix does not identify whether uses should be permitted or special, nor the specifications of the standards. This matrix is not meant to be all inclusive of every regulatory standard or use that should be placed within the zoning ordinance. Zoning Regulations Land Use Districts Density Limitations # ~ # I~ # I~ # ~ ~ Country Residential & Rural Mixed Use (R-3) ~ # I~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~# ~~ ~~ I~ # ~ ~ ~ ~ I~ ~~ I~ ~ ~ Wetland Overlay (WO) 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan Height Limitations ~ Medium Density Residential (R-2) Airport Overlay (AO) Landscaping # High Density Residential (R-1) Industrial (I-1) Signage ~ Commercial (C-1) Mixed Use (M-1) Buffer (Screening) Agriculture and Forest Preservation (AFP) Buffer (Water Quality) Lighting (Dark Sky) Facade Materials Access/Connectivity Home Occupation Sidewalks Placement Parking Standards Cluster Development Multi-Family Single-Family Planned Unit Development Forest Recreation and Open Space (ROS) ~ 53 Section 8: Zoning Plan & Matrix �Appendix A Manistee Township Fire Dept Equipment List 131 - 2020 Spartan Class A Engine, with 1500 gpm pump, 1250 gal on board tank, 575ft of 5" supply hose, 600ft of 2.5" supply hose, 200ft of portable 500gpm monitor pre connect, 4 150ft 1.75" pre connect hose with vindicator, piercing, and foam nozzles, 1000gpm deck gun (also portable), 100ft of pre connect 1.75" hose with foam, 1 2000kw portable generator with 2 portable lights and extension cord, portable low flow electric pump, 2 axes, 2 shovels, 2 brooms, 5 different types of fire extinguishers, 3 ice suits with complete gear for rescue, 2 swift water suits with complete gear for rescue (rope bags), 6 multi colored tarps, 2.5" 50ft reverse roll for high rise (2 story or more), 2 high rise 1.75" hose with combo fog to smooth bore nozzles, 1 complete hydrant bag, 3 rolls extra of 1.75" hose, 1 16" portable electric positive pressure fan, 2 low level 5" strainers with 27ft of hose, 1 ventilation saw, 1 stop/slow sign, 5 SCBA's complete with 5 spare bottles, 2 portable hand lights, 2 thermal imaging cameras, multiple fittings and connections to adapted to different hose configurations, 2 hose clamps, 3 chimney flares, 30 gal on board foam capacity, 1 extension ladder, 1 roof ladder, 1 folding attic ladder, 1 utility ladder, 2 pike poles, 1 new york hook, 3 portable radios, and 6 traffic cones. 133 - 1998 KME 75' steele straight stick ladder (quint) with a 1500 gpm pump, 500 gal on board tank, 575ft of 5" supply hose, 600 ft of 2.5" supply hose, 2 200ft of 2.5" pre connect hose with nozzles, 2 200 ft of 1.75" pre connect hose with nozzles, 1 100ft pre connect hose with nozzle, 1 2000kw portable generator with portable low flow electric pump, 2 axes, 2 shovels, 2 brooms, 2 different types of extinguishers, JAWS hyd pump with 4 tools, circular cutting saw, RIT kit, multiple throw bags of rescue rope, 1 stop/slow sign, 5 SCBA's complete with 5 spare bottles, 2 portable hand lights, 2 thermal imaging cameras, multiple fittings and connections to adapted to different hose configurations, 1 extension ladder, 2 roof ladder, 1 folding attic ladder, 1 smaller ladder, 2 pike poles, 1 electric exhaust fan, 2 high rise 1.75" hose with combo fog to smooth bore nozzles, 1 complete hydrant bag, 3 portable radios, and 6 traffic cones. 132 - 2007 Kenworth 3000-gal tender/tanker with 500gpm pump, 1 100ft 1.75" pre connect hose with nozzle, 200ft of 2.5" supply hose, 1 complete hydrant bag, 1 3000-gal portable tank, multiple fittings for connecting to different hose, 4" low level strainer with 20ft of suction hose, 1 portable hand light, 1 stop/slow sign, and 4 traffic cones. 134 - 2001 Freightliner 1500 gal tender/tanker with 1000gpm pump, 1 100ft 1.75" pre connect hose with nozzle, 1 pre connected foam eductor, 5 gals of foam, 100 ft of pre connect 2.5" hose, 575ft of 5" supply hose, 600ft of 2.5" of supply hose, 1 2000kw portable generator, 1 complete hydrant bag, 1 4" low level strainer with 20ft of hose, 1 2.5" float strainer with 20ft of hose, 1 250gpm portable water pump, multiple fittings for connecting to different hose, 1 hand light, 1 stop slow sign, and 4 traffic cones. 137 - 2005 Ford F350 brush truck with 75gpm pump and 300 gal on board tank, 6 wildland pre packed hose packs with 200ft of hose in each pack, 100ft 1" booster reel, 150' of 1.75" hose, 54 �200ft of 2.5" hose, wildland fire gear, 1 stop slow sign, 1 chain saw, 2 shovels, 2 brooms, 2 wildland tools, 12000lb electric winch (switch to front and back), and 4 traffic cones. 135R -1994 Chevy Suburban rescue rig with complete MFR equipment, 1 stop slow sign, 1 stair chair, and 3 traffic cones All trucks have mobile radios installed and at least one portable radio unless otherwise listed Station is 80ft by 80ft with 6each 11'7" tall by 10' garage doors, with 2 drive through, 1 7500kw portable generator, approx. 600ft of 3" supply hose, approx. 300ft of 1.75" hose, 2 base radio's (1 in training room, 1 in bay), 4 phone locations, 2 CPU’s (1 laptop, 1 tower both need updated), approx. 300ft of 2.5" supply hose, washer for fire gear only, double wash sink, scba filling station (can only fill low pressure bottles 2216psi), exhaust fan, 2 bathrooms (small septic tank and old), 5" water well, 1 refrigerator/freezer, 1 microwave, 1 small pizza oven, 1 on demand coffee maker, 1 drinking fountain, training room that holds 18 normally with seating and 6 tables (covid style about 9), approx. 4 extra folding tables, approx. 12 extra chairs, 3 portable benches, 1 training facility, and large parking area for approx. 50 to 75 cars (depending on time of year/snow) 55 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Wyckoff Planning and Zoning Collection Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Planning & Zoning Center (Lansing, Mich.) (Organization) Wyckoff, Mark A. Description An account of the resource Municipal master plans and zoning ordinances from across the state of Michigan, spanning from the 1960s to the early 2020s. The bulk of the collection was compiled by urban planner Mark Wyckoff over the course of his career as the founder and principal planner of the Planning and Zoning Center in Lansing, Michigan. Some additions have been made to the collection by municipalities since it was transferred to Grand Valley State University. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Michigan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1960/2023 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Subject The topic of the resource Michigan Comprehensive plan publications Master plan reports Zoning--Michigan Zoning--Maps Maps Land use--planning Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-240 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Manistee-Twp_Master-Plan_2021 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Manistee Township Planning Commission, Manistee Township, Manistee County, Michigan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021-12-09 Title A name given to the resource 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan Description An account of the resource The 2020 Manistee Township Master Plan was prepared by the Manistee Township Planning Commission with assistance from the Manistee County Planning Department and was approved by the Township Board on December 9, 2021. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Manistee County Planning Department, Manistee County, Michigan (consultant) Subject The topic of the resource Master plan reports Manistee Township (Mich.) Manistee County (Mich.) Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/2be872144791a7bae480631a46134518.pdf 548d5f91b47bc98c95fa6f04b2f15a01 PDF Text Text 2020.Regional Development Forecast: - Population, Households and Employment for Cities, Villages, Townships and Detroit Subcommunities c:::::::J D DD D ,----17 L__J DDD •r--ior, D r-7 V'" '----' J [7 ""U •••on c:::Jc!JD DD•• • DDDDD~U • DDDDD •• DDDDC' DODD~ •-DODD -•• ll [7 CJ DD DV April 1996 - SEA£OG ... Planning For The Future Today Southeast Michigan Council Of Governments �SEAfCOG ... Planning For The Future Today SEMCOG is a regional planning partnership, accountable to member local gover~m~n_ts in Southeast Michigan. Its primary missions are 1) planning on issues that extend beyond individual government boundaries and 2) intergovernmental relations in cooperation with local government, as well as state and federal agencies. The SEMCOG partnership strengthens efficient and effective local government, supporting local planning through its technical, data and intergovernmental resources. SEMCOG's membership includes cities, villages, townships, counties, intermediate school districts and community colleges in Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St.Clair, Washtenaw and Wayne Counties. SEMCOG's principal planning activities include adoption of region-wide plans and policies in the area of transportation, community and economic development, water and air quality and other environmental concerns as well as public safety and land use. SEMCOG also maintains the region's most extensive planning database, for demographic, transportation, infrastructure and development, both economic and physical. It is a depository for U.S. Census data as well as the great volume of data generated in various planning activities for more than 35 years. SEMCOG implements direct services through RideShare, the region's car/vanpool matching service; the Center for Joint Public Services, a resource for cooperative intergovernmental arrangements and the SEMCOG library's local ordinance files and governmental problem-solving service. Three principal sources of revenue support SEMCOG programs: federal grants and contracts, state grants and contracts and membership fees. All SEMCOG policy decisions are made by local elected officials, insuring that regional policies reflect the interests of member communities. There are two policy-making bodies: the General Assembly and an Executive Committee, with each member community represented on the General Assembly. SEMCOG's deliberative process includes broad-based representation from local government and the busine~s community as well as environmental organizations and other special interest groups. They funct10~ together in technical advisory councils for transportation, environment, community and economic development, data analysis and education. 0 Printed at SEMCOG on recycled paper �2020 Regional Development Forecast: Population, Households and Employment for Cities, Villages, Townships and Detroit Subcommunities April 1996 Preparation of this document was financed in part through grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration and Federal Highway Administration through the Michigan Department of Transportation, and local membership contributions. Prepared by SEMCOG, The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments 660 Plaza Drive, Suite 1900 Detroit, MI 48226 313/961-4266 • Fax 313/961-4869 http://www.semcog.org e-mail thomas@semcog.org �Table of Contents Executive Summary .............................................................. .............................. ................ ...... 1 Introduction/Methods ................................................................................................................ 3 Regional Forecast Results ........................................................................................................ 5 Jobs ............................................................................................................................... 5 Households ................................................................................................................... 9 Population .. ............................. ............................ .. ................... ......................... .......... 12 Appendix A - Definitions .......................................................................................................... 17 Appendix 8 - Regional Forecast Totals ................................................................................... 18 Appendix C - City, Village and Township Forecasts ............................................................... 19 Appendix D - Detroit Subcommunity Forecasts .................................................................... 101 �Seven County Region HOUY COHOCTlOH CONWAY - F-0 HCMEti ..,__ ICll00 P<Jl'NAM ~ ~ oon,, ll'NOOH D&NIElD OCEOIA - - .,_ ROBE ~ H<R1lNoO OIIO>'ElAM> ~ ll'IAHDOH - """71'1NCE -11 ..-- -· - SYlVAH - SHAROt4 -8 WN'ICHESTEII -,ofWAT91 ~ ·-· «-TBt - - LOHOOH ... ~ IJ DI.N&~ -~ ~ ~ 11M - ....... c»t>OAO ~ ~e ORION - �Executive Summary Introduction SEMCOG's new 2020 Regional Development Forecast (RDF) has been revised following review by local communities of the draft numbers, and has been adopted by SEMCOG's Executive Committee and General Assembly. The RDF provides projections for the total region, for cities, villages and townships, as well as for small areas within municipalities. Starting with base year 1990 data, the forecast represents the projected numbers of people, households and jobs in fiveyear intervals through 2020. In addition, it includes households by income and by presence of children and jobs by type of industry. The community review process included meetings in each of SEMCOG's seven counties and the City of Detroit. These were held in early December 1995. Review comments were used to revise the draft forecast. Following committee review, the completed 2020 Regional Development Forecast was adopted by the Executive Committee on February 23, 1996, and by the General Assembly on March 21 , 1996. Methods The Regional Development Forecast takes three major steps to generate small area numbers. The first step uses an economic and demographic model to generate Regional Forecast Totals. These set the overall regional growth expectations for population, households and jobs at fiveyear intervals from 1990 through the year 2020. Next, the DRAM/EMPAL (Disaggregated Residential Allocation Model/Employment Allocation) model uses these Regional Forecast Totals to produce forecasts for 174 areas called "forecast districts." Finally, the district numbers are allocated to 1,442 small areas called "analysis zones." Zones, in turn, can be summed to equal cities, villages, townships and counties. Methodology used in RDF takes advantage of established, well-tested computer models used in many large metropolitan areas across the United States. Small area data from the 1980 and 1990 censuses, the Michigan Employment Security Commission and other sources through early 1995 are used to represent economic and demographic trends. Data on existing land development, infrastructure and local plans indicate capacity for future growth. SEMCOG has had the input and review of a committee of local planners and economic and demographic experts during the RDF process. The agency's most recent forecast was very accurate (within a few percentage points) at the county and region levels when compared to the subsequent census. Municipal and analysis zone forecasts have been reasonably accurate. The new 2020 RDF is expected to provide an even better view of future small area change. Summary of Forecast Results The adopted Regional Forecast Totals show strong growth in both population (up 13 percent regionwide) and jobs (up 18 percent) from 1990 through 2020. The basis of this growth is a diversifying economy led by growth in services, together with the region's traditional solid economic foundation in manufacturing (although a continued push for efficiency will shrink totals of manufacturing jobs). The region can look forward to a positive economic future. The two most significant trends in the forecast are the aging of our region's population and the continued outward spread of households and jobs. The aging population will result in more households without children (up 37 percent regionwide, 1990 to 2020) and fewer households with children (down 5 percent). With the forecasted 22 percent growth in households, the region will need to build over 400,000 new housing units between 1990 and 2020. 1 �Over the next 25 years, the region's growth will continue to spread out - for both job locations and residences. Job growth will be strong in western Wayne County, the Ann Arbor area, the western and northern Oakland County suburbs, in central Macomb County and in Livingston County. Detroit's historic employment losses will moderate with significant gains in some areas of the city. Growth in service jobs (up 39 percent regionwide) will lead the gains in high growth areas of Southeast Michigan. On the household side, the largest amount of growth will occur in the communities on the borders of the built-up, urbanized area of the region, with additional strong growth areas in the townships surrounding Ann Arbor, in central and eastern Livingston County, across northern Oakland and Macomb counties and into St. Clair County. Population also changes as existing households change. Because of a continued decline in household size (down from 2.66 to 2.47 persons per household for the entire region), many older suburbs will continue to add households yet will lose some population. Use of the RDF SEMCOG's forecast provides a basis for its Regional Transportation Plan and other regional planning work. Local units of government can use these projections in their infrastructure and master planning. Businesses and other organizations need this type of detailed portrayal of the future to understand their clients' needs. 2 �Introduction/Methods Introduction Over its 28-year history SEMCOG has produced an update of the Regional Development Forecast (RDF) approximately every five years. This 2020 RDF takes advantage of data from the 1990 census and more recent development and job data to extend SEMCOG's forecast to the year 2020. By providing small area detail, the forecast gives a 25-year view of the future of Southeast Michigan that satisfies these objectives: • provides a base for SEMCOG's long range regional planning, • links future changes in the region to past trends and to the most current data on locations of residential development and economic activity, • provides SEMCOG's member local governments with an essential component of their comprehensive planning and • satisfies planning requirements of the federal lntermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991. Methods In order to have an accurate view of the future for communities and for small areas within communities, a forecast requires that the larger context of growth and change be set for the entire metropolitan area. SEMCOG's 2020 Regional Development Forecast uses a three-step process to determine the future growth of the entire Southeast Michigan metropolitan area and then allocate that growth to sub-areas of the region, as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 Regional Development Forecast Process c:::lc:=:JC DDQ •• •Cl •DDCSmallDD DDDDD~U • •••• rArean[] ~~VP' •c:::u=:::10 DODD D IT • c::JcJDDDD Regional Forecast Totals DD • fl 3 �The first step in the process is developing a set of Regional Forecast Totals. Appendix B contains the complete set of numbers on future population, households and jobs at five-year intervals to 2020 that were adopted by SEMCOG's General Assembly in February 1995. SEMCOG and the RDF Subcommittee of the DataCenter Advisory Council derived the regional totals from work done at the Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations of the University of Michigan using the REMI model (Regional Economic Models, Inc.). REMI is a computer model that considers local areas as economic units competing for labor, income and future population with other areas of the United States. SEMCOG evaluated and modified REMI results based on current data and other national forecasts of the region. With the context for overall regional growth established, step two is examining household and economic interactions within the region. SEMCOG used the DRAM/EMPAL (Disaggregated Resi• dential Allocation Model/Employment Allocation) model system to do this. DRAM/EMPAL is a well-tested method that is now being applied in many of the largest metropolitan areas across the country. It considers each of 174 forecast "districts" as a market area competing with the rest of Southeast Michigan for future people and jobs. Each district's characteristics are considered and recent job and household changes in the district are linked to all other districts by use of interdistrict travel times. Data considered by the models are summarized below. Summary of Data Inputs DRAM/EM PAL for 174 districts Zonal Allocation Program for 1,442 analysis zones Regional totals of jobs (8 types) and households (8 types), all forecast years For each district: jobs (8 types) and households (8 types), all forecast years Jobs in base year Jobs 5 years previous Households (20 types) in base year Households (20 types) 5 and 10 years previous Household type-housing unit structure type in base year Households in base year Households 5 years previous Population in base year Land by vacant developable or type of use Job-land use relationship in base year Land holding capacity - from vacant developable land, local plans and densities Travel times to all other districts, all forecast years Population from Households for 1,442 analysis zones Regional totals of population, all forecast years Households ( 20 types), all forecast years Persons per household in base year Wit~in each of the 174 districts, new development can be accommodated where suitable laodis ava,labl~. ~onal allocation is the third step in the RDF process. The zonal allocation program (ZAP) di st nbutes district forecasts to 1,442 analysis zones. ZAP uses land "supply" data and ;ecent tre nd s to accomplish this step. Population is then derived from households. zone t~:e~::n~re summed to provide forecast numbers for each city, village, township and county in 4 �The review, revision and adoption process for RDF brought together SEMCOG staff, local planners, economists and demographic experts to review methods and draft results. Community review used a series of meetings, one in each county, to discuss and solicit suggested modification to the draft forecast. SEMCOG researched concerns raised in comments and modified the forecast as appropriate. Final approval by SEMCOG's General Assembly in March 1996 followed recommendation by the DataCenter Advisory Council and Executive Committee. Providing an accurate view of future small area change in Southeast Michigan is the overall goal of the Regional Development Forecast. The data, methods and review process are all designed to produce this result. SEMCOG's most recent forecast (RDF, Version '89) was accurate at the regional and county levels to within a few percentage points when measu.-ed against the 1990 census. Small area accuracy was within reasonable limits. In 2020 RDF, improved small area data and newly applied computer models should produce even better results. Regional Forecast Results Future Jobs Southeast Michigan's economic future is solid, as shown in the Regional Forecast Totals (see Appendix 8). The REMI economic model that was the source of these totals indicates strong, broad-based economic growth over the next several decades. Job gains will be 18 percent, with a total of 2.9 million jobs by 2020. Because of the aging population, however, as described below, from 2010 to 2020 there will be little change in total numbers of jobs. Figure 2 shows forecast job growth and also shows jobs as a percentage of working age adults. Figure 2 Employment Change 1990 - 2020 87% 88% l..ru~---:--::-::;85:o/c~o=~rw;;~~;;;;;;;;;;;---7 t of working Age Population Jobs as a Percen 88 1: 84 B 80 ~ D. en C .2 :E 2000 2010 2020 The region's economy will continue to diversify as employment in service industries grows. Figure 3 shows the eight industrial classes forecast by SEMCOG along with changes in jobs from 1990 to 2020. 5 �Figure 3 Change in Jobs by Industrial Class 1990- 2020 1.2 1.0 .8 ,n C .2 ·-:e .6 .4 .2 0 Ag. Manuf. Nat. Res. Who esale TCU 1990 Retail Services 2020 While the region's manufacturing job totals will shrink by 15 percent over the 30-year forecast, this represents a continuing process of cost cutting and efficiency in goods production. The region'~ share of U.S. motor vehicle production has remained around 20 percent for the past several decades. Manufacturing jobs were 24 percent of all jobs in Southeast Michigan in 1990 as compared to 17 percent in the U.S. overall. The biggest gains, 39 percent, are in services, which include a wide range of activities, from job~ in beauty shops and other personal services to business services and health care workers. Retail (which includes restaurant jobs) and financial services are other major segments of the econom~ that will show gains. 6 �Change in Jobs by County 1990- 2020 1990 1995 2010 2005 2000 2015 2020 Change Percent Number 39,300 46,700 55,100 63,300 69,400 70,900 71,900 32,600 83.0% Macomb 333,700 361 ,400 386,200 403,700 410,600 409,700 407,700 74,000 22.2% Monroe 50,400 55,600 60,700 64,600 66,500 66,800 67,200 16,800 33.3% Oakland 681 ,000 745,300 806,100 856,200 883,400 885,300 887,800 206,800 30.4% St.Clair 55,700 60,600 64,700 69,400 72,500 73,500 74,400 18,700 33.6% Washtenaw 213,900 228,300 242,800 252,800 258,200 259,000 260,200 46,300 21 .6% Wayne Detroit Balance Wayne 976,200 412,500 563,700 979,200 383,700 595,500 999,700 1,015,000 357,300 368,900 630,800 657,700 1,016,200 348,200 668,000 1,010,200 1,004,500 341,700 337,400 667,100 668,500 28,300 -75,100 103,400 2.9% -18.2% 18.3% 2,350,200 2,477,000 2,615,200 2,725,000 2,776,700 2,775,200 2,773,700 423,500 18.0% Livingston Region Note: Due to rounding, individual values may not equal totals. Within Southeast Michigan, job locations will continue the historic pattern of outward growth. The two tables show forecast jobs by county and the top 1O growth communities in the region. Oakland, Out-Wayne, Macomb and Washtenaw counties each will gain substantial numbers of jobs. The largest percentage gains, however, are in Livingston County. Ranked by community, the biggest gainers are the Oakland County suburbs Auburn Hills, Troy and Rochester Hills, plus Ann Arbor and Livonia. Top 10 Job Growth Communities Employment Change 1990 2020 Number Percent 22,200 62,000 39,800 179.3% Ann Arbor 113,300 134,700 21,400 18.9% Troy 104,500 125,000 20,500 19.6% Rochester Hills 18,700 36,700 18,000 96.3% Livonia 93,100 110,200 17,100 18.4% Canton Twp 14,200 30,600 16,400 115.5% Waterford Twp 23,100 39,300 16,200 70.1% Sterling Heights 55,800 70,800 15,000 26.9% Novi 22,200 36,700 14,500 65.3% Clinton Twp 25,700 40,200 14,500 56.4% Auburn Hills 7 �Figure 4 shows that areas of strongest job growth are generally in the northern and western suburbs. Moderate job gains are forecast for many of the more rural townships just beyond these areas. Job losses are most pronounced in the traditional centers of manufacturing employment, such as Detroit, Pontiac and Warren . Detroit's historically large losses are expected to continue moderating, as redevelopment accelerates during the forecast period. Figure 4 Change in Employment 1990- 2020 D Decrease, More than 1,000 Loss QI]] Small Change, 1,000 Loss to 1,000 Gain ,~1111 Moderate Increase, 1,001 to 5,000 Gain 8 Large Increase, More than 5,000 Gain �Future Households Several factors combine to produce the substantial growth in households, 22 percent, indicated by 2020 RDF. Strong economic growth will keep population growing in the region. As shown in Figure 5, households with children will actually decline by five percent from 1990 to 2020, while households without children will increase over 36 percent. These childless households will include many single adults, both young and elderly, but also many more "empty nesters" as baby boomers (people born between 1946 and 1965) age beyond the child raising years. Figure 5 Household Change 1980- 2020 2.0 ti) C .2 :e 1.5 1.0 .5 0 1980 1990 2000 2020 2010 Figure 6 Average Persons Per Household 1960 - 2020 · 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.59 2.5 2.0 1960 2.52 2.47 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 9 �L The forecasted drop in household size continues a huge demographic shift in how people live, one that has been ongoing through much of the industrial period in the history of our society. The steady decline in household size will continue through 2020, with the regional average at 2.47 persons per household by that time. By county and by community, household growth trends reflect gains and losses in job concentra• tions, changing access to these concentrations, and a general tendency of an outward spread of lower density residential development. The tables show household growth by county and list the highest growth communities in the region. Change in Households by County 1990- 2020 Change Number Percent 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 38,900 46,000 52,800 59,500 66,400 73,300 79,400 40,500 104.1% Macomb 265,000 285,600 300,800 316,000 332,100 347,100 359,900 94,800 35.8% Monroe 46,500 50,000 52,900 55,400 58,000 61,100 63,800 17,200 37.1% Oakland 410,500 440,000 461,600 483,500 506,100 530,500 551,800 141,300 34.4% St. Clair 52,900 57,700 61,400 64,800 68,300 72,300 75,800 22,900 43.3% Washtenaw 104,500 112,600 118,600 124,600 130,900 138,000 144,600 40,100 38.3" Wayne Detroit Balance Wayne 780,400 374,100 406,500 781,300 360,500 420,800 TT9,100 349,300 430,100 TTS,400 339,900 438,700 TT9,100 332,500 446,900 782,800 327,200 455,900 788,000 322,800 465,500 7,800 -51,200 59,000 1.0% ·13.7" 14.5% 1,698,800 1,773,100 1,827,400 1,882,300 1,941,300 2,005,400 2,063,600 364,700 21.5°4 Livingston Region Note: Due to rounding, individual values may not equal totals. High Growth Communities Households MACOMB TWP Change 1990 2020 Number Percent 7,400 27,200 19,800 267.6% NOVI 12,700 31,600 18,900 148.8% SHELBY TWP 16,800 34,900 18,100 107.7% CANTON TWP 19,500 34,100 14,600 74.9% CLINTON TWP 32,500 44,700 12,200 37.5% 6,800 17,300 10,500 154.4% STERLING HEIGHTS 40,800 50,700 9,900 24.3% TROY 26,200 35,400 9,200 35.1% ROCHESTER HILLS 22,300 31,400 9,100 40.8% FARMINGTON HILLS 29,300 38,000 8,700 29.7% PITTSFIELD TWP Aas discudssed above' the strongest growth in jobs is forecast for western Wayne County the Ann ArbOr rea an central Oakland and M b • ' eneral ·ob . acorn counties. As Figure 7 shows, household growth follows th~se 9 J patterns, but is more spread out, reflecting both land availability and commuting behavior. 10 �Figure 7 Change in Households 1990 - 2020 D Decrease, More than 500 Loss Small Change, 500 Loss to 500 Gain - Moderate Increase, 501 to 2,000 Gain Large Increase, More than 2,000 Gain 11 �Future Population r Southeast Michigan's population has rebounded, beginAfter almost tw~ decades of stag~a io;, been aining at a rate of 1/2 percent per year. Relying ning in 1988. Smee the~, th ~ r~g,on as my p;ople will continue to choose to live in Southeast on the strength _of o~r d1vers1fyh1~gfecono t ~t 13 percent over 30 years, reaching 5.2 million in Michigan. Reg1onw1de growt is orecas year 2020. Figure 8 Population Change 1980- 2020 18 16 14 12% 11% rento1 po ~etv . 5 'leat5 pu\at1on ... C ftfte o1~ Cl) 12 6 0 ~et ~ Cl) 0. 10 8 6.0 4.6 4.8 5.0 2000 2010 5.2 ~ 4.0 .2 :i 2.0 1980 1990 2020 Within that steady increase in total population, big shifts are occurring in ~~e structure a~: geographic location. As Figure 8 shows, the population over 65 years of age w1I! increase ge percent in 1990 to 17 percent in 2020. Figure 9 shows how dramatic the shift will be for eac ~ . 5 group. Despite overall population growth, there are decreases in all age groups _up to 8 10 One principal effect will be on the labor force - no growth in numbers of workers in the 2 in 2020 period. The biggest increase is for the age group that will be composed of baby bo?mers 59 2020, those aged 55 - 74. Because of people living longer, the 75+ age group will also mcrea strongly, by 59 percent. In response to these changes, communities will need to provide more services for empty nest~: and the elderly - zoning for retirement and care-giving housing, elderly transportation and rec ational opportunities. frr 6~o 12 �Figure 9 Percent Change in Population by Age 1990- 2020 100 +81% 80 .,. 60 C Cl) ...u Cl> Q. 40 20 0 -20 0-4 5-15 16-17 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ Age Group The table shows county population change numbers. The growth shown in these figures parallels that of households. Change in Population by County 1990 - 2020 Change 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Number Percent Livingston 115,600 135,600 154,100 170,900 187,700 204,900 219,700 104,100 90.1% Macomb 717,400 754,500 775,900 802,300 832,500 860,900 884,200 166,800 23.3% 146,700 150,700 154,900 160,200 164,800 31,200 23.4% 1,192,200 1,232,200 1,272,200 1,319,000 1,359,900 276,300 25.5% Monroe Oakland 133,600 141,400 1,083,600 1,150,900 St. Clair 145,600 158,900 167,500 175,100 182,800 191,500 199,200 53,600 36.8% Washtenaw 282,900 300,500 313,100 325,600 340,300 357,400 373,400 90,500 32.0% Wayne Detroit Balance Wayne 2,111,700 1,028,000 1,083,700 2,094,000 992,300 1,101,700 2,055,000 2,020,700 952,000 916,000 1,103,000 1,104,700 1,992,300 884,300 1,108,000 1,973,100 1,961,400 858,600 837,300 1,114,500 1,124,100 -150,300 -190,700 40,400 -7.1% -18.6% 3.7% Region 4,590,500 4,735,700 4,804,400 4,877,400 4,962,600 5,067,100 5,162,400 571,900 12.5% Note: Due to rounding, individual values may not equal totals. 13 �Figure 10 Change in Population 1990 - 2020 D Decrease, More than 1,000 Loss Small Change, 1,000 Loss to 1,000 Gain - Moderate Increase 1,001 to 5,000 Gain Large Increase, More than 5,000 Gain As Figure 10 shows, the areas with declines in population include both urban core cities such~~ 8 Detroit and Pontiac, which are losing households, but also the suburbs built in the 195os .11 196Os. These are communities with many households that have "aged in place" and th0 Ywi have many empty nesters and elderly in year 2020. 14 �When viewed by community and small areas, population change in many suburban communities brings up the question, "How can my community be gaining households (and housing units) yet losing population?" This apparent paradox is explained by the changing composition of households. With five percent fewer households with children and many more single adults in 2020, there will not be as many people in a given number of housing units. On the growth side, in contrast, the areas rapidly growing in households are also rapidly growing in population. Because many families move to new housing when young children are added to the household, some of these growth communities will experience a net increase in household size. The table shows population change in the 15 largest communities in the region. While Detroit and Warren work to achieve stable populations in the future, communities such as Clinton Township and Canton Township will be challenged to provide schools and other services for their burgeoning populations. Population Change in 15 Largest Communities Change Population Detroit Warren Sterling Heights Ann Arbor Livonia Dearborn Clinton Twp Westland Southfield Farmington Hills Troy Pontiac Taylor St. Clair Shores Waterford Twp 1990 2020 Number Percent 1,028,000 144,900 117,800 111,800 837,300 133,200 125,800 122,300 96,300 92,700 -190,700 -11,700 8,000 10,500 -4,500 3,400 15,000 6,800 -1,700 8.0% -2.2% 72,900 71,200 70,800 100,700 91,500 74,000 83,400 89,100 62,700 61,300 -18.6% -8.1% 6.8% 9.4% -4.5% 3.8% 17.5% 8,700 16,200 -8,500 -9,500 11.6% 22.2% -11.9% -13.4% 68,100 66,700 63,900 74,600 -4,200 7,900 -6.2% 11.8% 100,800 89,300 85,800 84,700 75,700 74,700 15 �Appendix A - Definitions Population . • h · ·t . . · Total population includes all residents of the commun!ty, whet~~-r they reside in ousmg um s or ~n ~rou~ quarters (nursing homes, college dormitories, correctional fac1ht1es, etc.) Group quarters populat10 in se lected communities having federal or state group quarters facilities h~s been updated to 1995 and all other 1995 group quarters populations have been adjusted, so that the region's total 1995 group quarters population is the same as the 1990 total. No further changes are made beyond 1995. Households . Total households equal the total number of occupied housing units. The household with ~~1ldren group 1s those households with one or more persons under 18 years of age. A household not contam1~g any person under 18 is in the households without children group. Note that the 1990 total households figure 1s b~sed on sample Census data and may differ slightly from the 100 percent count total. Also note that neither population nor household numbers have been adjusted to reflect 1990 Census undercount. Household income quartiles consist of four income classes. Each class contains 1/4 of the re~ion's total households. Households are arranged in order of income, lowest to highest. In terms of 1989 income, as reported in the 1990 Census, the quartile boundaries are as follows: Quartile 1 Less than $16,717 Quartile 2 $16,717 to $34,302 Quartile 3 $34,303 to $55,585 Quartile 4 More than $55,585 Because future dollar values of income quartiles cannot be projected accurately, forecast households are simply reported as numbers of households by quartile, with no dollar value specified. Persons Per Household Persons per household is an average, calculated by dividing household population by total households. Employment "Total employment'' measures the number of jobs, both full-time and part-time, located in the community. This includes self-employed proprietors. These jobs may be held by community residents or by nonresidents who commute into the community. Employment is broken down into four types: manufacturing, retail trade, services and all other. These types, called "industrial classes," describe the predominant purpose and major product or service of the business, agency or governmental department for which the employed person works. Note that although manufacturing jobs occur mainly in plants and factories, they can also be found in warehouses, research facilities and office buildings. "Retail trade" jobs occur mainly in stores, shops and eating and drinking places, but also occur in warehouses and office buildings. "Services" is a very diverse class, including such establishments as hotels and motels, repair shops, barber and beauty shops, hospitals, schools from nursery to university, business service firms and offices of health practitioners, consultants, architects, engineers and lawyers. The "all other" group includes agriculture, transportation/communications/utilities, wholesale trade, finance/insurance/real estate and public administration. Note that construction jobs and military are not included in RDF employment. Communities Communities are defined as of January 1, 1990, as recognized by the 1990 Census, with two kinds of exceptions. First, township "islands" are included within the surrounding city or village, and very minor differences may occur because of differences between analysis zone boundaries and communities. Second, boundarie_s were updated to 1995 for two pairs of communities, Dexter/Scio Township, and South Lyon/Lyon Township, where there were sizable annexations between 1990 and 1995 that impacted the communities' vacant land acreage. The table gives numbers by both 1990 and 1995 boundaries. In addition, the 1990 numbers for all communities do not reflect corrections made by the Census Bureau after the sample data were ~eleased. The forecast requires sample data detail and this is unavailable in the Cens~s Bureau corrections. The one exception was South Lyon/Lyon Township, where there was a major err?r in the 1990 censu_s ~ata. Staff used the official revised totals issued by the Census Bureau and 1 estimated the charactenst,cs of the households involved in the change. 16 J �Appendix B - Regional Forecast Totals Table 1 Employment by Industrial Class Southeast Michigan 1990 - 2020 Industrial Class 1990 Agri., & Nat. Res. 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change 1990-2020 Number Percent 30,423 31,945 32,602 33,117 34,092 34,646 35,065 4,642 15.3% Manufacturing 486,644 482,618 468,658 466,926 461,554 439,838 415,270 71,374 -14.7% Trans., Commun. & Utilities 124,287 117,000 120,002 123,867 126,736 127,795 127,044 2,757 2.2% Wholesale Trade 121,200 128,294 134,006 143,085 149,036 149,024 147,741 26,541 21.9% Retail Trade 441,167 464,100 476,751 499,946 507,785 502,250 496,965 55,798 12.6% 193,410 201,221 210,717 217,649 221,054 47,932 27.7% 1,119,829 1,184,915 1,213,458 1,229,487 1,255,449 350,557 38.7% 74,235 5,733 8.4% 2,774,868 2,772,824 422,586 18.0% Finan., Insur. & Real Estate 173,122 183,004 Services 904,892 1,001,811 68,502 68,070 Total Employment 2,350,238 2,476,840 Public Adminstration 70,621 72,582 2,614,310 2,723,699 2,775,959 69,052 74,179 Table 2 Households by Income Quartile and Whether Children in Household Southeast Michigan 1990 - 2020 Income Quartile and Whether Children Present Without Children 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change 1990-2020 Number Percent Quartile 1 300,929 310,722 327,201 345,782 364,210 382,099 398,727 97,799 32.5% Quartile 2 290,430 305,344 319,145 336,907 356,194 374,393 388,958 98,528 33.9% Quartile 3 245,792 265,916 281,705 300,621 318,955 332,956 342,373 96,581 39.3% Quartile 4 240,783 261,877 281,864 304,352 323,695 335,410 341,998 101,214 42.0% Total W/O Children 1,077,934 1,143,859 1,209,915 1,287,663 1,363,054 1,424,857 1,472,056 394,122 36.6% -5.3% With Children Quartile 1 123,755 132,545 129,645 124,801 121,104 119,252 117,159 -6,596 Quartile 2 134,292 137,924 137,701 133,676 129,120 126,958 126,928 -7,364 -5.5% Quartile 3 178,935 177,352 175,141 169,962 166,358 168,395 173,513 -5,421 -3.0% Quartile 4 183,903 181,391 174,982 166,232 161,619 165,941 173,888 -10,015 -5.4% 620,885 629,212 617,469 594,672 578,201 580,547 591,488 -29,397 -4.7% 1,698,819 1,773,070 1,827,384 1,882,335 1,941,255 2,005,404 2,063,544 364,725 21.5% Total With Children Total Households 17 �Table 3 Total Population, Household Population, Group Quarters Population, Population by Age Group and Persons Per Household Southeast Michigan 1990 - 2020 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change 1990-2020 Number Percent 4,590,468 4,735,738 4,804,389 4,STT,433 4,962,603 5,067,093 5,162,405 571,937 12.5% Household Pop. 4,521,180 4,666,450 4,735,101 4,808,145 4,893,315 4,997,805 5,093,117 571,937 12.7% Group Quarters Pop. 69,288 69,288 69,288 69,288 0 0.0% Total Population 69,288 69,288 69,288 Population by Age Group Oto 4 347,129 324,152 303,933 296,189 301,068 308,866 309,509 -37,620 -10.8% 5 to 15 704,564 739,089 732,016 690,907 666,167 670,206 689,278 -15,286 -2.2% 16 & 17 131,538 132,062 133,379 140,043 132,225 126,587 126,301 -5,237 -4.0% 18 to 24 485,781 464,554 455,606 478,609 485,113 463,706 448,659 -37, 122 -7.6% 25 to 34 807,887 717,674 664,449 649,149 657,011 697,514 702,850 -105,037 -13.0% 653,264 646,942 662,474 -48,015 -6.8% 35 to 44 710,489 794,760 783,069 697,555 45 to 54 474,827 586,480 688,308 761,670 753,935 674,225 634,303 159,476 33.6% 55 to 64 394,960 394,7TT 450,456 550,441 648,757 719,900 713,406 318,446 80.6% 65 to 74 323,062 343,563 324,055 323,266 373,492 458,861 541,531 218,469 67.6% 75 & Older 210,231 238,627 269,118 289,604 291,571 300,286 334,094 123,863 58.9% 2.66 2.63 2.59 2.55 2.52 2.49 2.47 -0.19 -7.3% Persons Per Household 18 �Appendix C Regional Development Forecast, Full MCD Report LIVINGSTON COUNTY BRIGHTON Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 5,990 2,472 942 1,530 518 677 596 681 2.42 5,389 46 652 42 117 2,768 192 1,519 53 6,690 2,746 1,028 1,718 553 675 584 934 2.44 6,384 51 577 46 183 3,053 255 2,173 46 7,241 3,008 1,050 1,958 591 668 555 1,194 2.41 7,307 36 566 70 194 3,309 352 2,727 53 7,424 3,166 973 2,193 630 653 499 1,384 2.34 8,134 32 566 84 203 3,530 454 3,202 7,409 3,261 854 2,407 658 626 434 1,543 2.27 8,802 32 555 106 204 3,683 537 3,620 65 7,390 3,354 757 2,597 678 608 383 1,685 2.20 8,880 28 502 120 189 3,547 576 3,852 66 7,365 3,433 678 2,755 680 596 348 1,809 2.15 8,917 27 452 113 173 3,411 599 4,077 65 BRIGHTON TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 14,541 4,575 2,222 2,353 347 627 1,351 2,250 3.18 6,030 209 1,489 206 389 1,309 861 1,217 350 15,689 5,021 2,266 2,755 296 651 1,569 2,505 3.12 7,076 243 1,730 248 475 1,391 1,047 1,589 353 17,151 5,621 2,317 3,304 277 723 1,865 2,756 3.05 7,688 178 1,694 298 497 1,500 1,196 1,935 390 18,160 6,123 2,254 3,869 306 818 2,144 2,855 2.97 8,394 146 1,699 369 523 1,631 1,358 2,237 431 19,177 6,661 2,192 4,469 368 932 2,389 2,972 2.88 8,976 133 1,678 411 540 1,737 1,520 2,508 449 20,230 7,229 2,213 5,016 473 1,068 2,585 3,103 2.80 9,040 119 1,524 431 504 1,719 1,633 2,655 455 20,983 7,720 2,249 5,471 630 1,205 2,688 3,197 2.72 9,024 112 1,381 420 466 1,697 1,699 2,797 452 COHOCTAH TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 63 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2,693 842 425 417 120 160 315 247 3.20 235 91 29 3,161 985 491 494 118 161 383 323 3.21 236 91 19 0 58 30 0 38 0 3,606 1,131 546 585 121 165 448 397 3.19 288 98 19 3 47 53 10 57 4,005 1,271 579 692 132 174 502 463 3.15 333 99 21 5 42 77 13 74 2 4,387 1,411 605 806 141 188 543 539 3.11 361 98 22 7 31 98 14 88 3 4,783 1,555 646 909 150 206 584 615 3.08 374 93 21 9 30 112 14 92 3 5,061 1,661 677 984 155 222 611 673 3.05 378 88 20 11 26 122 12 96 3 63 20 0 31 0 Change 1,375 961 -264 1,225 162 -81 -248 1, 1:~0 -.28 3,528 -19 -200 71 56 643 407 2,558 12 Percent 23.0 38.9 -28.0 80.1 31 .3 -12.0 -41.6 165.6 -11 .5 65.5 -41.3 -30.7 169.0 47.9 23.2 212.0 168.4 22.6 Change 6,442 3,145 27 3,118 283 578 1,337 947 -.46 2,994 -97 -108 214 77 388 838 1,580 102 Percent 44.3 68.7 1.2 132.5 81 .6 92.2 99.0 42.1 -14.5 49.7 -46.4 -7.3 103.9 19.8 29.6 97.3 129.8 29.1 Change 2,368 819 252 567 35 62 296 426 -.15 143 -3 -9 10 -37 102 12 65 3 Percent 87.9 97.3 59.3 136.0 29.2 38.8 94.0 172.5 -4.7 60.9 -3.3 -31.0 1,000.0 -58.7 510.0 n/a 209.7 n/a 19 �., CONWAY TWP 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1,818 559 247 312 74 155 167 163 3.25 141 91 10 3 7 15 0 15 0 2,227 701 275 426 76 185 211 229 3.18 141 92 13 3 8 7 0 18 0 2,576 828 293 535 78 207 253 290 3.11 240 98 14 5 13 19 9 82 0 2,935 955 312 643 86 224 297 348 3.07 319 98 15 7 19 31 13 135 3,307 1,080 340 740 93 236 337 414 3.06 379 97 16 9 24 43 14 174 2 3,781 1,225 401 824 101 248 387 489 3.09 404 93 17 11 23 55 15 188 2 4,323 1,379 490 889 108 257 445 569 3.13 432 90 18 13 24 68 16 201 2 2,505 137.8 146.7 98.4 184.9 45.9 65.8 166.5 249.1 -3.6 206.4 -1.1 80.0 333.3 242.9 353.3 DEERFIELD TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 3,000 963 431 532 136 183 361 283 3.12 100 42 0 1 25 18 0 14 0 3,566 1,148 481 667 115 184 470 379 3.11 98 44 0 1 16 20 0 17 0 4,057 1,322 501 821 95 178 570 479 3.07 248 45 18 3 21 28 8 125 0 4,538 1,498 500 998 90 177 641 590 3.03 387 44 35 6 27 36 12 226 4,937 1,652 480 1,172 83 172 695 702 2.99 500 45 5,205 1,769 455 1,314 77 166 732 794 2.94 545 43 52 11 34 48 15 338 4 5,370 1,856 426 1,430 72 160 758 866 2.89 582 41 53 13 36 52 15 367 5 2,370 893 -5 79.0 92.7 -1.2 168.8 -47.1 -12.6 110.0 206.0 -7.1 482.0 -2.4 FOWLERVILLE Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2 ,648 973 379 594 262 393 228 90 2 .72 806 38 52 4 31 283 79 319 0 2020 Change Percent 2,734 1,009 380 629 231 422 261 95 2.71 1,219 40 120 8 24 456 57 514 0 2,882 1,072 384 688 211 454 299 108 2.69 1,296 19 115 7 18 520 14 603 0 2,981 1,125 370 755 203 472 330 120 2.65 1,446 10 123 6 15 593 9 690 0 3,092 1,180 359 821 194 485 357 144 2.62 1,600 13 120 6 13 665 9 773 3,132 1,214 343 871 183 3,134 1,234 327 907 173 486 261 -52 313 488 484 376 167 2.58 1,677 13 109 5 10 693 7 839 1 387 190 2.54 1,736 12 99 4 91 159 100 581 18.4 26.8 -13.7 52.7 -34.0 23.2 69.7 111 .1 -6.7 115.4 -68.4 90.4 .0 -74.2 149.8 -93.7 182.1 1 n/8 20 48 9 31 43 15 306 3 8 707 5 900 820 243 577 34 102 278 406 -.12 291 -1 8 10 17 53 16 186 2 898 -64 -23 397 583 -.22 482 -1 53 12 11 34 15 353 5 -89 -.18 930 -26 47 0 -23 424 -74 n/a 1,240.0 n/a n/a 1,200.0 44.0 188.9 n/a 2,521.4 n/a �•----------------- GENOA TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 10,790 3,692 1,562 2,130 430 719 972 1,571 2.92 4,082 88 343 160 318 757 104 2,302 10 12,769 4,525 1,649 2,876 394 866 1,173 2,092 2.82 5,127 95 380 177 333 1,642 170 2,321 9 14,854 5,338 1,792 3,546 371 985 1,357 2,625 2.78 6,147 107 423 224 361 1,963 206 2,773 90 16,924 6,175 1,897 4,278 387 1,084 1,600 3,104 2.74 7,096 137 496 276 402 2,302 240 3,090 153 18,862 6,957 2,011 4,946 408 1,155 1,772 3,622 2.71 7,820 167 562 312 423 2,589 265 3,316 186 20,401 7,593 2,146 5,447 431 1,203 1,891 4,068 2.69 8,000 172 575 318 397 2,706 275 3,357 200 21,549 8,087 2,275 5,812 455 1,230 1,960 4,442 2.66 8,113 170 573 316 360 2,784 280 3,424 206 GREEN OAK TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 11,604 3,893 1,573 2,320 433 836 1,229 1,395 2.98 4,005 18 1,886 238 643 209 7 981 23 14,000 4,744 1,883 2,861 423 1,086 1,420 1,815 2 95 3,617 15 1,226 313 681 224 2 1,122 34 16,011 5,471 2,112 3,359 440 1,316 1,554 2,161 2.93 4,330 61 1,202 368 714 292 74 1,580 39 18,089 6,234 2,307 3,927 496 1,570 1,681 2,487 2.90 5,060 94 1,211 496 758 366 150 1,938 47 20,573 7,132 2,567 4,565 555 1,828 1,839 2,910 2.88 5,598 117 1,203 563 795 450 208 2,214 48 23,243 8,071 2,931 5,140 594 2,068 2,024 3,385 2.88 5,709 131 1,102 588 754 522 231 2,332 49 25,586 8,879 3,310 5,569 600 2,254 2,201 3,824 2.88 5,803 139 1,006 625 709 581 249 2,446 48 HAMBURG TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 13,077 4,438 1,842 2,596 445 886 1,289 1,818 2.95 1,331 26 541 36 35 378 14 265 36 16,587 5,588 2,344 3,244 452 999 1,557 2,580 2.97 1,454 27 590 43 35 446 18 264 31 19,440 6,547 2,712 3,835 452 1,064 1,725 3,306 2.97 1,812 101 593 135 94 513 32 310 34 22,517 7,635 3,024 4,611 489 1,170 1,930 4,046 2.95 2,146 149 613 160 160 630 47 350 37 25,390 8,667 3,303 5,364 515 1,258 2,114 4,780 2.93 2,464 161 623 243 222 734 61 382 38 28,227 9,689 3,659 6,030 533 1,344 2,336 5,476 2.91 2,657 167 589 305 284 802 74 397 39 30,677 10,571 4,026 6,545 531 1,413 2,573 6,054 2.90 2,811 168 556 354 338 859 87 411 38 Change 10,759 4,395 713 3,682 25 511 988 2,871 -.26 4,031 82 230 156 42 2,027 176 1,122 196 Percent 99.7 119.0 45.6 172.9 5.8 71.1 101.6 182.7 -8.8 98.8 93.2 67.1 97.5 13.2 267.8 169.2 48.7 1,960.0 Change 13,982 4,986 1,737 3,249 167 1,418 972 2,429 1,798 121 -880 387 66 372 242 1,465 25 Percent 120.5 128.1 110.4 140.0 38.6 169.6 79.1 174.1 -3.3 44.9 672.2 -46.7 162.6 10.3 178.0 3,457.1 149.3 108.7 Change 17,600 6,133 2,184 3,949 86 527 1,284 4,236 -.04 1,480 142 15 318 303 481 73 146 2 Percent 134.6 138.2 118.6 152.1 19.3 59.5 99.6 233.0 -1.5 111.2 546.2 2.8 883.3 865.7 127.2 521 .4 55.1 5.6 -.10 �HANDY TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration HARTLAND TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration HOWELL Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 22 1990 2,840 907 468 439 148 222 301 236 3.13 744 71 248 29 23 70 15 288 0 1995 3,807 1,178 621 557 149 227 413 389 3.23 890 71 268 34 20 83 6 408 0 2000 4,686 1,428 745 683 146 222 511 549 3.28 1.156 75 264 39 27 115 18 618 0 2005 5,512 1,675 845 830 153 221 590 711 3.29 1,498 79 282 42 38 230 25 800 2 2010 6,273 1,919 927 992 161 227 646 885 3.27 1,751 84 284 43 48 308 27 949 8 2015 7,072 2,186 1,031 1,155 175 245 709 1,057 3.24 1,844 85 266 40 46 340 29 1,027 11 2020 7,813 2,447 1,139 1,308 193 272 TT3 1,209 3.19 1,930 88 249 35 45 366 31 1,102 14 Change 4,973 1,540 671 869 45 50 472 973 .06 1,186 17 1 6 22 296 16 814 14 Percent 175.1 169.8 143.4 197.9 30.4 22.5 156.8 412.3 2.0 159.4 23.9 .4 20.7 95.7 422.9 106.7 282.6 rv'a 1990 6,860 2,211 1,022 1,189 198 398 715 900 3.10 1,430 149 15 3 36 448 21 758 0 1995 7,926 2,619 1,097 1,522 184 478 866 1,091 3.03 1,936 166 48 11 79 456 33 1,143 0 2000 8,990 3,036 1,151 1,885 172 554 989 1,32, 2.96 2,235 178 61 13 99 461 24 1,399 0 2005 9,909 3,444 1,136 2,308 194 643 1,062 1,545 2.88 2,617 185 102 17 124 500 33 1,655 1 2010 10,859 3,870 1,123 2,747 218 730 1,131 1,791 2.81 2,969 198 136 25 149 517 43 1,897 4 2015 11 ,838 4,302 1,153 3,149 247 815 1,227 2,013 2.75 3,163 198 162 31 154 53 2,on 4 2020 12,700 4,685 1,203 3,482 279 888 1,328 2,190 2.71 3,329 198 179 35 154 452 60 2,247 4 Change 5,840 2,474 181 2,293 81 490 613 1,290 -.39 1,899 49 164 32 118 4 39 1,489 4 Percent 85.1 111.9 17.7 192.9 40.9 123.1 85.7 143.3 -12.6 132.8 32.9 1,093.3 1,066.7 327.8 .9 185.7 196.4 rv'a 1990 8,261 3,298 1,111 2,187 790 1,078 788 642 2.50 10,341 12 1,883 246 86 1,786 2,089 3,646 593 1995 9,415 3,759 1,227 2,532 765 1,286 846 862 2.50 11,998 23 2,423 253 128 1,713 2,176 4,567 715 2000 10,345 4,171 1,268 2,903 741 1,483 860 1,087 2.48 13,361 45 2,682 290 139 1,930 2,347 5,109 819 2005 10,622 4,418 1,120 3,298 737 1,609 845 1,227 2.40 14,640 52 2,923 323 150 2,158 2,482 5,622 930 2010 10,592 4,562 917 3,645 724 1,702 780 1,356 2.32 15,545 51 3,090 332 149 2,384 2,506 5,996 1,037 2015 10,368 4,648 709 3,939 711 1,792 694 1,451 2.23 15,505 44 2,954 307 131 2,468 2,408 6,075 1,118 2020 10,Q78 4,699 524 4,175 706 1,875 601 1,517 2.14 15,363 38 2,768 270 113 2,521 2,299 6,201 1,153 Change 1,817 1,401 -587 1,988 -84 797 -187 875 -.36 5,022 26 885 24 27 735 210 2,555 560 Percent 22.0 42.5 -52.8 90.9 -10.6 73.9 -23.7 136.3 -14.4 48.6 216.7 47.0 9.8 31.4 41.2 10.1 70.1 94.4 484 �-------------------HOWELL TWP 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 7,835 2,610 1,071 1,539 187 458 784 1,181 3.00 5,342 157 1,364 124 153 2,214 40 1,209 81 2015 2020 9,313 3,142 1,260 1,882 230 516 899 1,497 2.96 5,466 158 1,328 142 154 2,317 55 1,224 88 10,761 3,660 1,473 2,187 272 564 1,008 1,816 2.94 5,551 163 1,272 158 157 2,392 69 1,249 91 Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 4,298 1,336 657 679 120 271 477 468 3.22 1,695 237 831 42 92 283 14 185 11 5,036 1,588 760 828 118 312 550 608 3.17 2,705 258 1,044 71 120 615 9 563 25 5,800 1,856 867 989 125 361 614 756 3.13 3,828 191 1,159 86 126 1,247 18 955 46 6,679 2,183 955 1,228 151 407 696 929 3.06 4,778 158 1,271 104 141 1,875 28 1,133 68 IOSCOTWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 3,843 1,203 545 658 71 248 370 514 3.19 510 105 10 29 40 171 29 112 14 4,547 1,428 645 783 84 265 424 655 3.18 555 114 11 36 44 180 41 114 15 5,203 1,637 751 886 97 275 478 787 3.18 589 114 12 42 48 189 52 116 16 MARION TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min , Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1,567 495 246 249 45 142 175 133 3.17 131 77 9 0 14 19 1 10 1 2,186 681 341 340 48 182 241 210 3.21 145 84 8 0 19 21 0 11 2 2,719 845 414 431 50 207 294 294 3.22 296 90 8 9 26 83 9 66 5 3,232 1,006 474 532 59 228 329 390 3.21 446 98 9 18 33 154 18 104 12 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 8,055 2,702 1,070 1,632 275 389 652 1,386 2.98 1,349 174 158 54 83 240 25 562 53 9,776 3,340 1,256 2,084 353 502 794 1,691 2.93 1,587 185 198 84 108 305 43 599 65 12,102 4,165 1,579 2,586 432 660 1,021 2,052 2.91 1,795 201 234 121 136 361 66 606 70 14,432 4,980 1,946 3,034 495 826 1,285 2,374 2.90 1,999 217 268 157 167 413 89 616 72 4,893 1,526 738 788 145 228 461 692 3.21 604 177 51 7 47 77 0 242 3 5,838 1,862 840 1,022 169 264 503 926 3.14 759 177 101 13 49 109 0 296 14 6,836 2,232 951 1,281 209 312 557 1,154 3.06 1,084 177 125 31 63 168 11 476 33 Change 6,463 2,324 816 1,508 152 293 531 1,348 -.28 3,856 -74 441 116 65 2,109 55 1,064 80 Percent 150.4 174.0 124.2 222.1 126.7 108.1 111 .3 288.0 -8.6 227.5 -'31 .2 53.1 276.2 70.7 745.2 392.9 575.1 727.3 Change 3,636 1,142 505 637 52 133 303 654 .01 458 37 3 42 34 170 51 106 15 Percent 232.0 230.7 205.3 255.8 115.6 93.7 173.1 491 .7 .4 349.6 48.1 33.3 n/a 242.9 894.7 5,100.0 1,060.0 1,500.0 Change 9,539 3,454 1,208 2,246 350 598 824 1,682 -.31 1,395 40 217 150 120 336 89 374 69 Percent 195.0 226.3 163.7 285.0 241.4 262.3 178.7 243.1 -9.6 231 .0 22.6 425.5 2,142.9 255.3 436.4 n/a 154.5 2,300.0 23 > �11 OCEOLA TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration PINCKNEY Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration PUTNAM TWP Total Population Total Households With Childreh Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 24 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 4,773 1,500 703 797 197 374 400 529 3.18 500 189 29 2 82 33 13 151 5,812 1,845 822 1,023 186 438 464 757 3.15 590 194 35 3 80 76 25 174 6,710 2,158 906 1,252 171 485 518 984 3.11 735 225 53 18 91 99 35 208 7,364 2,425 917 1,508 163 505 568 1,189 3.04 822 204 69 30 102 123 7,843 2,656 887 1,769 154 507 592 1,403 2.95 871 176 82 41 109 145 51 8,027 2,803 827 1,976 141 8,017 44 19 21 21 20 2010 1,893 632 276 356 137 72 209 214 3.00 483 6 14 6 11 301 2015 1,928 666 265 401 148 72 213 233 2.89 470 2020 1,951 697 254 443 158 73 216 250 2.80 459 8 Change 6 1990 1,603 514 270 244 113 114 154 133 3.12 273 1995 1,694 534 285 249 111 95 174 154 3.17 339 0 0 32 15 4 2000 1,802 570 296 274 113 83 197 177 3.16 394 2 10 2005 1,850 599 288 311 125 75 205 194 3.09 458 4 12 5 5 4 257 8 295 3 5 7 0 3 54 56 253 3 224 48 109 157 863 117 92 51 109 164 88 95 113 128 0 137 0 0 1 1 7 12 7 10 7 12 283 9 139 13 267 11 142 1 1990 1995 2000 4,586 1,506 677 829 212 310 512 472 3.05 976 2005 5,137 1,699 720 979 194 262 632 611 3.02 1,366 2010 5,693 1,904 765 1,139 179 235 758 732 2.99 1,800 2015 2020 6,174 2,094 6,509 2,240 767 1,473 183 235 6,788 6,998 2,365 765 1,600 182 2,465 909 913 2.91 970 970 2.87 2,397 2,386 2,390 3 49 37 2 79 35 767 4 28 28 46 23 186 58 978 19 42 25 58 33 368 69 1,177 28 779 1,315 184 231 843 836 2.95 2,246 48 1,343 -67 98 192 1,168 -.41 363 -72 63 49 27 131 43 102 249 1 147 597 1,571 2.86 870 143 89 751 2,140 130 472 592 1,697 2.77 248 236 14 3 0 494 2,891 Change 3,244 1,391 243 767 1,698 180 255 1,025 1,005 2.84 50 51 40 41 27 62 46 580 82 1,353 46 28 62 54 27 59 58 574 55 59 599 84 1,466 53 78 1,491 59 25 551 69 1,527 63 348 183 -16 199 45 -41 62 117 -.32 186 8 -22 4 13 120 8 54 Change 2,412 959 90 869 -32 -55 513 533 -.21 1,414 38 -24 18 57 472 34 760 59 Percent 68.0 92,7 6.8 168,5 ·34.0 26.2 48.0 220,8 -12.9 72,6 -38.1 217.2 2,450.0 32.9 397.0 330.8 67.5 2,000.0 Percent 21.7 35.6 -5.9 81.6 39.8 -36,0 40.3 88.0 -10.2 68,f n/a -68.8 133,3 n/a 81.6 266,7 61.4 n/8 - Percent 52,6 63,7 13,3 104,8 -15,1 -17,7 100.2 112.9 -6.8 144,9 1,266,7 -49,0 48,6 2,850,0 597,5 97,1 99,f 1,475,0 �TYRONE TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 6,854 2,215 1,011 1,204 228 342 799 846 3.09 298 159 10 8 26 37 2 56 0 8,002 2,634 1,097 1,537 249 357 1,072 956 3.04 355 178 21 8 30 43 2 73 0 9,097 3,068 1,143 1,925 277 367 1,366 1,058 2.97 568 183 10,053 3,491 1,130 2,361 351 388 1,587 1,165 2.88 787 185 88 25 57 71 31 327 3 11,047 3,935 1,121 2,814 416 411 1,802 1,306 2.81 987 190 125 34 70 92 12,067 4,381 1,163 3,218 476 439 2,014 1,452 2.75 1,103 188 152 43 80 112 51 468 9 12,960 UNADILLA TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2,949 978 398 580 123 298 328 229 3.02 185 33 27 3 0 36 5 81 0 3,282 1,092 412 680 91 306 415 280 3.01 265 34 3,565 1,195 416 779 68 302 506 319 2.98 326 38 20 10 5 115 12 3,830 1,296 407 889 63 306 569 358 2.96 399 4,121 1,404 404 1,000 60 315 627 402 2.94 4,433 1,518 424 1,094 60 324 680 434 45 444 46 4,713 1,620 456 1,164 61 332 719 508 2.91 453 25 19 26 21 16 156 27 18 157 31 143 144 9 9 LIVINGSTON COUNTY Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 24 6 0 90 6 105 0 48 17 42 52 21 204 124 2 43 22 14 10 147 18 138 7 42 427 7 14 157 23 143 8 454 2.92 4,777 1,228 3,549 527 468 2,194 1,588 2.71 1,203 186 173 50 88 131 59 505 11 45 26 23 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 115,645 38,893 16,924 21,969 5,084 8,413 11,618 13,778 2.97 39,296 1,756 8,186 1,071 2,036 8,772 3,455 12,935 1,085 135,558 45,958 19,019 26,939 4,922 9,436 13,804 17,796 2.95 46,700 1,911 8,670 1,288 2,361 10,885 3,865 16,469 1,251 154,061 52,801 20,629 32,172 4,887 10,371 15,796 21,747 2.92 55,139 1,989 9,099 1,689 2,614 13,092 170,853 59,515 21,337 38,178 5,274 11 ,344 17,570 25,327 2.87 63,355 2,041 9,742 2,103 2,941 15,569 5,087 24,000 1,872 187,725 66,372 22,005 44,367 5,679 12,287 19,124 29,282 2.83 69,376 2,111 10,183 2,465 3,188 17,235 5,538 26,564 2,092 204,875 73,303 23,372 49,931 6,106 13,264 20,746 33,187 2.79 70,887 2,083 9,752 2,653 3,165 17,636 5,711 27,663 219,674 79,378 24,950 54,428 6,502 14,121 22,190 36,565 2.77 71,925 2,062 9,232 2,752 3,111 17,884 5,788 28,821 2,275 4,468 20,641 1,547 2,224 Change 6,106 2,562 217 2,345 299 126 1,395 742 -.38 905 27 163 42 62 94 57 449 11 Change 1,764 642 58 584 -62 34 391 279 -.11 268 12 -1 20 18 121 26 63 9 Change 104,029 40,485 8,026 32,459 1,418 5,708 10,572 22,787 -.21 32,629 306 1,046 1,681 1,075 9,112 2,333 15,886 1,190 Percent 89.1 115.7 21.5 194.8 131.1 36.8 174.6 87.7 -12.3 303.7 17.0 1,630.0 525.0 238.5 254.1 2,850.0 801.8 n/a Percent 59.8 65.6 14.6 100.7 -50.4 11.4 119.2 121.8 -3.5 144.9 36.4 -3.7 666.7 n/a 336.1 520.0 77.8 n/a Percent 90.0 104.1 47.4 147.7 27.9 67.8 91 .0 165.4 -6.9 83.0 17.4 12.8 157.0 52.8 103.9 67.5 122.8 109.7 25 �It MACOMB COUNTY ARMADA 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percen1 Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1,548 502 246 256 84 109 170 139 3.08 985 21 149 3 7 250 16 513 26 1,620 519 255 264 68 108 182 161 3.12 1,028 48 216 5 9 243 15 466 26 1,673 528 264 264 54 102 194 1,718 540 262 278 45 97 201 197 3.18 1,196 4 251 8 11 290 1,757 552 1,784 565 255 310 1,801 576 250 326 31 253 74 4 70 -53 -41 16.l 14.1 1.6 27.l -63 1 ·37,6 16.! 100.1 ARMADA TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration BRUCE TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 26 178 3.17 1,112 19 234 8 10 265 259 293 38 88 203 223 3.18 1,265 4 274 8 12 298 8 12 514 11 566 601 50 55 60 34 78 202 251 3.16 1,293 4 282 8 13 295 4 622 65 68 198 28 279 3 .13 140 .04 u 1,304 2 32,4 68 319 -19 129 5 6 39 -12 129 42 25.1 161.! 278 8 13 289 4 642 ·90! 86.I 166.1 85,1 15.I -m 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Perce~ 2,943 874 438 436 115 171 269 319 3.37 339 128 56 4 16 18 0 116 3,671 1,069 533 536 119 172 356 422 3.43 576 134 220 6 20 21 0 174 4,079 1,177 572 605 117 157 419 4,604 5,131 1,461 678 783 117 5,663 1,609 6,115 1,741 107,8 749 820 3,172 867 382 485 1112 -1 -23 •,! -13! 144.o 151.1 41 484 3.47 734 135 275 22 28 28 11 1,319 622 697 118 151 493 557 3.49 867 130 299 30 36 46 20 144 557 643 3.51 934 114 328 39 43 860 115 144 614 736 3.52 979 100 346 921 114 148 658 821 3.51 812 1951 .29.1 56 1,001 90 353 59 51 60 38 38 38 NI 50 48 35 42 530A 1,375.1 2181 233.l 223 282 51 29 293 307 191 12 24 37 300 41 164.1 43 42 4,200.1 2010 2015 2020 1990 1995 2000 2005 4,193 1,328 628 700 178 298 349 503 3.16 1,575 55 920 46 30 235 7 282 5,668 1,807 846 961 6,426 7,429 8,413 9 ,359 10,100 2,099 927 1,172 2,469 1,050 1,419 2,843 1,177 3,230 1,295 1,935 223 415 503 666 3.14 2,146 40 1,326 62 43 306 25 344 247 516 611 725 3.06 2,575 48 1,524 105 65 344 32 423 273 307 857 878 801 2.96 3,271 3,571 1,368 2,203 402 1,127 0 34 0 389 502 .15 662 -38 297 55 99.2 684 742 770 3.01 2,949 63 1,663 115 94 409 53 493 59 1,666 75 1,845 127 117 432 71 519 85 351 1,014 1,042 823 2.90 3,444 83 1,926 150 130 441 88 533 93 1,210 832 2 .83 3,495 88 --- Change~ 5,907 2,243 740 1,503 224 829 861 329 -.33 1,920 33 1,918 164 138 444 99 998 118 108 209 92 547 97 265 97 140, 168.! 111.1 214.1 125.I 218.! 246,1 65,l .10,i 121.! so.i 108l 256! 3&',i ~.! ~., 1,31',l r/1 �CENTER LINE Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 9,026 3,919 962 2,957 1,497 1,097 852 473 2.30 7,067 33 2,664 127 775 1,214 471 1,728 55 8,679 3,927 933 2,994 1,596 1,212 776 343 2.21 8,939 46 3,569 298 965 1,310 352 2,317 82 8,337 3,927 877 3,050 1,694 1,289 695 249 2.12 10,000 49 3,667 329 1,075 1,270 305 3,200 105 8,214 3,985 823 3,162 1,809 1,336 627 213 2.06 10,561 48 3,716 376 1,183 1,255 283 3,584 116 8,096 4,038 770 3,268 1,896 1,393 566 183 2.00 10,794 47 3,672 431 1,246 1,172 251 3,849 126 8,092 4,125 760 3,365 1,993 1,452 519 161 1.96 10,743 47 3,468 483 1,250 1,085 227 4,048 135 8,080 4,195 765 3,430 2,078 1,495 479 143 1.93 10,627 47 3,233 514 1,237 1,019 209 4,228 140 CHESTERFIELD TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 25,905 8,903 4,025 4,878 1,085 2,144 3,187 2,487 2.91 7,993 76 4,443 192 296 912 668 1,224 182 28,678 9,987 4,292 5,695 1,111 2,301 3,682 2,893 2.87 9,087 86 4,405 231 361 1,677 426 1,675 226 33,733 12,026 4,824 7,202 1,302 2,723 4,503 3,498 2.81 10,332 124 4,067 310 420 2,257 363 2,476 315 35,151 12,770 4,717 8,053 1,435 2,801 4,748 3,786 2.75 11,876 160 4,090 389 494 2,915 349 3,130 349 36,508 13,514 4,610 8,904 1,567 2,883 4,941 4,123 2.70 13,413 193 4,591 446 545 3,442 315 3,499 382 37,960 14,290 4,640 9,650 1,713 2,987 5,146 4,444 2.66 14,347 229 4,807 481 567 3,791 290 3,770 412 39,138 14,950 4,727 10,223 1,851 3,081 5,309 4,709 2.62 14,819 257 4,730 501 575 4,051 270 4,016 419 CLINTON TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 85,848 32,471 11,651 20,820 5,534 8,480 9,535 8,922 2.64 25,682 300 3,768 731 930 6,509 2,134 10,518 792 93,831 36,890 11,573 25,317 6,429 10,124 10,700 9,637 2.54 29,916 392 4,559 626 935 7,958 2,764 11,631 1,051 96,836 39,279 11,023 28,256 7,139 11,183 11,142 9,815 2.47 33,690 443 5,162 619 968 8,956 3,186 13,242 1,114 100,213 41,687 10,464 31,223 8,039 12,357 11,521 9,770 2.40 36,692 476 5,485 621 1,074 9,917 3,468 14,474 1,177 103,517 44,121 10,032 34,089 9,077 13,631 11,866 9,547 2.35 38,594 510 5,836 600 1,120 10,545 3,789 14,960 1,234 101,726 44,278 9,463 34,815 9,598 14,124 11,655 8,901 2.30 39,514 538 5,835 574 1,117 10,832 4,054 15,277 1,287 100,727 44,640 9,204 35,436 10,099 14,560 11,524 8,457 2.26 40,206 560 5,760 546 1,102 11,024 4,225 15,693 1,296 Change -946 276 -197 473 581 398 -373 -330 -.38 3,560 14 569 387 462 -195 -262 2,500 85 Percent -10.5 7.0 -20.5 16.0 38.8 36.3 -43.8 -69.8 -16.4 50.4 42.4 21.4 304.7 59.6 -16.1 -55.6 144.7 154.5 Change 13,233 6,047 702 5,345 766 937 2,122 2,222 -.29 6,826 181 287 309 279 3,139 -398 2,792 237 Percent 51.1 67.9 17.4 109.6 70.6 43.7 66.6 89.3 -10.0 85.4 238.2 6.5 ~60.9 94.3 344.2 -59.6 228.1 130.2 Change 14,879 12,169 -2,447 14,616 4,565 6,080 1,989 -465 -.39 14,524 260 1,992 -185 172 4,515 2,091 5,175 504 Percent 17.3 37.5 -21.0 70.2 82.5 71.7 20.9 -5.2 -14.7 56.6 86.7 52.9 -25.3 18.5 69.4 98.0 49.2 63.6 27 �2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 35,001 13,492 4,251 9,241 2,850 4,328 4,186 2,128 2.59 10,335 82 810 318 484 3,2n 805 4,325 234 34,527 13,512 4,098 9,414 2,883 4,532 4,227 1,870 2.56 10,925 83 839 348 542 3,190 900 4,746 277 34,417 13,548 3,975 9,573 3,002 4,556 4,167 1,823 2.54 11,404 89 937 359 607 3,169 957 4,991 295 34,041 13,561 3,802 9,759 3,114 4,625 4,112 1,710 2.51 11 ,523 93 964 365 657 3,069 1,036 5,009 330 34,116 13,753 3 ,777 9,976 3,255 34,264 4,741 4,845 4,123 1,634 4,150 1,578 2.48 2.45 11 ,420 96 939 361 672 2,913 1,094 4,982 363 11 ,333 98 898 352 676 2 ,792 1,128 5,012 3TT 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 13,899 5,176 1,895 3,281 1,162 1,255 1,500 1,259 2.69 10,510 94 5,361 158 725 1,425 302 2,311 134 15,087 5,796 1,922 3,874 1,356 1,386 1,622 1,432 2.60 12,729 78 6,499 169 896 1,638 266 3,050 133 15,135 6,005 1,765 4,240 1,482 1,424 1,611 1,488 2.52 13,927 73 6,775 183 1,009 1,745 254 3,749 139 14,986 6,183 1,556 4,627 1,638 1,536 14,514 6,211 1,363 4,848 1,799 1,600 1,495 1,317 2.34 14,316 78 6,434 180 1,177 14,211 6,275 1,253 5,022 1,949 1,661 1,434 1,231 2.26 14,098 6,392 1,199 5,193 2,098 1,720 GROSSE POINTE SHORES (PT)1990 1995 Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 2000 2005 111 49 9 40 0 13 19 17 2.27 59 0 13 0 0 0 0 46 0 107 49 EASTPOINTE Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration FRASER Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 28 1990 35,283 13,447 4,329 9,118 2,896 4,001 4,072 2,478 2.62 9,608 86 781 296 397 3,203 687 3,999 159 105 48 5 43 0 12 14 22 2.19 55 0 13 0 0 0 0 42 0 1995 1,588 13,964 3,812 10,152 3,391 1,401 80 6,061 173 1,195 1,813 229 1,173 2.21 13,635 82 5,654 165 1,193 1,779 220 4,325 4,419 128 123 2010 2015 2020 106 49 120 57 119 58 118 59 8 8 41 0 15 19 15 2.18 69 0 13 0 0 0 0 56 0 41 0 16 20 13 2.16 70 0 13 0 0 0 0 57 0 9 48 9 49 20 23 13 2.11 73 0 13 2 21 24 11 2.05 73 0 13 1,421 2.42 14,321 76 6,606 185 1,114 1,856 252 4,095 137 1,848 239 4,229 131 14,004 9 50 3 23 24 9 2.00 73 0 13 Change Percent -1,019 517 -517 1,034 495 844 78 -900 -.17 1,725 12 117 56 279 -411 441 1,013 218 ·2.! 31 ·11.! lU 17.1 2U u ·36.J ~.I m w m jij,! 70 ) -1!! 64.1 251 137,1 Change Percent 199 1,216 -696 1,912 936 465 -99 -86 -.48 3,125 -12 293 7 468 354 -82 2,108 -11 1.4 23! •36.1 58.J 00.1 37.I -6.o -6.1 .17.! 29.1 .12.i 5.1 ti 64.6 24J .27,2 912 ~.i ---- Change~ 13 11 4 1 3 11 10 -13 -.19 18 0 0 12,4 22.9 ao.o 16,3 ,0 91,1 71,4 ,59,1 .8,6 32.1 ,0 ~a ~a ~a 0 57 0 0 57 0 0 57 0 0 15 0 ,0 35.1 ,0 �HARRISON TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration LENOX TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration MACOMB TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 24,685 9,950 3,124 6,826 1,679 2,687 2,806 2,778 2.48 5,334 59 1,457 234 374 856 167 1,498 689 25,883 10,648 3,072 7,576 1,720 2,852 3,052 3,024 2.43 6,318 40 1,879 26,105 10,930 2,914 8,016 1,759 2,886 3,155 3,130 2.39 7,434 43 2,188 231 329 1,090 252 2,516 785 26,533 11,297 2,742 8,555 1,880 2,919 3,277 3,221 2.35 8,172 55 2,227 243 347 1,248 308 2,921 823 27,111 11,680 2,638 9,042 1,974 2,989 3,394 3,323 2.32 8,562 60 2,243 244 348 1,350 320 3,142 855 27,805 12,106 2,636 9,470 2,081 3,090 3,523 3,412 2.30 8,897 64 2,312 241 337 1,408 330 3,317 28,341 12,454 2,675 9,779 2,180 3,176 3,628 3,470 2.28 9,087 68 2,299 235 325 1,449 333 3,481 897 3,656 2,504 -449 2,953 501 489 822 692 -.21 3,753 9 842 -49 593 166 1,983 208 14.8 25.2 -14.4 43.3 29.8 18.2 29.3 24.9 -8.3 70.4 15.3 57.8 .4 -13.1 69.3 99.4 132.4 30.2 218 342 978 204 1,942 715 888 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 3,069 984 443 541 163 247 306 268 3.12 477 126 66 81 13 106 4 78 3 5,456 1,331 637 694 184 294 456 397 4.10 871 129 50 83 25 122 4 108 350 5,960 1,507 669 838 162 302 548 495 3.95 1,280 148 184 120 41 142 19 216 410 6,710 1,747 735 1,012 138 312 656 641 3.84 1,598 155 216 116 58 244 34 308 467 7,451 1,984 794 1,190 117 311 742 814 3.76 1,749 140 252 115 73 258 8,256 2,231 892 1,339 103 313 813 1,002 3.70 1,861 126 279 127 82 262 63 338 584 8,984 2,451 1,002 1,449 97 315 1,175 3.67 1,920 117 293 130 88 264 65 349 614 5,915 1,467 559 908 -66 68 558 907 .55 1,443 -9 227 49 75 158 61 271 611 192.7 149.1 126.2 167.8 -40.5 27.5 182.4 338.4 17.5 302.5 -7.1 343.9 60.5 576.9 149.1 1,525.0 347.4 20,366.7 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 38,969 12,354 6,200 6,154 998 2,219 3,918 5,219 3.15 3,128 47 620 149 94 224 44 1,949 1 49,484 15,580 7,832 7,748 1,179 2,682 4,981 6,738 3.18 4,210 63 793 167 137 290 65 2,684 11 61,600 19,221 9,917 9,304 1,349 3,182 6,126 8,564 3.20 5,254 68 954 179 163 354 91 3,430 15 74,969 23,243 12,467 10,776 1,523 3,703 7,409 10,608 3.23 6,187 72 1,054 185 181 405 118 4,151 21 87,988 27,162 15,153 12,009 1,683 4,181 8,678 12,620 3.24 7,030 75 1,110 186 193 447 143 4,851 25 65,274 19,808 11,438 8,370 933 2,646 6,287 9,942 .15 5,255 43 707 30 162 193 120 3,975 25 287.4 269.4 307.9 230.0 124.4 172.4 262.9 371.2 4.9 296.1 134.4 175.4 19.2 522.6 76.0 521 .7 453.8 n/a 22,714 7,354 3,715 3,639 750 1,535 2,391 2,678 3.09 1,775 32 403 156 31 254 23 876 0 32,579 10,272 5,335 4,937 898 1,967 3,318 4,089 3.17 2,327 37 502 136 64 232 31 1,325 0 48 327 536 864 �MEMPHIS PART Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration MT CLEMENS Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration NEW BALTIMORE Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 30 1990 896 317 146 171 80 127 69 41 2.83 211 0 74 0 3 31 18 67 18 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change 943 335 151 184 1,030 366 159 207 49 187 59 71 2.81 1,111 395 162 233 36 207 59 93 2.81 534 3 302 5 2 75 18 93 36 1,218 1,339 461 1,463 189 214 276 17 567 173 68 105 -63 188 61 79 206 2.99 10 165 .16 393 5 266 13 2 47 64 158 60 53 2.81 436 0 252 0 0 62 19 74 29 488 2 280 3 68 18 83 33 428 171 257 27 213 64 124 2.85 581 4 333 8 3 78 17 272 20 206 71 164 2.90 602 5 345 11 4 78 98 15 101 40 43 490 604 5 340 13 5 78 14 rva 359.5 rva 66.1 151.! Percanl •7,! 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change 17,056 7,325 1,529 5,796 2,688 2,230 1,379 1,028 2.33 29,846 203 4,873 841 423 4,901 1,223 15,178 16,885 7,355 1,458 5,897 2,810 2,248 1,331 966 2.30 29,231 205 4,802 747 382 4,828 1,096 14,965 16,915 -1,439 311 -616 927 670 227 -265 -321 -.29 3,038 5 129 2,204 2,206 16,984 7,613 1,450 6,163 3,090 2,333 1,295 895 2.23 27,575 206 4,225 599 306 4,499 921 14,643 2,176 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 5,798 2,265 802 1,463 560 553 576 576 2.56 2,809 113 382 91 60 816 162 1,112 73 6,437 2,477 864 1,613 525 584 671 697 2.60 3,257 142 409 116 74 803 169 1,454 90 7,545 2,891 963 1,928 539 631 846 875 2.61 3,491 136 411 131 83 895 141 1,595 99 8,021 3,049 986 2,063 518 633 946 952 2.63 3,775 124 419 151 93 996 135 1,748 109 8,487 3,205 1,013 2,192 480 651 1,053 1,021 2.65 4,109 105 471 169 103 1,107 8,963 3,368 1,070 2,298 440 675 1,174 1,079 2.66 9,362 3,507 1,133 2,374 399 696 1,295 1,117 2.67 4,600 59 496 195 110 118 5.! 186.3 55.1 150.0 17,685 7,343 1,776 5,567 2,559 2,198 1,440 1,146 2.41 29,731 225 4,996 932 445 4,754 1,354 14,790 2,235 1,917 119 14.5 402.4 •22.2 1995 80 498 187 108 1,219 104 2,075 129 48.0 -4 18,066 7,328 1,936 5,392 2,473 2,163 1,504 1,188 2.47 27,869 238 4,894 991 510 4,626 1,492 13,091 2,027 4,400 61.4 ·78.8 37 27 1990 1,442 6,035 2,953 2,292 1,308 924 2.26 28,278 206 4,523 665 338 4,646 998 14,690 2,212 54.o 46.8 104 45 18,423 7,302 2,066 5,236 2,420 2,106 1,560 1,216 2.52 24,537 201 4,096 1,064 593 4,048 1,707 11,153 1,675 1,4n Percen1 63.l 1,301 91 2,217 131 4.l •29.! 17.1 27.1 10.i -17.0 ,26.4 .1u 12.4 2.5 3.1 -465 -43,1 -287 451 -786 3,490 501 -48,l 11.1 ,46,0 31.3 29,9 --- Change~ 3,564 atl 1 242 '331 911 -161 143 719 541 11 . 1,791 -54 114 104 50 485 -71 1,105 58 54·1 41.3 62·3 -28,8 2~·9 124,8 93.9 4,1 638 78 -4 , 29,! 114.~ 83~ 59A -43,i 99A 79,! �NEW HAVEN Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration RAY TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration RICHMOND Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2,331 770 401 369 251 225 199 95 3.03 587 2 282 6 35 21 12 201 28 2,829 921 468 453 251 238 270 162 3.07 710 2 410 6 16 32 11 224 9 2,960 957 462 495 202 213 310 232 3.09 917 6 512 21 27 38 15 263 35 3,180 1,031 455 576 162 189 351 329 3.08 1,037 10 553 24 36 51 18 301 44 3,368 1,097 447 650 130 157 369 441 3.07 1,136 12 608 27 43 54 19 319 54 3,566 1,169 453 716 107 132 374 556 3.05 1,186 14 630 31 46 55 21 330 59 3,741 1,233 468 765 90 115 366 662 3.03 1,200 15 623 34 48 56 21 341 62 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 4,613 1,429 675 754 321 117 392 599 3.23 943 104 91 204 8 42 27 363 104 5,078 1,556 783 773 392 127 409 628 3.26 959 92 105 165 12 47 35 381 122 5,556 1,687 5,994 1,808 1,021 787 453 204 461 690 3.32 979 74 126 127 18 55 42 399 138 1990 3,234 1,052 433 619 157 151 308 436 3.07 545 104 43 78 0 22 19 220 59 3,798 1,203 520 683 190 135 353 525 3.16 672 110 59 177 0 22 19 229 56 4,154 1,305 581 724 251 117 368 569 3.18 870 108 78 248 4 27 19 301 85 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 5,241 1,902 734 1,168 373 423 478 628 2.76 2,852 18 72 81 46 1,333 110 1,103 89 5,850 2,097 803 1,294 368 426 521 782 2.79 3,173 33 93 82 58 1,481 109 1,217 100 6,536 2,306 887 1,419 356 415 565 970 2.83 3,336 41 116 84 69 1,540 85 1,289 112 7,257 2,519 994 1,525 333 398 619 1,169 2.88 3,397 47 136 95 77 1,534 52 1,334 122 7,906 2,708 1,100 1,608 303 377 674 1,354 2.92 3,458 52 151 101 82 1,514 54 1,376 128 4,141 1,540 574 966 380 400 400 360 2.69 2,038 5 53 23 24 1,098 106 678 51 4,725 1,720 675 1,045 376 413 443 488 2.75 2,553 12 39 58 37 1,216 121 998 72 904 783 439 155 434 659 3.29 984 81 117 155 15 51 43 390 132 Change 1,410 463 67 396 -161 -110 167 567 .01 613 13 341 28 13 35 9 140 34 Percent 60.5 60.1 16.7 107.3 -64.1 -48.9 83.9 596.8 .2 104.4 650.0 120.9 466.7 37.1 166.7 75.0 69.7 121.4 Change 2,760 756 588 168 296 53 153 254 .24 434 -30 83 49 18 33 23 179 79 Percent 85.3 71 .9 135.8 27.1 188.5 35.1 49.7 58.3 7.8 79.6 -28.8 193.0 62.8 n/a 150.0 121.1 81 .4 133.9 Change 3,765 1,168 526 642 -77 -23 274 994 .23 1,420 47 98 78 58 416 -52 698 77 Percent 90.9 75.8 91 .6 66.5 -20.3 -5.8 68.5 276.1 8.6 69.7 940.0 184.9 339.1 241.7 37.9 -49.1 102.9 151 .0 �RICHMOND TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 2,528 753 352 401 102 156 258 237 3.36 766 ROMEO Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 3,520 71 207 6 27 128 101 219 493 834 388 343 2010 3,574 1,007 1,088 410 678 75 142 335 402 605 80 149 401 3TT 3.33 3.31 1,004 63 297 1,111 57 323 427 3.28 1,151 50 358 72 43 183 63 55 2000 3,084 926 395 531 86 152 102 90 234 22 353 179 11 7 1,327 2005 3,329 1995 2,918 866 397 469 94 160 313 299 3.37 871 70 249 58 36 166 1995 3,828 1,466 530 936 460 2000 3,913 1,541 517 1,024 513 331 346 374 52 71 227 32 59 284 299 40 309 318 43 45 2010 4,067 1,741 432 1,309 647 307 495 292 2015 4,145 1,845 396 1,449 715 296 521 2020 4,203 1,936 368 1,568 313 333 2.34 2.25 4,702 20 2,039 2.17 4,758 22 31 2005 3,997 1,641 476 1,165 578 322 264 2.61 3,520 8 13 12 14 597 1,532 1,666 27 250 360 1,797 66 55 1,105 236 1,220 259 1,257 118 3.26 1,159 40 81 253 272 99 mi ·2! 3.27 1,158 44 375 56 68 229 34 62 2.65 2,461 17 534 228 431 266 2.54 3,849 225 326 485 481 Change Pnt 53 396 2 70 137 2020 4,073 1,249 464 785 64 133 518 219 343 108 444 2015 3,837 1,173 434 739 467 274 2.44 4,211 4,540 17 1,973 TT3 288 542 2,013 31 35 281 311 402 52 1,348 418 39 1,432 1,487 46 341 410 26 1,540 286 315 343 360 42 330 416 25 1,545 496 &,] 112 3U 384 -38 -23 260 297 -.10 393 -31 167 46 44 99 -69 99 38 W ~ ~13 ·14 100.I 513 -ll.1 001 7~1 163.\ m ,M,) 451 5421 Change Perffli 683 609 -125 734 385 -55 199 80 -.48 2,297 14 1,416 44 233 138 -73 283 242 1~.I 45.! •2!1 8M 99.1 .1 ao 68.i 31.I ,181 93.l m.i 2372 2,200.1 215.1 50.1 .73,1 22! 205,1 FRlCO>SS~EVVILILiLEE_ _ _ _11G199ciro;----:;1~9~95;-----:2::o:-.:-oo=----20_0_5___2_0_10_ _ _ 20_1_5___2_0_2_0_-=c-=-ha-n-=ge~~ Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 32 51,412 19,533 6,611 12,922 4,518 6,043 5,686 3 ,286 2 25 ,~:; 179 6,055 1,051 1,1 43 a,472 1,128 6,997 302 51,066 20,221 6,055 14,166 4,875 61640 5,722 21984 25 ~·:; 210 6,137 49,757 48,892 20 ,508 201776 1~:~~: 5,212 1:::~~ 5,665 7 ,037 5,585 7,269 5,303 2 •674 2 ·43 25 •:~ 2,539 2.35 25,~~: 5,851 846 953 8 ,976 979 5,921 928 11040 91035 1, 020 , 6 333 894 958 81996 990 434 ·:~ 6 7 -~~: ~:~~~ 4,359 16,753 6,114 7,568 :~:!:: :~:::: 5,039 2,391 2.28 25,207 4,116 17,542 6,577 7 909 • 4,887 2,285 2.22 24,447 4,748 2, 184 2.18 23,793 233 5,684 774 905 8,743 959 243 5,334 707 839 8,384 940 250 4,962 649 785 8,085 914 7,:~ 7,::~ 7,:~! 3,967 18,016 6,924 8,127 -3,550 2,450 _ 44 216 5,094 2,406 2,084 -938 12 · 1, \ -.4 1 34 · \ 1 -1,093 -40 2 358 • 387 · 214 · !!! ~.! 12.! 4M 39.i 63.l 34.i , ,16,, .33.! 1, .1 ,6,1 39,1 .18.I .38.~ .31.l 4,i .19.~ 7,6 1(6.1 �1990 48,655 16,840 6,515 10,325 1,740 3,474 5,056 6,570 2.89 12,086 333 3,524 346 389 2,837 1,050 3,439 168 1995 57,337 20,750 6,751 13,999 2,189 4,436 6,512 7,613 2.76 13,392 374 3,409 368 426 3,237 1,221 4,171 186 2000 64,642 24,240 6,635 17,605 2,630 5,307 7,905 8,398 2.67 15,214 393 3,400 490 502 3,582 1,522 5,095 230 2005 72,213 27,749 6,480 21,269 3,247 6,208 9,218 9,076 2.60 17,332 408 3,615 636 613 3,999 1,805 5,970 286 2010 80,016 31,255 6,563 24,692 3,890 7,118 10,552 9,695 2.56 18,887 434 3,741 750 702 4,226 2,081 6,615 338 2015 85,637 33,968 6,714 27,254 4,457 7,866 11,609 10,036 2.52 19,843 453 3,674 832 754 4,313 2,310 7,121 386 2020 86,495 34,863 6,653 28,210 4,788 8,192 12,023 9,860 2.48 20,378 468 3,529 869 776 4,358 2,444 7,518 416 Change Percent 37,840 18,023 138 17,885 3,048 4,718 6,967 3,290 -.41 8,292 135 5 523 387 1,521 1,394 4,079 248 77.8 107.0 2.1 173.2 175.2 135.8 137.8 50.1 -14.1 68.S 40.5 .1 151 .2 99.5 53.6 132.8 118.6 147.6 1990 117,810 40,839 16,432 24,407 5,119 8,625 12,724 14,371 2.88 55,757 348 21,782 1,973 1,583 14,204 2,310 12,535 1,022 1995 118,655 42,631 14,946 27,685 5,871 9,254 12,841 14,665 2.78 62,149 414 22,783 2,232 2,226 15,553 2,562 15,348 1,031 2000 119,283 44,183 13,773 30,410 6,703 9,771 12,980 14,729 2.70 68,200 456 22,920 2,587 2,880 16,801 2,996 18,451 1,109 2005 120,126 45,582 12,683 32,899 7,559 10,410 13,117 14,496 2.64 71,184 492 22,045 2,861 3,426 17,590 3,235 20,416 1,119 2010 121,270 47,078 11,953 35,125 8,534 11,118 13,353 14,073 2.58 72,062 513 21,080 3,030 3,918 17,581 3,444 21,385 1,111 2015 123,413 48,858 11,793 37,065 9,513 11,833 13,662 13,850 2.53 71,525 534 19,598 3,131 4,236 17,179 3,608 22,130 1,109 2020 125,783 50,703 11,885 38,818 10,480 12,501 13,978 13,744 2.48 70,762 550 18,103 3,148 4,436 16,815 3,696 22,927 1,087 Change Percent Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 7,973 9,864 -4,547 14,411 5,361 3,876 1,254 -627 -.40 15,005 202 -3,679 1,175 2,853 2,611 1,386 10,392 65 6.8 24.2 -27.7 59.0 104.7 44.9 9.9 -4.4 -14.0 26.9 58.0 -16.9 59.6 180.2 18.4 60.0 82.9 6.4 ST. CLAIR SHORES Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 68,107 27,224 7,344 19,880 4,895 7,709 8,112 6,508 2.50 19,943 195 2,617 598 879 5,156 1,191 8,922 385 1995 66,548 27,360 6,563 20,797 4,882 8,540 8,167 5,771 2.43 21,349 204 2,605 283 983 6,052 1,354 9,449 419 2000 65,277 27,413 5,970 21,443 4,998 8,897 8,241 5,277 2.38 22,780 212 2,547 236 1,082 6,550 1,488 10,216 449 2005 64,522 27,419 5,550 21,869 5,316 9,007 8,083 5,013 2.35 24,024 226 2,664 190 1,214 7,085 1,594 10,599 452 2010 64,139 27,559 5,260 22,299 5,559 9,231 7,988 4,781 2.33 24,529 236 2,641 192 1,312 7,454 1,748 10,475 471 2015 63,953 27,808 5,169 22,639 5,811 9,475 7,940 4,582 2.30 24,530 242 2,506 191 1,345 7,586 1,876 10,299 485 2020 63,862 28,080 5,180 22,900 6,051 9,682 7,920 4,427 2.27 24,528 248 2,349 188 1,357 7,663 1,964 10,273 486 Change Percent -4,245 856 -2,164 3,020 1,156 1,973 -192 -2,081 -.23 4,585 53 -268 -410 478 2,507 773 1,351 101 -6.2 3.1 -29.5 15.2 23.6 25.6 -2.4 -32.0 -9.1 23.0 27.2 -10.2 -68.6 54.4 48.6 64.9 15.1 26.2 SHELBY TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration STERLING HEIGHTS �1995 UTICA 1990 Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children 5,081 1,882 776 1,106 5,105 1,911 747 396 568 510 408 2.70 5,633 78 716 Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 269 124 2,057 506 1,831 52 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 5,021 5,115 2,070 34 188 .7 10.0 5,061 1,926 5,057 1,956 5,050 1,989 2,017 646 1,310 590 1,399 544 543 -233 -30.0 1,164 702 1,224 1,473 1,527 421 38.1 392 404 448 507 569 621 225 533 490 496 2.67 488 444 401 326 470 564 2.63 7,041 84 631 425 762 2.49 292 831 -242 -218 423 56.8 -42.6 -42.7 639 2.59 376 705 2.54 360 326 2.47 -.23 103.7 -8.5 7,691 82 634 7,982 85 618 8,110 89 574 8,330 92 2,697 14 47.9 17.9 537 -179 -25.0 302 106 2,964 670 312 329 78 60 22.3 95 3,103 317 81 3,145 -37.1 3,170 -46 1,113 704 738 783 277 2,852 2,976 3,068 3,235 1,404 76.7 106 54 103.8 6,329 84 674 268 127 2,446 587 2,084 59 276 110 2,677 632 2,558 73 81 89 98 54.1 54.7 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing 144,864 54,621 16,363 38,258 10,814 15,371 15,660 12,776 2.65 107,387 670 41,673 141,428 55,492 14,516 40,976 11,695 16,566 15,878 11,353 2.55 106,056 747 36,842 137,328 55,710 12,939 42,771 135,038 133,597 133,287 133,190 -11,674 55,978 11,876 44,102 13,344 17,647 56,493 11,081 45,412 57,492 10,736 3,886 -5,756 46,756 58,507 10,607 47,900 -8.1 7.1 14,986 18,812 19,382 2.47 15,424 9,563 2.41 105,498 786 32,145 104,899 813 28,953 102,123 15,095 8,599 2.32 98,301 856 25,940 889 22,784 TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 2,533 5,429 16,632 3,657 31,908 4,885 2,854 5,530 17,260 3,404 35,628 3,297 5,450 17,187 3,410 39,811 3,643 5,538 17,419 3,900 5,429 5,154 20,183 4,041 4,892 17,148 16,529 3,492 41,929 3,543 42,510 3,564 42,758 3,791 3,412 3,112 2,797 WARREN WASHINGTON TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 34 12,441 17,274 15,773 10,222 14,126 18,162 15,182 9,023 2.36 15,790 9,642 4,976 4,011 15,053 -607 8,282 2.28 95,324 -4,494 -.38 912 -12,063 242 -21,490 1,508 -631 -3.8 3,539 2,600 43,328 2,428 -118 11,420 -2,457 35.8 -50.3 2015 25,781 2020 Change Perce__!11 28,435 17,053 149.8 7,146 1,549 186.7 93.4 258.0 1995 2000 2005 2010 17,028 19,779 22,723 5,084 1,985 3,099 6,141 2,154 3,987 7,335 2,319 5,016 8,588 468 957 1,532 2,127 2.86 2,719 55 9,869 2,850 7,019 10,973 2,529 6,059 507 1,193 608 1,505 731 1,812 876 2,130 1,022 5,597 607 1,724 1,927 2,514 2.77 2,412 2,357 2,865 2.70 2,796 3,262 3,601 3,679 2,599 3,249 2,216 2.65 3,683 110 1,126 2.61 3,860 2.59 4,422 4,993 219 5,422 5,655 253 275 1,507 266 63 1,000 118 921 1,716 322 109 388 1,647 475 1,189 188 1,263 830 60 577 29 885 62 796 32 79 3,207 7,766 -.38 323 1,040 256 1,091 331 3,419 218 1,147 446 183 471 271 1,123 99 119 130 1,153 136 576 107 150 -51.6 16,001 14,547 175 1,300 -14.2 -11.2 36.1 59.5 -9.9 1990 724 143 22 46.0 26.1 -3.9 -35.2 -537 4,023 11,382 3,827 1,658 2,169 415 688 1,080 1,644 2.97 2,236 57 569 92 22 -35.2 25.2 181 1,290 538 205 1,301 -3.2 146.3 250.6 240,6 134,8 -12.9 152.9 382.5 201.6 484.8 831.8 56.7 451.7 99.8 369.0 �MACOMB COUNTY Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 717,400 265,048 92,427 172,621 47,378 68,575 77,992 71,103 2.71 333,723 3,374 102,751 10,160 14,013 71,606 16,605 104,301 10,913 754,494 285,552 90,762 194,790 51,359 76,295 84,004 73,894 2.64 361,350 3,787 105,066 10,651 15,396 79,483 17,101 118,566 11,300 775,875 300,745 87,306 213,439 55,304 81,567 88,208 75,666 2.58 386,158 4,044 102,550 11,985 16,525 83,962 18,336 136,754 12,002 802,349 315,943 84,665 231,278 60,494 86,210 91,464 77,775 2.54 403,706 4,285 99,809 12,810 18,068 89,028 19,426 148,129 12,151 832,477 332,093 83,985 248,108 65,734 91,393 94,919 80,047 2.51 410,574 4,484 97,383 13,371 18,998 90,638 20,400 152,978 12,322 860,899 347,132 86,000 261,132 70,583 96,004 98,271 82,274 2.48 409,647 4,639 92,102 13,752 19,169 89,956 21,186 156,319 12,524 884,222 359,878 89,244 270,634 74,892 99,695 101,046 84,245 2.46 407,633 4,752 86,266 13,790 19,102 89,152 21,606 160,502 12,463 Change 166,822 94,830 -3, 183 98,013 27,514 31,120 23,054 13,142 -.25 73,910 1,378 -1 5,485 3,630 5,089 17,546 5,001 56,201 1,550 Percent 23.3 35.8 -3.4 56.8 58.1 45.4 29.6 18.5 -9.2 22.1 40.8 -16.0 35.7 36.3 24.5 30.1 53.9 14.2 Change 1,332 527 151 376 -32 230 301 28 -.11 1,216 -50 257 119 6 351 -22 547 8 Percent 28.3 33.2 22.1 41.5 -12.7 66.1 54.7 6.4 -3.7 53.5 -6.2 46.5 540.9 23.1 177.3 -44.0 88.4 400.0 Change 10,569 4,904 453 4,451 865 1,273 1,448 1,318 -.30 4,638 155 676 295 -67 1,114 305 2,099 61 Percent 44.5 60.9 12.9 97.8 68.2 64.4 57.1 58.1 -10.2 110.3 106.9 101 .7 368.8 -17.0 91.2 172.3 140.3 244.0 1 MONROE COUNTY ASH TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration BEDFORD TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 4,710 1,589 682 907 252 348 550 439 2.96 2,272 802 553 22 26 198 50 619 2 4,981 1,694 707 987 246 378 622 448 2.94 2,679 842 685 62 29 258 29 773 1 5,205 1,784 724 1,060 238 410 686 450 2.92 2,899 799 737 76 32 336 27 888 4 5,393 1,862 732 1,130 228 457 731 446 2.90 3,173 744 825 92 38 443 29 995 7 5,589 1,943 745 1,198 221 499 773 450 2.88 3,374 759 864 111 36 498 28 1,069 9 5,825 2,035 784 1,251 219 541 817 458 2.86 3,447 756 846 127 33 528 28 1,119 10 6,042 2,116 833 1,283 220 578 851 467 2.86 3,488 752 810 141 32 549 28 1,166 10 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 23,748 8,054 3,503 4,551 1,268 1,978 2,538 2,270 2.95 4,204 145 665 80 395 1,221 177 1,496 25 26,229 9,052 3,718 5,334 1,383 2,228 2,858 2,583 2.90 5,134 167 899 74 344 1,477 250 1,897 26 28,106 9,906 3,792 6,114 1,515 2,436 3,124 2,831 2.84 6,318 196 1,061 140 329 1,759 319 2,468 46 29,680 10,676 3,748 6,928 1,654 2,650 3,349 3,023 2.78 7,366 212 1,249 200 345 2,019 365 2,907 69 31,185 11,436 3,709 7,727 1,809 2,852 3,552 3,223 2.73 8,074 247 1,347 261 349 2,191 416 3,187 76 32,876 12,252 3,809 8,443 1,976 3,067 3,784 3,425 2.68 8,506 277 1,361 323 336 2,277 456 3,393 83 34,317 12,958 3,956 9,002 2,133 3,251 3,986 3,588 2.65 8,842 300 1,341 375 328 2,335 482 3,595 86 35 �BERLIN TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration CARLETON 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 4,635 1,587 671 916 292 344 519 432 2.92 1,212 128 20 70 8 677 22 282 5 4,964 1,707 694 1,013 302 341 590 474 2.91 1,344 137 7 65 9 776 16 327 7 5,205 1,810 696 1,114 308 342 662 498 2.88 1,628 142 16 99 13 887 19 437 15 5,394 1,899 680 1,219 309 362 716 512 5,606 1,993 676 1,317 309 5,860 6,085 1,450 2,099 2,192 733 605 62 309 1,459 304 543 12 420 827 455 111 877 358 124 -.14 1,248 31.3 38.1 9.2 59.3 4.1 32.3 69.0 28.7 -5.0 103.0 27.3 140.0 318.6 212.5 82.3 45.5 118.1 900.0 2.84 1,937 145 30 148 19 1,020 23 528 24 387 770 527 2.81 2,172 151 37 202 24 1,130 26 568 34 700 1,399 543 2.79 2,336 157 556 2.78 2,460 163 35 43 48 28 253 25 1,191 30 592 293 25 1,234 32 615 50 223 17 557 10 333 45 45 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 2020 Change 2,770 982 467 515 262 278 333 109 2.82 248 0 25 6 0 105 45 51 16 2,869 1,045 461 584 317 266 348 114 2.75 300 0 35 5 0 130 52 60 18 2,874 1,088 431 657 376 247 349 116 2.64 333 2 40 10 3 146 46 66 20 2,840 1,128 383 745 445 227 334 122 2.52 382 4 47 19 6 164 47 72 23 2,795 1,169 332 837 522 206 311 130 2.39 418 6 51 29 9 182 40 75 26 2,763 1,215 290 925 599 190 286 140 2.27 440 9 52 2,728 1,257 254 1,003 671 176 260 150 2.17 451 11 52 44 11 201 20 79 33 -42 275 -213 DUNDEE Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2,664 1,088 374 714 323 295 320 150 2.45 1,372 6 226 10 42 558 66 448 16 2010 2,810 1,159 380 779 306 307 395 151 2.42 1,431 6 299 14 29 533 43 493 14 2015 2,916 1,212 376 836 282 315 465 150 2.41 1,489 10 303 18 31 521 47 544 15 3,032 1,261 374 887 271 325 511 154 2.40 1,655 14 338 24 35 574 54 599 17 3,160 1,313 384 929 275 333 543 162 2.41 1,750 18 357 41 36 573 57 649 19 3,305 1,370 409 961 286 341 567 176 2.41 1,768 22 342 49 35 553 61 685 21 36 38 11 193 30 n 30 488 409 -102 -73 41 -.65 203 11 27 38 11 96 -25 Percent -1.5 28.0 -45.6 94.8 156.1 -36.7 -21.9 37.6 -23.1 81.9 n/a 108.0 633.3 n/a 28 91.4 -55.6 54.9 17 106.3 2020 Change Perce~ 3,450 1,422 786 334 67 267 -25 52 262 45 -.02 405 20 96 46 -9 29.5 30.7 17.9 37.4 -7.7 17,6 441 981 298 347 582 195 2.43 1,777 26 322 56 33 534 64 720 22 81.9 30.0 -.9 29.5 333.3 42.5 460.0 -21.4 -24 -4.3 -2 272 6 -3.0 60.7 37.5 �DUNDEE TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2,712 877 385 492 127 215 281 254 3.09 627 69 411 27 26 31 9 47 7 2,890 927 412 515 3,070 977 437 540 150 189 320 318 3.14 3,209 1,020 447 573 161 187 329 343 3.15 896 76 551 43 47 25 23 117 14 3,342 1,066 454 612 167 189 340 370 3.14 925 80 551 55 52 26 3,480 1,117 469 648 176 193 350 398 3.12 916 3,599 1,163 84 88 491 76 44 25 23 130 17 144 198 297 288 3.12 782 69 538 25 36 21 18 66 9 840 73 549 31 41 22 20 93 11 524 67 50 25 24 24 122 15 126 16 488 675 185 197 359 422 3.09 894 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 4,492 1,528 648 880 345 390 400 393 2.94 1,080 38 9 172 42 152 11 652 4 4,816 1,629 686 943 350 441 403 435 2.96 1,311 45 16 170 33 205 20 818 4 5,048 1,718 693 1,025 364 487 404 463 2.94 1,465 41 28 169 36 232 27 927 5 5,261 1,799 696 1,103 380 529 416 474 2.92 1,596 36 41 147 40 263 31 1,031 7 5,467 1,881 701 1,180 399 563 435 484 2.91 1,710 35 48 125 43 285 36 1,130 8 5,689 1,970 726 1,244 419 590 467 494 2.89 1,780 36 54 97 46 293 41 1,204 9 5,881 2,047 759 1,288 437 606 505 499 2.87 1,840 36 58 71 46 299 45 1,276 9 ESTRAL BEACH Total Population Total Households 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 430 149 72 77 30 44 45 30 2.89 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 476 161 81 80 27 45 57 32 2.96 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 485 162 83 79 22 42 67 31 2.99 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 499 166 85 81 19 40 76 31 3.01 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 506 169 84 85 16 38 84 31 2.99 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 513 173 514 176 83 93 14 34 97 31 2.92 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 ERIE TWP With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 84 89 15 36 91 31 2.97 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 83 10 Percent 32.7 32.6 26.8 37.2 45.7 -8.4 27.8 66.1 .1 42.6 27.5 19.5 181.5 69.2 -19.4 155.6 176.6 142.9 Change 1,389 519 111 408 92 216 105 106 -.07 760 -2 49 -101 4 147 34 624 5 Percent 30.9 34.0 17.1 46.4 26.7 55.4 26.2 27.0 -2.3 70.4 -5.3 544.4 -58.7 9.5 96.7 309.1 95.7 125.0 Change 84 27 Percent 19.5 18.1 15.3 20.8 -53.3 -22.7 115.6 3.3 1.2 30.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 30.8 .0 Change 887 286 103 183 58 -18 78 168 .00 267 19 80 49 18 -6 14 11 16 -16 -10 52 1 .03 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 37 �• EXETER TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change 2,756 861 419 442 174 209 220 258 3.20 160 64 0 20 21 37 0 4 14 2,998 932 445 487 162 220 262 288 3.22 205 67 0 23 21 57 0 11 26 3,176 991 451 540 151 221 309 310 3.20 294 69 2 28 17 80 4 60 34 3,318 1,043 442 601 138 219 356 330 3.18 391 70 8 37 19 110 8 95 44 3,460 1,097 3,632 1,159 440 719 114 205 3,TT8 1,214 450 764 106 198 516 394 3.11 525 80 1,022 353 31 322 -68 -11 296 136 -.09 365 16 18 FRENCHTOWN TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change 17,960 6,414 2,630 3,784 1,482 2,006 1,787 1,139 2.80 9,866 105 240 1,004 126 2,489 629 5,240 33 18,872 6,972 2,624 4,348 1,456 2,387 1,970 1,159 2.71 11,091 84 536 930 120 2,290 449 6,619 63 19,710 7,525 2,594 4,931 1,478 2,744 2,139 1,164 2.62 12,357 87 669 948 135 2,294 418 7,730 76 20,366 7,988 2,513 5,475 1,550 2,969 2,291 1,178 2.55 13,266 99 765 937 159 2,440 405 8,375 86 21 ,086 8,459 2.475 5,984 1,657 · ' 3,159 2,429 1,214 2.49 13,705 97 813 899 174 2,422 373 8,834 93 21 ,967 8 ,980 2,530 6,450 1,793 3,339 2,572 1,276 2.45 13,792 95 837 842 178 2,328 342 9,072 98 22,751 9,440 2,621 6,819 1,923 3,473 2,700 1,344 4,791 3,026 -9 3,035 441 1,467 913 205 -.39 4,044 -12 594 -220 52 -239 -311 4,112 IDA TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change 4,554 1,442 698 744 216 310 507 409 3.16 680 113 12 6 26 93 12 406 12 4,750 1,535 683 852 208 322 566 439 3.09 790 112 9 15 31 82 12 516 13 4,908 1,631 654 977 203 335 641 452 3.01 900 118 13 19 36 82 13 605 5,017 1,711 612 1,099 209 357 702 443 2.93 1,026 123 18 29 43 89 15 693 16 5,142 1,798 577 1,221 217 384 768 429 2.86 1,120 129 23 41 47 91 16 755 5,297 1,894 568 1,326 230 413 832 419 2.80 1,193 135 30 52 48 92 16 801 19 5,418 1,978 566 1,412 247 439 887 405 2.74 1,255 139 36 61 48 91 16 844 20 864 38 14 I 434 663 125 212 408 352 3.15 440 73 11 46 17 125 12 102 54 18 464 376 3.13 483 n 15 55 15 134 16 107 64 18 63 15 141 20 112 76 2.41 13,910 93 834 784 178 2,250 318 9,352 101 43 -6 104 20 108 62 68 536 -132 668 31 129 380 -4 -.42 575 26 24 55 22 -2 4 438 8 Percent 37.1 41.0 7.4 72.9 -39.1 -5.3 134.5 52.7 -2.8 228.1 25.0 n/a 215.0 -28.6 281.1 rva 2,700.0 442.9 Percent 26.7 47.2 -.3 80.2 29.8 73.1 51.1 18.0 -13.9 41.0 -11.4 247.5 -21.9 41.3 -9.6 -49.4 78.5 206.1 Percent 19.0 37.2 -18.9 89.8 14.4 41.6 75.0 -1 .0 -13.3 84.6 23.0 200.0 916.7 84,6 -2.2 33,3 107.9 66.7 �1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 4,985 1,575 759 816 241 457 506 371 3.17 372 4 14 3 9 168 23 132 19 5,235 1,683 781 902 220 531 555 377 3.11 340 2 16 3 11 140 25 136 7 5,384 1,776 5,481 1,859 749 1,110 212 667 625 355 2.95 655 4 34 20 14 156 23 391 13 5,560 1,943 716 1,227 218 732 649 344 2.86 693 5 39 28 15 159 22 411 14 5,658 2,038 692 1,346 227 803 671 337 2.78 716 6 44 37 15 158 21 420 15 5,722 2,123 669 1,454 236 870 686 331 2.70 739 7 49 45 15 157 20 431 15 737 548 -90 638 -5 413 180 -40 -.47 367 3 35 6 -11 -3 299 -4 14.8 34.8 -11.9 78.2 -2.1 90.4 35.6 -10.8 -14.8 98.7 75.0 250.0 1,400.0 66.7 -6.5 -13.0 226.5 -21.1 LONDON TWP 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 2,982 1,040 302 738 78 231 399 332 2.87 249 115 10 22 6 11 13 62 10 3,011 1,076 271 805 69 226 430 351 2.80 271 115 11 33 9 12 13 67 11 3,071 1,116 257 859 64 220 461 371 2.75 292 112 14 44 13 13 13 71 12 3,128 1,151 250 901 61 216 487 387 2.72 308 110 17 51 16 14 13 75 12 213 231 -160 391 -92 -12 193 142 -.45 185 21 15 49 16 5 0 73 6 7.3 25.1 -39.0 76.7 -60.1 -5.3 65.6 58.0 -14.2 150.4 23.6 750.0 2,450.0 n/a 55.6 .0 3,650.0 100.0 LASALLE TWP 778 998 210 605 594 367 3.03 599 3 28 12 13 144 24 365 10 42 Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 2,915 920 410 510 153 228 294 245 3.17 123 89 2 2 0 9 13 2 6 2,950 969 373 596 118 235 329 287 3.04 157 117 4 6 0 9 13 2 6 2,946 1,005 330 675 92 237 365 311 2.93 200 116 7 9 3 10 13 34 8 LUNA PIER 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 1,571 556 252 304 155 171 166 64 2.83 302 1,579 569 241 328 149 182 178 60 2.78 302 2 2 149 5 94 7 30 13 1,572 582 225 357 146 197 183 56 2.70 284 2 3 118 6 100 8 33 14 1,555 596 209 387 144 216 183 53 2.61 254 2 4 80 7 102 9 35 15 1,526 608 192 416 144 236 178 50 2.51 222 2 5 43 7 102 10 37 16 19 82 -58 140 -27 75 52 -18 -.36 -59 2 5 -146 4 27 6 37 6 1.3 15.6 -23.2 50.7 -15.8 46.6 41.3 -26.5 -12.4 -21.0 n/a n/a -77.2 133.3 36.0 150.0 n/a 60.0 Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1,507 526 250 276 171 161 126 68 2.87 281 0 0 189 3 75 4 0 10 1,549 541 255 286 163 165 146 67 2.86 287 0 0 191 3 77 5 0 11 175 4 85 6 18 12 39 �MAYBEE Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 500 155 93 62 23 53 51 28 3.23 52 6 0 0 9 12 0 25 0 496 156 92 64 16 53 54 33 3.18 52 6 0 0 2 17 0 27 0 493 159 88 71 11 51 59 38 3.10 63 6 0 0 2 19 0 35 484 161 81 80 8 49 63 41 3.01 73 6 0 475 163 75 88 7 45 68 43 2.91 467 165 71 94 7 41 72 45 2.83 80 6 0 2 0 24 0 44 461 167 68 99 8 37 76 2.76 6 0 2 0 25 0 45 -39 12 -25 37 -15 -16 25 18 -.47 30 0 0 2 -9 13 0 20 -7.8 7.7 -26.9 59.7 -65.2 -30.2 49.0 64.3 -14.4 57.7 .0 .0 .0 -100.0 108.3 .0 80.0 4 4 4 n/a MILAN PART Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 980 372 150 222 82 154 75 61 2.63 1,962 0 1,886 0 4 4 10 0 58 1,416 510 236 274 98 202 114 96 2.78 2,021 0 1,949 0 2 8 9 0 53 1,706 604 281 323 115 212 148 129 2.82 2,093 7 1,980 6 10 11 11 7 61 1,999 695 311 384 133 207 184 171 2.88 2,166 14 2,007 12 18 14 14 14 73 2,281 788 335 453 153 213 214 208 2.89 2,204 21 2,010 18 26 17 16 15 81 2,637 891 383 508 167 213 255 256 2.96 2,140 29 1,910 24 2,970 980 437 543 173 214 293 300 3.03 2,045 36 1,785 30 42 24 18 17 93 1,990 608 287 321 91 60 218 239 .40 83 36 -101 30 203.1 163.4 191.3 144.6 111.0 39.0 290.7 391.8 15.0 4.2 38 950.0 500.0 80.0 MILAN TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 . Change Percent 1,659 573 237 336 104 144 180 145 2.90 174 110 31 6 6 7 0 14 0 1,636 582 214 368 98 136 198 150 2.81 179 109 33 1 13 7 0 16 1,628 579 210 369 89 128 212 150 2.81 187 108 33 1,627 580 210 370 88 139 205 148 2.81 199 108 4 11 7 0 35 1,586 581 198 383 98 149 189 145 2.73 194 107 30 7 6 7 1,554 582 193 389 107 151 181 143 2.67 191 106 28 8 4 7 -105 9 -44 53 11 7 0 27 1,610 580 203 377 91 144 198 147 2.78 198 108 32 6 9 7 0 36 0 0 0 37 0 38 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 -6.3 1.6 -18.6 15.8 2.9 4.9 .6 -1 .4 -7.8 9.8 -3.6 -9.7 33.3 -33.3 .0 .0 171.4 .0 40 2 21 0 41 2 34 n 6 0 2 0 23 0 43 3 34 21 17 16 89 46 82 20 8 17 35 3 7 1 -2 -.23 17 -4 -3 2 -2 0 n/a -5.4 n/a n/a 60.3 �MONROE Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration MONROE TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration PETERSBURG Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 23,152 8,560 3,334 5,226 2,766 2,235 2,050 1,509 2.70 16,894 40 4,412 1,741 528 3,513 626 5,324 710 23,516 8,742 3,431 5,311 3,036 2,195 2,018 1,493 2.69 17,222 47 4,447 1,219 553 3,330 483 6,415 728 23,421 8,827 3,379 5,448 3,250 2,165 1,969 1,443 2.65 17,195 52 4,006 983 553 3,067 407 7,389 23,081 8,885 3,175 5,710 3,357 2,240 1,925 1,363 2.60 16,696 59 3,488 886 566 2,946 22,929 9,234 2,920 6,314 3,677 2,405 1,902 1,250 2.48 15,199 64 2,634 852 533 2,395 247 7,609 738 7,629 774 22,831 9,003 2,987 6,016 3,502 2,315 1,899 1,287 2.54 16,009 62 3,077 842 562 2,674 290 7,682 820 23,086 9,469 2,900 6,569 3,840 2,486 1,915 1,228 2.44 14,694 65 2,287 903 506 2,194 217 7,613 909 -66 909 -434 1,343 1,074 251 -135 -281 -.27 -2,200 25 -2,125 -838 -22 -1,319 -409 2,289 199 -.3 10.6 -13.0 25.7 38.8 11.2 -6.6 -18.6 -9.9 -13.0 62 .5 -48.2 -48.1 -4.2 -37.5 -65.3 43.0 28.0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 14,965 6,208 1,695 4,513 1,675 1,961 1,359 1,213 2.41 9,634 82 1,031 486 208 1,447 338 5,783 259 15,470 6,509 1,729 4,780 1,727 2,114 1,419 1,249 2.38 9,717 83 1,015 459 208 1,405 318 5,961 268 3,561 2,068 -24 2,092 412 833 392 431 -.30 3,152 9 428 -262 99 233 -82 2,610 117 29.9 46.6 -1.4 77.8 31 .3 65.0 38.2 52.7 -11.4 48.0 12.2 72.9 -36.3 90.8 19.9 -20.5 77.9 77.5 348 865 11,909 4,441 1,753 2,688 1,315 1,281 1,027 818 2.68 6,565 74 587 721 109 1,172 400 3,351 151 12,881 4,900 1,824 3,076 1,394 1,441 1,118 947 2.63 7,536 59 738 552 147 1,356 417 4,109 158 13,418 5,242 1,795 3,447 1,455 1,583 1,178 1,026 2.56 8,561 63 859 534 164 1,416 395 4,942 188 13,908 5,556 1,733 3,823 1,537 1,686 1,236 1,097 2.50 9,226 78 963 532 192 1,507 387 5,347 220 14,381 5,864 1,685 4,179 1,611 1,806 1,289 1,158 2.45 9,550 81 1,011 515 206 1,502 361 5,632 242 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 1,214 469 109 360 52 80 199 138 2.59 85 3 11 3 3 26 17 18 4 1,206 482 90 392 45 69 201 167 2.50 88 4 12 4 4 25 16 19 4 1,191 490 76 414 40 57 198 195 2.43 89 5 12 4 5 24 15 20 4 -10 71 -114 185 -63 -63 67 130 -.44 4 5 0 3 5 -11 -1 7 -4 -.8 16.9 -60.0 80.8 -61.2 -52.5 51.1 200.0 -15.2 4.7 n/a .0 300.0 n/a -31.4 -6.3 53.8 -50.0 1,201 419 190 229 103 120 131 65 2.87 85 0 12 1 0 35 16 13 8 1,230 433 182 251 94 111 153 75 2.84 74 0 13 1 0 25 16 15 4 1,233 446 162 284 79 102 177 88 2.76 78 1 14 2 24 16 16 4 1,224 457 135 322 63 93 191 110 2.68 83 2 12 3 2 26 17 17 4 41 �RAISINVILLE TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 4,631 1,471 707 764 178 333 447 513 3.15 562 271 40 36 14 4 7 187 3 4,805 1,555 719 836 194 345 431 585 3.09 651 280 79 38 16 6 14 202 16 4,974 1,652 719 933 223 384 405 640 3.01 742 280 83 46 24 9 15 264 21 5,045 1,731 679 1,052 246 5,186 1,817 662 1,155 260 5,436 1,994 646 434 468 5,323 1,911 651 1,260 267 513 364 687 2.91 849 282 89 65 30 13 18 323 29 341 748 2.85 917 286 94 84 38 16 19 347 33 SOUTH ROCKWOOD Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 1,221 409 180 229 73 95 110 131 2.99 150 0 87 3 0 1 3 50 6 1,308 441 185 256 78 99 108 156 2.97 199 0 100 3 0 25 3 61 7 1,376 470 185 285 85 101 104 180 2.93 244 2 113 5 2 32 5 76 9 1,428 495 178 317 91 103 99 202 2.88 294 3 131 8 4 41 7 89 11 1,483 521 172 . 349 96 105 96 224 2.85 325 4 138 12 6 47 9 96 13 1,551 551 172 379 100 108 98 245 2.81 340 6 135 15 6 52 11 100 15 1,611 SUMMERFIELD TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 42 328 803 2.79 969 284 97 102 46 20 20 364 36 1,348 267 556 325 846 2.73 1,009 280 99 116 54 23 19 381 37 5n 175 402 102 111 103 261 2.79 345 7 128 17 6 54 13 104 16 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 3,076 998 461 537 171 228 318 281 3.08 390 55 9 41 8 51 0 225 2015 3,228 1,073 436 637 146 203 398 326 3.01 505 72 10 61 33 71 0 258 0 2020 3,290 1,137 392 745 134 173 475 355 2.89 578 76 12 71 34 70 1 314 0 3,327 1,195 338 857 129 150 544 372 2.78 668 79 14 88 39 78 2 368 0 3,386 1,256 295 961 127 131 616 382 2.70 722 82 16 104 39 79 3 399 0 3,476 1,324 273 1,051 125 119 693 387 2.63 769 84 21 123 38 77 4 422 0 3,561 1,383 264 1,119 126 112 757 388 2.57 809 85 25 139 35 76 5 444 0 Change 805 523 -61 584 89 223 -122 333 -.42 447 9 59 80 40 19 12 194 34 Change 390 168 -5 173 29 16 -7 130 -.19 195 7 41 14 6 53 10 54 10 Change 485 385 -197 582 -45 -116 439 107 -.51 419 30 16 98 27 25 5 219 -1 Percent 17.4 35.6 -8.6 76.4 50.0 67.0 -27.3 64.9 -13.4 79.5 3.3 147.5 222.2 285.7 475.0 171.4 103.7 1,133.3 Percent 31.9 41.1 -2.8 75.5 39.7 16.8 -6.4 99.2 -6.5 130.0 n/a 47.1 466.7 n/a 5,300.0 333.3 108.0 166.7 Percent 15.8 38.6 -42.7 108.4 -26.3 -50.9 138.1 38.1 -16.5 107.4 54.5 177.8 239.0 337.5 49.0 n/a 97.3 -100.0 �. WHITEFORD TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration MONROE COUNTY Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 4,433 1,523 580 943 322 332 480 389 2.91 1,007 231 189 48 87 78 0 370 4 4,544 1,584 568 1,016 363 274 516 431 2.87 1,225 261 272 46 100 93 0 433 20 4,558 1,615 550 1,065 4,558 1,651 518 1,133 459 176 553 463 2.76 1,396 208 360 40 79 117 8 554 30 4,539 1,685 4,529 1,724 471 1,253 558 122 557 487 2.63 1,438 168 361 35 58 129 16 636 35 4,509 1,759 76 236 -122 358 271 -220 73 112 -.35 -78 150 -17 -40 55 20 300 32 1.7 15.5 -21.0 38.0 84.2 -66.3 15.2 28.8 -11.9 41.9 -33.8 79.4 -35.4 -46.0 70.5 n/a 81.1 800.0 406 217 539 453 2.82 1,309 240 312 42 85 102 4 499 25 488 1,197 510 144 557 474 2.69 1,446 190 375 39 70 126 12 601 33 458 1,301 593 112 553 501 2.56 1,429 153 339 31 47 133 20 670 36 422 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 133,600 46,513 19,653 26,860 10,473 12,238 13,295 10,507 2.87 50,364 2,350 9,430 4,208 1,489 10,690 2,123 18,964 1,110 141,449 49,982 20,187 29,795 10,919 13,123 14,506 11,434 2.83 55,541 2,482 10,685 3,504 1,532 10,993 1,874 23,280 1,191 146,701 52,872 20,052 32,820 11,391 13,897 15,557 12,027 2.77 60,702 2,492 10,866 3,424 1,579 11,355 1,837 27,832 1,317 150,732 55,427 19,362 36,065 11,914 14,679 16,377 12,457 2.72 64,574 2,483 11,016 3,506 1,719 12,178 1,844 30,342 1,486 154,867 58,071 18,794 39,2TT 12,559 15,428 17,152 12,932 2.67 66,501 2,560 10,919 3,614 1,776 12,311 1,798 31,903 1,620 160,160 61,085 18,891 42,194 13,290 16,274 18,026 13,495 2.62 66,807 2,602 10,397 3,714 1,745 12,084 1,756 32,765 1,744 164,788 63,755 19,241 44,514 13,962 17,026 18,791 13,976 2.58 67,155 2,633 9,799 3,812 1,705 11,897 1,716 33,759 1,834 31,188 17,242 -412 17,654 3,489 4,788 5,496 3,469 -.29 16,791 283 369 -396 216 1,207 -407 14,795 724 23.3 37.1 -2.1 65.7 33.3 39.1 41.3 33.0 -10.0 33.3 12.0 3.9 -9.4 14.5 11.3 -19.2 78.0 65.2 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 4,785 1,593 700 893 163 368 432 630 3.00 587 46 12 19 17 64 58 369 2 5,483 1,831 762 1,069 128 403 460 840 2.99 800 44 21 19 22 219 65 408 2 6,443 2,198 773 1,425 101 423 471 1,203 2.93 1,673 52 45 16 40 594 90 833 3 6,918 2,391 7,418 2,591 799 1,792 7,858 2,767 3,073 1,174 118 134 442 558 1,633 64.2 73.7 20.3 115.6 -17.8 20.1 29.2 159.2 -5.5 314.3 8.7 558.3 -26.3 270.6 1,326.6 112.1 221.7 50.0 OAKLAND COUNTY ADDISON TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 5,978 2,012 779 1,233 104 413 465 1,030 2.97 1,222 45 33 20 30 374 77 641 2 no 1,621 106 427 481 1,377 2.89 2,015 52 58 14 49 751 102 986 3 435 513 1,525 2.86 2,245 51 70 14 56 845 113 1,093 3 842 1,925 2.84 2,432 50 79 14 63 913 123 1,187 3 142 1,032 -29 74 126 1,003 -.16 1,845 4 67 -5 46 849 65 818 43 �AUBURN HILLS Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 17,076 6,445 2,178 4,267 1,179 2,035 1,817 1,414 2.65 22,202 256 5,353 770 1,194 2,263 2,602 9,572 192 1995 19,663 7,678 2,439 5,239 1,384 2,448 2,062 1,784 2.56 33,731 228 13,222 865 1,860 2,498 2,914 11,950 194 2000 21,692 8,615 2,569 6,046 1,530 2,765 2,221 2,099 2.52 43,038 222 18,663 1,089 2,450 2,721 3,133 14,545 215 2005 23,933 9,649 2,632 7,017 1,678 3,029 2,493 2,449 2.48 49,870 230 22,815 1,296 3,038 3,021 3,308 15,932 230 2010 25,611 10,592 2,572 8,020 1,827 3,353 2,795 2,617 2.42 55,609 225 26,434 1,387 3,547 3,305 3,476 16,989 246 2015 27,183 11,520 2,604 8,916 2,029 3,677 3,072 2,742 2.36 58,806 220 28,142 1,435 3,876 3,471 3,599 17,802 261 2020 28,564 12,360 2,684 9,676 2,243 3,973 3,311 2,833 2.31 62,039 217 30,125 1,446 4,101 3,591 3,655 18,636 268 Change BERKLEY Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 16,960 6,613 2,182 4,431 1,130 1,897 2,091 1,495 2.56 5,129 28 395 107 409 1,300 345 2,468 77 1995 16,986 6,667 2,126 4,541 1,069 1,930 2,140 1,528 2.55 5,985 34 228 113 364 1,685 387 3,086 88 2000 16,845 6,695 2,028 4,667 1,043 1,958 2,148 1,546 2.52 6,403 41 186 126 341 1,765 438 3,408 98 2005 16,659 6,722 1,881 4,841 1,060 1,979 2,125 1,558 2.48 6,880 50 193 138 354 2,001 471 3,572 101 2010 16,592 6,790 1,767 5,023 1,079 2,014 2,100 1,597 2.44 6,889 52 177 142 345 2,009 505 3,558 101 2015 16,711 6,916 1,734 5,182 1,102 2,064 2,102 1,648 2.42 6,715 53 155 142 322 1,936 525 3,485 97 2020 16,822 7,025 1,737 5,288 1,124 2,106 2,101 1,694 2.39 6,603 54 138 139 302 1,872 535 3,470 93 Change BEVERLY HILLS Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 10,643 4,098 1,207 2,891 281 503 977 2,337 2.60 2,424 16 102 21 61 644 144 1,420 16 1995 10,341 4,091 1,101 2,990 291 487 1,185 2,128 2.53 2,712 19 104 21 73 620 151 1,708 16 2000 10,222 4,092 1,067 3,025 299 463 1,397 1,933 2.50 2,788 20 101 23 71 588 157 1,810 18 2005 10,051 4,084 993 3,091 321 461 1,578 1,724 2.46 2,856 21 111 26 74 584 163 1,858 19 2010 10,005 4,095 973 3,122 2015 10,173 4,154 1,033 3,121 366 443 1,947 1,398 2.45 2,777 21 110 34 76 514 172 1,831 19 2020 10,321 4,194 1,111 3,083 381 426 2,106 1,281 2.46 2,742 20 105 37 75 485 174 1,827 Change 44 344 452 1,764 1,535 2.44 2,838 21 112 29 75 554 169 1,859 19 19 11,488 5,915 506 5,409 1,064 1,938 1,494 1,419 -.34 39,837 -39 24,772 676 2,907 1,328 1,053 9,064 76 -138 412 -445 857 -6 209 10 199 -.17 1,474 26 -257 32 -107 572 190 1,002 16 -322 96 -96 192 100 -77 1,129 -1,056 -.14 318 4 3 16 14 -159 30 407 3 Percent 67.3 91.8 23.2 126.8 90.2 95.2 82.2 100.4 -12.8 179.4 -15.2 462.8 87.8 243.5 58.7 40.5 94.7 39.6 Percent -.8 6.2 -20.4 19.3 -.5 11.0 .5 13.3 -6.6 28.7 92.9 -65.1 29.9 -26.2 44.0 55.1 40.6 20.a Perce!!! -3.0 2.3 -8.0 6.6 35.6 -15.3 115.6 -45.2 -5.2 13.1 25.0 2.9 76.2 23.0 -24.7 20.8 28.7 18.8 �> BINGHAM FARMS Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1,001 412 88 324 23 31 37 321 2.43 6,958 0 404 898 515 270 1,950 2,921 0 1995 995 422 75 347 22 25 25 350 2.36 7,960 0 291 1,383 658 354 2,390 2,884 0 2000 942 412 60 352 20 17 14 361 2.29 8,343 0 287 1,325 654 335 2,516 3,226 0 2005 910 411 44 367 18 13 8 372 2.21 8,761 0 319 1,461 685 333 2,629 3,334 0 2010 893 411 35 376 16 10 5 380 2.17 8,974 0 326 1,564 691 316 2,736 3,341 0 2015 900 419 33 386 14 9 6 390 2.15 8,905 0 313 1,591 655 292 2,772 3,282 0 2020 923 430 36 394 12 8 8 402 2.15 BIRMINGHAM Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 19,997 9,121 2,174 6,947 738 1,469 2,185 4,729 2.19 20,177 164 899 718 746 4,984 2,786 9,691 189 1995 20,147 9,307 2,023 7,284 562 1,283 2,236 5,226 2.16 20,841 169 1,162 321 907 4,389 3,414 10,281 198 2000 20,204 9,383 1,972 7,411 465 1,171 2,297 5,450 2.15 21 ,468 165 1,271 291 1,002 4,077 3,703 10,756 203 2005 20,135 9,514 1,822 7,692 490 1,166 2,296 5,562 2.12 21,251 160 1,393 268 1,112 3,895 3,744 10,482 197 2010 20,183 9,689 1,714 7,975 502 1,173 2,343 5,671 2.08 21,455 163 1,452 235 1,208 3,755 3,890 10,551 201 2015 20,296 9,863 1,697 8,166 518 1,191 2,391 5,763 2.06 21,107 163 1,414 206 1,231 3,521 3,944 10,426 202 535 1,206 2,423 5,806 2.04 20,865 163 1,352 183 1,234 3,346 3,943 10,445 199 BLOOMFIELD HILLS Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 4,288 1,515 443 1,072 78 102 153 1,182 2.83 10,227 89 239 241 292 1,229 1,729 6,321 87 1995 4,427 1,570 446 1,124 58 75 166 1,271 2.82 12,162 116 302 341 393 1,255 2,031 7,643 81 2000 4,561 1,624 457 1,167 42 57 176 1,349 2.81 14,017 118 353 415 449 1,252 2,417 8,914 99 2005 4,674 1,685 468 1,217 34 56 204 1,391 2.77 15,462 127 438 494 500 1,311 2,734 9,750 108 2010 4,791 1,749 483 1,266 30 51 239 1,429 2.74 16,373 133 478 582 567 1,278 3,092 10,124 119 2015 4,873 1,790 517 1,273 27 47 278 1,438 2.72 16,741 132 471 616 581 1,197 3,418 10,198 128 2020 4,966 1,825 560 1,265 25 45 317 1,438 2.72 17,119 130 448 619 585 1,133 3,730 10,342 132 8,814 0 296 1,579 620 275 2,767 3,277 0 2020 20,316 9,970 1,716 8,254 Change -78 18 -52 70 -11 -23 -29 81 Percent -7.8 4.4 -59.1 21 .6 -47.8 -74.2 -78.4 25.2 -11.7 26.7 -.28 1,856 0 -108 681 105 5 817 356 0 -26.7 75.8 20.4 1.9 41 .9 12.2 .0 Change Percent 319 849 -458 1,307 -203 -263 238 1,on -.15 688 -1 453 -535 -1,638 1,157 754 10 1.6 9.3 -21.1 18.8 -27.5 -17.9 10.9 22.8 -7.1 3.4 -.6 50.4 -74.5 65.4 -32.9 41 .5 7.8 5.3 Change Percent 678 310 117 193 -53 -57 164 256 -.11 6,892 41 209 378 293 -96 2,001 4,021 45 15.8 20.5 26.4 18.0 -67.9 -55.9 107.2 21 .7 -3.9 67.4 46.1 87.4 156.8 100.3 -7.8 115.7 63.6 51.7 488 .c 45 �BLOOMFIELD TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration BRANDON TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration CLARKSTON Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 46 1990 42,473 15,727 5,084 10,643 863 1,450 2,531 10,883 2.70 15,013 182 630 483 749 3,142 1,797 7,878 152 1995 43,136 16,429 4,777 11,652 845 1,408 2,860 11,316 2.63 18,406 232 814 498 928 3,178 2,967 9,593 196 2000 42,678 16,691 4,367 12,324 833 1,361 3,096 11,401 2.56 22,289 263 973 687 1,087 3,190 4,252 11,605 232 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change 42,067 17,067 3,807 13,260 927 1,594 3,334 11,212 2.46 25,249 290 1,255 870 1,278 3,359 5,339 12,579 279 41.422 17,461 3,263 14,198 1,051 1,751 3,663 10,996 2.37 27,271 310 1,350 977 1,397 3,303 6,614 13,013 307 41,179 17,871 3,001 14,870 1,174 1,902 3,940 10,855 2.30 28,314 323 1,353 1,052 1,435 3,135 7,600 13,089 327 41,015 18,220 2,876 15,344 1,286 2,029 4,155 10,750 2.25 29,035 334 1,326 1,086 1,445 3,001 8,248 13,259 336 -1,458 2,493 -2,208 4,701 423 579 1,624 -133 -.45 14,022 152 696 603 696 -141 6,451 5,381 184 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change 10,799 3,529 1,686 1,843 432 764 1,147 1,186 3.06 1,075 93 78 141 60 195 36 472 0 12,220 4,001 1,838 2,163 418 778 1,319 1,486 3.05 1,476 69 148 67 78 193 45 876 0 13,255 4,381 1,905 2,476 418 766 1,466 1,731 3.03 1,773 71 173 43 95 247 74 1,070 14,218 4,766 1,911 2,855 456 759 1,593 1,958 2.98 2,098 76 201 37 117 313 104 1,250 15,214 5,165 1,921 3,244 497 749 1,709 2,210 2.95 2,388 76 228 37 134 371 132 1,410 16,292 5,581 2,003 3,578 539 748 1,835 2,459 2.92 2,620 74 246 35 142 416 159 1,548 6,460 2,420 430 1,990 144 -14 803 1,487 -.16 1,750 -21 182 -108 0 0 0 0 17,259 5,949 2,116 3,833 576 750 1,950 2,673 2.90 2,825 72 260 33 144 454 180 1,682 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 977 441 92 349 96 70 149 126 2.22 3,339 171 253 85 45 781 438 1,396 170 2010 2015 2020 Change 1,005 434 108 326 87 81 126 140 2.32 3,092 164 285 109 58 747 341 1,296 92 955 443 83 360 101 58 170 114 2.16 3,347 156 203 86 15 807 482 1,411 187 926 447 69 378 111 49 191 96 2.07 3,558 133 201 94 23 887 530 1,486 204 905 451 57 394 116 42 213 80 2.01 3,629 101 200 96 26 964 465 1,570 207 889 455 49 406 118 36 235 66 1.95 3,613 72 199 94 26 986 382 1,646 208 878 460 43 -127 26 -65 91 31 -50 129 -84 -.41 482 -95 -94 -19 417 118 31 255 56 1.91 3,574 69 191 90 27 995 299 1,696 207 84 259 144 1,210 0 -31 248 -42 400 115 Percent •3,4 15.9 -43.4 44.2 49.0 39.9 64.2 •1,2 ·16.6 93.4 83.5 110.5 124.8 92.9 -4,5 359.0 68.3 121.1 Percent 59.8 68.6 25.5 108.0 33.3 -1.8 70.0 125.4 -5.2 162.8 -22.6 233.3 -76.6 140.0 132.8 400.0 256.4 ,0 - Percent -:m6.0 -60.2 27,9 35,6 -61.7 102.4 -60,0 -17,6 15.6 .57,9 .33,0 .11.4 .53,4 33.2 -12,3 30,9 125,0 �CLAWSON Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration COMMERCE TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration FARMINGTON Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 12,588 5,743 1,064 4,679 990 2,407 1,690 656 2.19 6,203 73 700 463 194 1,643 605 2,480 45 12,535 5,828 1,026 4,802 972 2,587 1,673 596 2.15 6,173 73 644 456 179 1,618 623 2,535 45 13,874 5,542 1,660 3,882 987 1,598 1,749 1,208 2.50 5,783 77 704 297 278 1,570 400 2,418 39 13,606 5,615 1,520 4,095 982 1,788 1,786 1,059 2.42 5,963 80 774 364 244 1,524 444 2,492 41 13,167 5,620 1,365 4,255 989 1,942 1,776 913 2.34 6,000 76 728 397 220 1,564 487 2,485 43 12,866 5,635 1,222 4,413 1,007 2,076 1,741 811 2.28 6,200 71 767 438 218 1,625 526 2,510 45 12,625 5,645 1,117 4,528 997 2,221 1,703 724 2.24 6,282 73 754 461 209 1,667 573 2,500 45 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 38,071 13,909 4,864 9,045 1,084 3,050 4,488 5,287 2.74 11,572 225 918 441 992 2,310 954 5,621 111 40,993 15,092 5,288 9,804 1,231 3,379 4,922 5,560 2.72 12,101 236 897 462 1,091 2,325 1,033 5,949 108 22,228 7,695 3,389 4,306 710 1,606 2,315 3,064 2.89 6,493 337 1,232 188 288 1,622 347 2,374 105 26,267 9,160 3,870 5,290 714 1,869 2,798 3,779 2.87 7,307 273 970 181 401 1,799 471 3,122 90 29,159 10,293 4,138 6,155 720 2,096 3,212 4,265 2.83 8,657 240 912 285 551 1,952 585 4,034 98 31,842 11,416 4,258 7,158 828 2,387 3,619 4,582 2.79 9,971 214 933 339 705 2,188 724 4,760 108 34,698 12,574 4,459 8,115 944 2,696 4,011 4,923 2.76 10,910 211 938 397 862 2,282 846 5,264 110 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 10,132 4,681 967 3,714 817 1,125 1,256 1,483 2.16 8,528 177 857 282 462 2,269 611 3,742 128 10,190 4,724 956 3,768 772 1,167 1,301 1,484 2.16 7,921 186 469 275 412 2,154 774 3,518 133 10,173 4,755 927 3,828 744 1,213 1,349 1,449 2.14 8,155 178 448 331 350 2,066 887 3,752 143 10,136 4,817 857 3,960 738 1,357 1,474 1,248 2.10 8,195 161 445 427 277 1,955 1,094 3,685 151 10,137 4,862 863 3,999 740 1,444 1,550 1,128 2.08 7,945 158 416 460 233 1,802 1,174 3,551 151 10,135 4,898 888 4,010 744 1,525 1,622 1,007 2.07 7,759 155 386 477 199 1,685 1,224 3,484 149 10,136 4,780 880 3,900 740 1,281 1,404 1,355 2.12 8,293 162 450 377 318 2,065 987 3,784 150 Change -1,339 286 -634 920 -15 989 -76 -612 -.35 390 -4 -60 159 -99 48 223 117 6 Percent -9.7 5.2 -38.2 23.7 -1.5 61.9 -4.3 -50.7 -14.1 6.7 -t .2 -8.5 53.5 -35.6 3.1 55.8 4.8 15.4 Change 18,765 7,397 1,899 5,498 521 1,773 2,607 2,496 -.17 5,608 -101 -335 274 803 703 686 3,575 3 Percent 84.4 96.1 56.0 127.7 73.4 110.4 112.6 81.5 -6.0 86.4 -30.0 -27.2 145.7 278.8 43.3 197.7 150.6 2.9 Change 3 217 -79 296 -73 400 366 -476 -.10 -769 -22 -471 195 -263 -584 613 -258 21 Percent .0 4.6 -8.2 8.0 -8.9 35.6 29.1 -32.1 -4.4 -9.0 -12.4 -55.0 69.1 -56.9 -25.7 100.3 -6.9 16.4 47 �FARMINGTON HILLS Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change 74,652 29,255 9,173 20,082 3,177 5,579 7,420 13,079 2.55 56,432 820 7,225 1,809 5,779 8,833 11,461 20,016 489 78,124 31,439 9,013 22,426 3,363 6,203 8,294 13,579 2.48 62,036 834 7,979 1,501 5,779 9,692 12,729 22,859 663 79,943 33,058 8,594 24,464 3,608 6,734 8,959 13,757 2.42 65,901 821 7,589 1,494 5,625 10,185 13,899 25,427 861 81,697 34,700 8,009 26,691 4,063 7,384 9,582 13,671 2.35 68,456 794 7,712 1,543 5,731 10,872 14,425 26,471 908 82,745 36,169 7,424 28,745 4,657 8,074 10,347 13,091 2.29 69,037 805 7,583 1,549 5,625 11,043 14,920 26,546 966 83,224 37,204 7,170 30,034 5,210 8,629 10,864 12,501 2.24 67,794 803 7,069 1,532 5,292 10,838 15,080 26,196 984 83,429 37,961 7,096 30,865 5,694 9,032 11,194 12,041 2.20 66,745 802 6,542 1,505 5,005 10,669 15,032 26,207 983 a,m 10,783 2,517 3,453 3,774 -1,038 -.35 10,313 -18 -683 -304 -774 1,836 3,571 6,191 494 FERNDALE Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change 25,026 9,845 3,343 6,502 2,683 3,230 2,567 1,365 2.54 10,577 60 2,266 252 1,355 2,269 329 3,917 129 25,054 9,836 3,394 6.442 2,639 3,256 2,661 1,280 2.55 9,848 69 1,916 264 1,158 1,823 304 4,145 169 24,825 9,841 3,330 6,511 2,660 3,272 2,719 1,190 2.52 9,449 74 1,613 276 1,058 1,645 309 4,293 181 24,729 9,825 3,239 6,586 2,622 3,251 2,772 1,180 2.52 9,369 82 1,570 291 1,026 1,554 322 4,339 185 24,843 9,853 3,211 6,642 2,532 3,292 2,859 1,170 2.52 9,078 86 1,479 297 979 1,440 336 4,273 25,109 9,948 3,269 6,679 2,481 3,338 2,958 1,171 2.52 8,614 87 1,330 290 900 1,310 342 4,165 556 295 37 258 -220 181 510 -176 -.02 -2,288 32 -1,066 32 -520 -1,051 188 190 25,582 10,140 3,380 6,760 2,463 3,411 3,077 1,189 2.52 8,289 92 1,200 284 835 1,218 346 4,128 186 FRANKLIN Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2,679 1,011 322 689 28 101 131 751 2.65 982 16 24 14 2 99 113 699 15 2010 2015 2020 Change 2,644 984 326 658 26 93 131 734 2.69 859 17 38 13 14 92 106 564 15 2,519 972 283 689 28 99 113 732 2.59 1,057 18 22 18 2 94 119 768 16 2,425 963 237 726 30 105 99 729 2.52 1,095 21 25 23 2 94 124 789 17 2,366 965 202 763 33 112 89 731 2.45 1,099 21 25 25 2 91 129 789 17 2,372 986 191 795 2,414 1,015 195 38 44 131 81 759 2.38 1,085 18 25 30 5 83 133 775 16 -230 31 -131 162 18 48 122 83 743 2.41 1,086 19 25 27 3 86 132 777 17 820 8,706 -2,on 17 211 57 38 -50 25 -.31 226 1 -13 17 -9 -9 27 211 1 Percent 11.8 29.8 ·22.6 53.7 79.2 61.9 50.9 ·1.9 ·13.9 18.3 ·2.2 ·9.5 -16.8 ·13.4 20.8 31.2 30.9 101.0 Percent 2.2 3.0 1.1 4.0 -8.2 5.6 19.9 -12,9 -,8 -21.6 53.3 -47.0 12.7 -38.4 -46.3 5.2 5.4 44,2 --- percent ~ -8.7 3.2 -40,2 24,6 69.2 40,9 .38.2 3.4 -11.5 26,3 5,9 .34.2 130,8 -64,3 .g,8 25,5 37,4 6.7 �GROVELAND TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration HAZEL PARK Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration HIGHLAND TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 4,705 1,538 691 847 208 292 428 610 3.06 417 48 0 2 81 46 5,954 1,985 802 1,183 222 320 495 948 3.00 939 30 6 9 37 230 8 607 12 6,461 2,190 816 1,374 248 227 12 5,432 1,796 758 1,038 213 315 472 796 3.02 579 29 0 0 60 67 1 410 12 6,976 2,398 837 1,561 283 347 546 1,222 2.91 1,619 36 33 9 23 471 21 1,012 14 7,517 2,613 885 1,728 327 367 576 1,343 2.88 1,740 36 40 8 24 462 24 1,132 14 7,994 2,803 943 1,860 376 388 610 1,429 2.85 1,836 36 45 8 24 452 26 1,232 13 3,289 1,265 252 1,013 168 96 182 819 -.21 1,419 -12 45 6 -57 406 25 1,005 1 69.9 82.2 36.5 119.6 80.8 32.9 42.5 134.3 -6.8 340.3 -25.1 n/a 300.0 -70.4 882.6 2,500.0 442.7 8.3 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Change Percent 19,532 7,230 2,809 19,007 2015 19,247 2020 19,141 7,122 2,687 4,435 19,525 7,427 2,684 -526 150 -235 385 186 -112 -2.6 2.1 -8.1 8.8 8.3 -4.7 10.8 -13.3 -4.6 -9.5 334 524 1,084 2.95 1,420 36 26 10 26 459 16 833 14 20,051 7,277 2,919 4,358 2,235 2,392 1,777 873 2.76 5,003 91 1,012 131 405 937 96 2,195 136 20,108 7,365 940 64 2,078 150 705 2.70 4,750 78 594 197 448 940 64 2,269 160 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 20,197 6,992 2,782 4,210 785 1,617 2,071 2,519 2.89 5,192 129 304 60 219 1,247 191 3,027 15 21,348 7,644 2,616 5,028 837 1,786 2,217 2,804 2.79 5,933 175 331 68 261 1,435 240 3,405 18 22,822 8,403 2,499 5,904 882 1,964 2,408 3,149 2.72 6,586 232 313 75 305 1,609 295 3,737 20 17,941 5,919 2,878 3,041 785 1,444 1,859 1,831 3.03 3,711 72 405 100 166 908 127 1,926 7 2,921 4,444 2,296 4,421 2,248 2,464 2,455 1,815 790 2.73 4,631 93 745 129 1,822 432 19,071 6,411 2,872 3,539 772 1,509 1,959 2,171 2.97 4,667 87 384 102 197 1,095 162 2,628 12 7,122 2,364 1,813 703 2.69 2,609 4,513 2,266 2,311 1,835 710 2.67 7,268 2,629 4,639 2,338 2,298 1,899 733 2.65 4,826 4,767 4,629 70 534 67 472 66 222 247 488 2,242 4,743 2,421 2,280 1,969 757 2.63 4,530 65 362 192 -116 -.13 -473 -26 -650 134 66 -57 -28.6 -64.2 408 262 481 265 471 906 880 68 2,266 153 -28 71 17 102.3 16.3 -6.1 -29.2 3.2 12.5 2015 2020 Change Percent 24,631 9,247 2,530 6,717 931 2,147 2,674 3,495 2.66 7,012 253 273 81 334 1,726 348 3,975 22 26,312 10,004 2,634 7,370 967 2,301 2,946 3,790 2.63 7,409 271 269 83 351 1,814 391 4,207 23 8,371 4,085 -244 4,329 182 857 1,087 1,959 -.40 3,698 199 -136 -17 185 906 264 2,281 16 46.7 69.0 -8.5 142.4 23.2 59.3 58.5 107.0 -13.2 99.6 276.4 -33.6 -17.0 111 .4 99.8 207.9 118.4 228.6 473 952 67 938 68 2,343 2,325 68 2,279 165 162 159 49 �HOLLY Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration HOLLY TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration HUNTINGTON WOODS Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 50 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 5,595 2,056 839 1,217 623 638 447 348 2.72 2,271 3 670 50 12 486 26 952 72 5,809 2,186 831 1,355 674 705 439 368 2.66 2,888 8 654 37 30 743 52 1,305 59 5,975 2,302 795 1,507 693 763 6,076 2,420 698 1,722 6,232 2,543 618 1,925 6,409 2,669 6,573 2,781 560 2,109 518 2,263 978 725 -321 1,046 35,3 •38,3 85.9 6TT 833 469 441 2.51 3,463 11 782 10 14 907 656 891 498 498 2.45 3,714 11 852 630 949 531 559 2.40 3,868 11 9 13 931 50 1,775 9 12 913 47 1,947 599 999 563 620 2.36 4,005 11 833 9 10 894 44 2,130 73 74 74 361 116 272 -.36 1,734 8 163 -41 -2 408 18 1,178 2 444 402 2.60 3,132 9 704 10 18 825 49 1,455 62 56 1,613 70 855 -24 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change 3,257 1,091 504 587 152 254 361 324 2.99 326 25 94 20 57 16 5 109 0 3,660 1,197 582 615 123 294 400 380 3.06 450 42 149 4,035 1,347 4,186 1,427 583 764 83 371 456 437 3.00 978 45 204 564 863 76 404 4,333 1,509 557 952 74 437 493 505 2.87 1,173 4,452 1,582 553 1,029 76 464 20 11 3 224 3,854 1,268 592 676 99 330 427 412 3.04 694 40 163 2 12 86 3 388 2 9 193 4 521 1,195 491 49 442 -76 210 142 215 -.17 901 9 125 -18 -52 173 1 0 0 0 4n 470 2.93 1,103 503 539 2.81 1,227 42 38 34 222 219 2 7 197 5 628 224 2 5 193 6 705 189 6 772 0 0 0 663 0 2 5 1990 1995 2000 6,336 2,345 927 1,418 135 301 593 1,316 2.70 1,525 2005 6,429 2,358 961 1,397 116 256 670 1,316 2.73 1,841 2010 2015 2020 Change 6,441 2,362 966 1,396 104 221 750 1,287 2.73 1,969 6,463 2,371 960 1,411 111 195 824 1,241 0 103 26 73 143 212 1,210 74 0 6,624 2,439 995 1,444 131 162 973 1,173 2.72 2,074 1 6,711 2,477 1,036 1,441 146 152 1,044 1,135 2.71 0 6,515 2,395 961 1,434 118 175 897 1,205 2.72 2,108 375 132 109 23 11 -149 451 -181 .01 531 1 43 24 72 102 168 1,054 62 90 30 67 161 231 1,309 81 2.73 2,103 0 92 33 70 215 247 1,362 84 0 86 34 68 216 263 1,355 86 80 33 63 207 272 1,329 89 2,056 1 74 32 60 202 276 1,322 89 31 8 -12 100 108 268 27 17,5 •3,9 56.6 26.0 78,2 ·13.1 76.4 266.7 24.3 -82.0 -16.7 84.0 69.2 123.7 2,8 Percent 36.7 45.0 9.7 75.3 -50.0 82.7 39.3 66.4 •5,7 276.4 36,0 133,0 .90,0 .91,2 1,081.3 20.0 608,3 ,0 - p~ 5,9 5,6 11.8 1.6 8.1 -49,5 76,1 -13,8 ,3 34,8 rJa 72,1 33,3 -16,7 98,0 64.3 25.4 43,5 �tr:, INDEPENDENCE TWP 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 23,717 7,969 3,516 4,453 580 1,318 2,402 3,669 2.98 4,445 265 480 103 172 1,190 481 1,727 27 28,498 9,650 3,974 5,676 570 1,539 2,995 4,546 2.95 5,572 264 401 80 116 1,508 689 2,485 29 32,319 11,115 4,195 6,920 581 1,747 3,470 5,317 2.91 6,937 247 345 80 154 1,758 885 3,387 81 35,551 12,488 4,145 8,343 681 2,056 3,841 5,910 2.85 8,345 238 360 98 180 2,062 1,120 4,135 152 38,280 13,724 4,025 9,699 771 2,369 4,132 6,452 2.79 9,139 264 374 100 175 2,280 1,115 4,676 155 40,401 14,768 3,950 10,818 848 2,683 4,357 6,880 2.74 9,561 273 387 98 160 2,373 1,067 5,048 155 41,703 15,539 3,859 11,680 919 2,979 4,480 7,161 2.68 9,878 268 385 95 143 2,423 1,003 5,410 151 17,986 7,570 343 7,227 339 1,661 2,078 3,492 -.29 5,433 3 -95 -8 -29 1,233 522 3,683 124 75.8 95.0 9.8 162.3 58.4 126.0 86.5 95.2 -9.8 122.2 11 -19.8 -7.8 -16.9 103.6 108.5 213.3 459.3 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 2,866 1,258 214 1,044 140 260 125 733 2.28 1,591 19 29 2 23 767 112 586 53 2,966 1,303 203 1,100 107 235 118 843 2.28 1,613 21 23 3 25 775 118 595 53 34 71 -194 265 -186 -173 -121 551 -.10 508 7 -30 -53 11 277 52 206 38 1.2 5.8 -48.9 31.7 -63.5 -42.4 -50.6 188.7 -4.4 46.0 50.0 -56.6 -94.6 78.6 55.6 78.8 53.0 253.3 KEEGO HARBOR Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 2,932 1,232 397 835 293 408 239 292 2.38 1,105 14 53 56 14 498 66 389 15 2,938 1,236 372 864 265 382 217 372 2 .38 1,331 19 50 52 18 596 79 478 39 2,892 1,231 328 903 227 350 191 463 2.35 1,406 19 41 34 19 638 86 526 43 2,852 1,236 278 958 212 318 160 546 2.31 1,516 19 43 22 21 704 95 567 45 2,857 1,248 241 1,007 178 288 141 641 2.29 1,579 19 38 7 23 754 105 584 49 LAKE ANGELUS 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 341 127 33 94 8 11 39 69 2.69 68 0 2 0 0 14 34 18 0 343 130 32 98 9 11 51 59 2.64 92 0 2 0 0 25 37 28 0 348 134 31 103 9 12 64 49 2.60 97 0 2 0 0 26 41 28 0 362 141 32 109 9 367 145 33 112 9 17 86 33 2.53 102 0 2 0 0 26 46 28 0 39 22 1 21 3 3 66 -50 -.14 43 0 0 0 0 15 18 10 0 11 .9 17.9 3.1 23.1 50.0 21.4 330.0 -60.2 -5.1 72.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 136.4 64.3 55.6 .0 Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 328 123 32 91 6 14 20 83 2.67 59 0 2 0 0 11 28 18 0 338 126 33 93 8 12 28 78 2 .68 58 0 2 0 0 12 31 13 0 14 77 41 2.57 100 0 2 0 0 26 44 28 0 51 �LAKE ORION Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration LATHRUP VILLAGE Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration LEONARD Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 52 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change 3,029 1,237 329 908 260 278 391 3,009 1,256 3,044 1,297 277 1,020 235 208 3,035 1,325 243 1,082 228 187 567 3,004 1,342 2,954 1,352 2 ,900 1,360 211 1,131 184 1,168 160 1,200 214 168 634 196 152 700 178 138 765 -129 123 -169 292 -82 -140 308 2.45 1,326 20 50 33 62 426 331 2.40 1,645 18 51 343 2.29 326 2.24 304 2.18 279 2.13 1,821 10 42 1,914 7 42 1,971 11 42 1,997 17 13 11 531 13 30 455 113 13 17 494 126 17 541 12 18 545 119 27.9 43 134.4 997 1,064 93 1,198 75 930 112 1,142 1,236 50 55 56 56 54 584 3 89.6 45 32 652 51 299 957 248 240 437 2 37 446 116 505 349 2.35 1,713 14 42 12 40 374 -29 -.32 Percent -4.3 9,9 -51.4 32,2 ·31,5 ·50.4 95.7 -9.4 -12.9 -21 50.6 -15.0 -20.0 -63.6 -44 .71.0 671 -3 -10 5.9 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 4,329 1,577 4,296 1,589 4,222 1,572 4,127 4 ,049 4,066 -263 -6.1 2.8 501 1,071 85 212 405 875 2.75 2,555 0 113 131 117 403 423 1,271 510 1,079 94 221 410 864 2.70 2,807 98 221 107 225 1,621 409 1,212 147 44 530 1,047 1,568 456 1,112 4,056 1,569 422 1,147 118 400 853 2.69 2,963 382 854 2.63 3,076 0 157 203 99 340 435 1,468 0 153 223 97 322 457 1,597 0 167 245 100 320 477 1,645 97 105 114 1990 1995 357 125 51 74 380 137 48 89 23 31 47 24 2.86 25 20 25 0 6 6 0 7 0 5 228 365 858 2.59 3,105 0 169 263 101 1,591 411 1,180 132 233 238 353 873 2 .54 341 895 2.51 3,060 3,030 1 152 269 96 -121 165 62 26 -22.8 -64 -15.8 2.3 -8.6 20 -.24 475 1 39 138 -21 -140 79 303 496 1,646 0 161 269 98 280 503 1,618 263 502 1,614 122 127 131 133 36 2000 2005 2015 2020 Change 396 149 404 2010 424 451 478 160 35 125 17 17 172 184 31 141 31 153 16 15 195 33 162 14 121 70 -18 43 106 18 20 15 343 88 -9 14 121 14 -17 65 27 2.77 82 29 2.66 97 29 2.53 129 82 34 2.45 38 2.45 14 100 110 31 2.47 108 0 78 117 127 128 0 81 0 83 4 0 78 5 4 129 0 72 7 5 0 79 7 0 8 0 5 1 6 10 11 3 2 12 2 16 1 3 14 3 19 15 4 21 1 -.40 104 0 66 1 5 9 16 5 23 5 18 1 0 15.8 72.9 12.3 18.6 rva 34.5 105.3 -17.9 -34.7 18.7 27,0 37,1 -- Percent 33,9 56,0 -35,3 118,9 .39,1 .54,8 174,5 58,3 -14.2 416,0 ,0 1,100.0 16,7 r/8 128.6 r/8 360,0 ' ,0 �• LYON TWP (1990 Boundaries) 1990 8,695 Total Population 2,954 Total Households 1,377 With Children 1,577 Without Children Income Quartile 1 320 Income Quartile 2 841 Income Quartile 3 999 Income Quartile 4 794 Persons Per Household 2.94 Total Employment 2,342 Ag, Min, Nat Res 84 Manufacturing 1,238 TCU 45 Wholesale Trade 51 Retail Trade 375 FIRE 312 Services 237 Pub Administration 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 9,854 3,318 1,557 1,761 280 870 1,170 998 2.97 2,941 96 1,558 63 116 460 325 323 0 11,005 3,649 1,731 1,918 271 879 1,354 1,145 3.02 3,415 101 1,447 72 135 532 362 758 8 12,316 4,040 1,909 2,131 275 925 1,536 1,304 3.05 3,972 113 1,464 110 163 706 419 980 17 14,030 4,580 2,136 2,444 291 984 1,744 1,561 3.06 4,276 117 1,449 163 188 793 468 1,074 16,236 5,296 2,473 2,823 323 1,060 1,997 1,916 3.07 4,452 124 1,373 227 204 852 506 1,135 31 18,419 6,015 2,839 3,176 363 1,131 2,230 2,291 3.06 4,594 134 1,299 286 219 899 532 1,192 33 9,724 3,061 1,462 1,599 43 290 1,231 1,497 .12 2,252 50 61 241 168 524 220 955 33 111 .8 103.6 106.2 101.4 13.4 34.5 123.2 188.5 4.0 96.2 5S.5 4.9 535.6 329.4 139.7 70.5 403.0 n/a LYON TWP (1995 Boundaries) 1990 Total Population 8,695 Total Households 2,954 With Children 1,377 Without Children 1,577 Income Quartile 1 320 Income Quartile 2 841 Income Quartile 3 999 Income Quartile 4 794 Persons Per Household 2.94 Total Employment 2,342 Ag, Min, Nat Res 84 Manufacturing 1,238 TCU 45 Wholesale Trade 51 Retail Trade 375 FIRE 312 Services 237 Pub Administration 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change 9,854 3,318 1,557 1,761 280 870 1,170 998 2.97 2,941 96 1,558 63 116 460 325 323 0 10,645 3,529 1,681 1,848 258 11,791 3,865 1,834 2,031 257 13,410 4,380 2,036 15,620 5,094 2,383 2,711 308 1,018 1,938 1,830 3.07 17,804 5,810 2,759 3,051 9,109 2,856 1,382 Percent 104.8 MADISON HEIGHTS Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 848 883 1,317 1,106 3.02 3,415 101 1,483 1,242 3.05 3,972 113 1,464 110 163 706 1,447 72 135 532 362 758 8 419 980 17 24 2,344 275 940 1,682 1,483 3.06 4,276 117 1,449 163 188 793 468 1,074 24 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 32,196 12,867 4,083 8,784 3,015 4,094 3,671 2,087 2.50 27,408 344 8,718 678 2,231 5,497 863 8,813 31,436 13,014 3,743 9,271 3,279 4,369 3,570 1,796 30,218 12,904 3,357 9,547 3,393 4,532 3,391 1,588 29,384 12,843 2,999 9,844 3,509 4,573 3,222 1,539 2.29 28,134 214 5,277 1,322 2,671 6,241 884 11,228 297 28,706 264 2.42 2.34 28,088 265 7,362 911 2,421 6,073 846 9,939 271 27,939 231 5,874 1,164 2,519 6,152 848 10,862 289 12,847 2,681 10,166 3,589 4,672 3,088 1,498 2.23 27,616 211 4,658 1,479 2,766 6,153 898 11,152 299 348 4,452 1,079 2,171 2,212 3.06 4,594 124 1,373 227 204 852 506 1,135 31 1,299 286 219 899 532 1,192 33 2015 28,271 12,952 2,487 10,465 3,685 4,823 2,992 1,452 2.18 26,489 204 3,994 1,565 2,710 5,881 897 10,939 299 134 2020 27,920 13,069 2,362 10,707 3,773 4,978 2,913 1,405 2.14 25,594 199 3,471 1,584 2,632 5,655 884 10,876 293 .12 2,252 50 61 241 168 524 220 955 33 96.7 100.4 93.5 8.8 28.3 117.3 178.6 4.1 96.2 59.5 4.9 535.6 329.4 139.7 70.5 403.0 n/a Change -4,276 Percent -13.3 202 -1,721 1,923 758 884 -758 -682 -.37 -1,814 -145 -5,247 906 401 1.6 -42.2 21.9 25.1 21.6 -20.6 -32.7 -14.6 -6.6 1,474 28 238 1,172 1,418 158 21 2,063 29 -42.2 -60.2 133.6 18.0 2.9 2.4 23.4 11.0 53 �----MILFORD Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration MILFORD TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration NORTHVILLE PART Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 54 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 5,511 1,996 817 1,179 491 405 653 447 2.76 3,996 45 607 145 117 1,058 136 1,830 6,301 2,291 894 1,397 6,716 2,469 903 1,566 591 375 887 616 2.72 5,239 63 626 201 129 1,322 135 2,683 7,078 2,639 7,387 2,794 7,497 2,887 7,500 2,943 1,989 947 36.1 47,4 883 1,756 854 1,940 674 394 1,015 815 2,072 775 2,168 -42 720 151 2,827 2,995 80 88 97 700 404 1,045 738 2.60 6,029 58 560 247 159 1,667 180 3,051 107 ·5,1 83.9 46.6 2.2 62.9 58 550 396 796 549 2.75 4,942 52 654 186 117 1,279 119 2,462 73 638 381 960 660 2.68 5,597 69 631 220 142 1,469 711 2.64 5,950 67 615 242 155 1,611 168 414 1,064 745 2.55 6,120 47 503 989 229 9 411 298 -.21 66.7 2,124 53.2 4.4 -17,1 2 -104 36.8 119 1,347 61 73.6 105.2 Percent 104.3 118.6 158 1,696 186 3,177 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change 9,281 3,067 1,194 1,873 10,343 3,474 1,288 2,186 11,438 12,606 13,507 6,897 3,909 1,402 4,379 1,567 4,755 1,726 2,580 812 2,507 2,812 3,029 285 413 375 503 1,074 1,522 2.98 4,838 73 1,732 478 589 759 1,366 681 1,596 2.93 1,665 1,504 1,694 2.88 2.84 3,378 35 1,953 8,142 2,667 1,084 1,583 227 383 813 1,244 3.05 3,501 51 1,826 5,253 83 1,690 5,503 95 1,561 5,606 103 1,424 60 97 61 26 1,146 82 109 47 27 1,359 165 161 209 185 248 195 273 198 0 0 62 1,725 125 125 622 1,213 876 1,768 492 507 847 734 -.20 2,228 68 -529 213 101 2n 66.0 194.3 -27.1 355,0 104,1 454,1 43 285 108 2,655 314 120 2,922 338 128 3,091 102 392,3 1,909 93 2,340 1,945 169.7 11 26 38 48 51 51 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change 3,408 1,286 417 3,347 1,326 3,238 1,350 3,139 1,365 3,044 2,967 -400 349 977 196 1,169 1,374 149 1,225 1,382 116 869 43 135 430 678 2.65 915 60 124 0 1 175 52 497 6 263 1,087 44 166 44 182 539 601 2.40 587 552 2.30 1,091 506 2.22 1,124 38 112 40 100 5 28 213 56 630 9 5 28 209 6 88.8 140.2 260,3 137.4 128.9 76.5 •6,5 248 1990 454 35.0 60.3 102 3,367 1,231 454 777 49 131 381 670 2.74 856 75 105 0 8 159 49 61.4 89 41 638 50 234 6,610 2,175 914 1,261 189 369 657 960 3.04 935 1,434 3.03 4,102 •7,7 42 151 486 647 2.52 963 56 117 1 5 187 53 537 7 1,039 39 117 4 27 207 56 581 8 43 200 625 53 679 10 12.3 220 275 -205 -.59 1,151 42 295 -33 -17 205 49 724 10 -:[g -74.4 62,9 656 465 2.15 88 4 29 -- Percent 151 -338 489 -8 89 1,266 41 rJa 4 21 46 0 270 4 -16.3 67,9 72,2 .30.6 -21,5 34,5 -44,0 -16,2 rJa 262,5 28,9 .0 59,5 66.7 �NOVI Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration OAKLAND TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration OAK PARK Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 33,148 12,742 4,715 8,027 1,249 2,886 3,736 4,871 2.60 22,221 313 3,782 612 2,656 7,885 1,030 5,789 154 41,595 16,102 5,773 10,329 1,427 3,564 4,744 6,367 2.58 25,479 250 3,865 485 2,284 9,367 1,109 7,890 229 48,731 19,098 6,506 12,592 1,587 4,190 5,636 7,685 2.55 28,822 247 3,743 499 2,010 10,445 1,263 10,293 322 56,161 22,259 7,120 15,139 1,895 4,901 6,558 8,905 2.52 32,402 279 3,969 529 1,896 11,717 1,483 12,165 364 63,682 25,479 7,768 17,711 2,209 5,657 7,538 10,075 2.50 34,748 284 4,054 516 1,731 12,332 1,636 13,782 413 71,419 28,752 8,636 20,116 2,539 6,430 8,536 11,247 2.48 35,851 281 3,903 492 1,537 12,428 1,747 15,007 456 78,053 31,569 9,512 22,057 2,840 7,095 9,401 12,233 2.47 36,708 279 3,698 467 1,389 12,437 1,814 16,148 476 44,905 18,827 4,797 14,030 1,591 4,209 5,665 7,362 -.13 14,487 -34 -84 -145 -1,267 4,552 784 10,359 322 135.5 147.8 101.7 174.8 127.4 145.8 151.6 151.1 -5.0 '55.2 -10.9 -2.2 -23 ..7 -47.7 57.7 76.1 178.9 209.1 Change 16,288 Percent 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 8,227 2,722 1,084 1,638 217 359 588 1,558 3.02 1,055 71 217 0 45 248 34 431 9 10,232 3,398 1,307 2,091 232 424 758 1,984 3.01 1,099 72 172 0 35 278 40 490 12 11,665 3,912 1,453 2,459 254 474 934 2,250 2.98 1,432 111 146 0 62 315 92 686 20 13,699 4,626 1,715 2,911 334 569 1,203 2,520 2.96 1,812 163 154 16,469 5,568 2,135 3,433 445 698 1,567 2,858 2.96 2,125 202 165 20,436 6,849 2,853 3,996 591 879 2,068 3,311 2.98 2,418 241 180 24,515 8,108 3,694 4,414 728 1,060 2,590 3,730 3.02 2,680 259 191 89 368 162 845 30 110 423 242 952 30 116 480 349 1,021 30 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 30,462 10,871 4,351 6,520 2,248 2,962 3,096 2,565 2.80 12,685 77 1,842 550 1,661 2,662 596 4,947 350 30,905 10,903 4,585 6,318 2,242 3,077 3,153 2,431 2.83 11,801 82 1,586 551 1,434 2,554 568 4,695 331 30,977 10,911 4,647 6,264 2,246 3,182 3,186 2,297 2.84 11,430 88 1,342 573 1,320 2,312 577 4,864 354 31,108 10,886 4,622 6,264 2,176 3,251 3,239 2,220 2.86 11,375 96 1,314 603 1,286 2,192 600 4,920 364 31,529 10,979 4,653 6,326 2,138 3,328 3,320 2,193 2.87 11,075 103 1,248 615 1,235 2,040 627 4,835 372 127 532 457 1,083 30 5,386 2,610 2,776 511 701 2,002 2,172 .00 1,625 188 -26 1 82 284 423 652 21 198.0 197.9 240.8 169.5 235.5 195.3 340.5 139.4 .0 154.0 264.8 -12.0 n/a 182.2 114.5 1,244.1 151.3 233.3 2015 2020 Change Percent 32,380 11,287 4,790 6,497 2,139 3,505 3,416 2,227 2.87 10,606 108 1,140 613 1,145 1,873 644 4,706 377 33,016 11,507 4,959 6,548 2,125 3,660 3,489 2,233 2.87 10,245 108 1,039 597 1,071 1,751 645 4,658 376 2,554 636 608 28 -123 698 393 -332 .07 -2,440 31 -803 47 -590 -911 49 -289 26 8.4 5.9 14.0 .4 -5.5 23.6 12.7 -12.9 2.4 -19.2 40.3 -43.6 8.5 -35.5 -34.2 8.2 -5.8 7.4 55 �ORCHARD LAKE Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration ORION TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change 2,286 696 261 435 24 59 73 540 3.28 1,051 4 89 15 40 230 19 653 2,326 722 231 491 14 45 56 607 3.22 1,051 5 91 10 25 263 33 623 2,387 758 204 554 8 36 45 669 3.15 1,128 6 2,504 841 136 705 4 29 42 766 2.98 1,267 8 74 8 36 2,577 2,626 912 120 792 3 30 340 9 28 290 38 679 2,433 797 163 634 6 31 41 719 3.05 1,219 6 81 9 32 320 43 727 2005 2010 n 344 49 747 1990 1995 2000 21,047 7,331 3,Q75 4,256 774 1,618 2,322 2,617 2.87 7,379 106 4,726 257 198 633 242 1,159 58 25,409 8,745 3,649 5,096 794 1,800 2,775 3,376 2.91 6,324 114 3,499 214 170 682 147 1,428 70 28,695 9,837 3,991 5,846 784 1,893 3,100 4,060 2.92 6,880 150 3,118 217 129 827 247 2,073 119 31,569 10,857 4,150 6,707 849 1,999 3,299 4,710 2.91 7,942 179 3,109 254 134 1,068 388 2,629 181 34,256 11,851 4,241 7,610 907 2,076 3,458 5,410 2.89 8,533 199 3,103 262 138 1,193 450 3,004 184 881 125 756 3 29 46 803 2.93 1,266 8 60 6 37 351 54 749 1 54 825 2.88 1,273 9 46 6 38 355 58 760 1 216 -141 357 -21 -29 -19 285 -.41 222 5 -43 -9 -2 125 39 107 0 2020 Change 36,441 12,717 4,316 8,401 958 2,110 3,570 6,079 2.87 8,881 205 3,107 261 131 1,251 494 3,248 184 37,985 13,382 4,346 9,036 1,001 2,087 3,633 6,661 16,938 6,051 1,271 4,780 227 469 1,311 4,044 -.03 1,692 105 -1,723 2015 2.84 9,071 211 3,003 255 123 1,291 521 3,488 179 •,8 -37.9 103,9 115.3 200,9 208,6 1990 1995 2000 2005 1,524 543 233 310 98 143 153 149 2.81 476 0 39 0 6 117 35 236 43 2010 2015 2020 Change 1,252 453 196 257 104 131 116 102 2.76 354 0 26 0 14 96 28 149 41 1,677 596 246 350 89 140 179 188 2.81 528 0 42 2 9 130 42 257 46 1,834 1,980 713 252 461 83 133 221 276 2.78 641 0 51 3 16 159 56 305 51 2,133 773 260 513 80 130 242 321 2.76 697 0 52 3 18 176 63 333 52 2,227 812 264 548 75 124 259 354 2.74 744 0 52 3 19 191 67 363 975 359 56 -1.1 22.9 99.1 -36.5 -2 ORTONVILLE 49 Percent 80.5 82.5 41.3 112.3 29.3 29,0 56.5 154.5 -75 658 279 2,329 121 Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 655 251 404 86 137 202 230 2.80 586 0 47 3 13 144 49 280 50 Percenl 14.9 31.0 ·54.0 82.1 ·87.5 -49.2 ·26.0 52.8 ·12.3 21.1 125.0 -48.3 -60.0 -5.0 54.3 205.3 16.4 .0 68 291 -29 -7 143 252 -.02 390 0 26 3 5 95 39 214 8 --- Percent ~ 71,9 79,2 34,7 113,2 -27,9 .5,3 123,3 247,1 ,,8 110.2 .0 100.0 rJa 35,7 99,0 139,3 143,6 19,5 �1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 2,929 1,155 400 755 279 266 296 314 2.54 1,269 2 265 5 52 280 125 439 101 3,235 1,248 444 804 262 249 357 380 2.59 1,469 6 324 5 64 340 3,422 1,316 457 859 254 227 404 431 2.60 1,567 6 322 5 58 374 167 574 61 3,509 1,370 435 935 260 212 436 462 2.56 1,689 7 332 4 56 409 186 627 68 3,511 1,403 396 1,007 262 195 454 492 2.50 1,806 7 336 3 49 448 207 685 71 3,469 1,423 358 1,065 263 179 469 512 2.44 1,896 7 315 2 35 490 226 749 72 3,404 1,435 321 1,114 262 164 482 527 2.37 1,975 7 288 OXFORD TWP 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 12,028 4,146 1,627 2,519 381 912 1,458 1,395 2.90 3,548 176 1,160 15 65 653 166 1,309 4 12,922 4,493 1,683 2,810 377 1,026 1,532 1,558 2.88 4,031 178 1,190 21 82 796 211 1,549 4 13,872 4,858 1,794 3,064 378 1,144 1,596 1,740 2.86 4,296 178 1,143 24 97 891 243 1,716 4 14,720 5,185 1,922 3,263 381 1,252 1,638 1,914 2.84 4,485 179 1,Q76 OXFORD 148 525 57 22 526 239 818 74 Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 9,004 3,074 1,331 1,743 460 662 993 959 2.93 2,136 177 1,091 21 19 321 24 483 0 10,278 3,502 1,482 2,020 431 731 1,196 1,144 2.93 2,324 152 1,112 10 31 327 60 632 0 11,171 3,815 1,578 2,237 389 807 1,350 1,269 2.93 2,902 158 1,116 8 45 467 103 1,005 0 PLEASANT RIDGE Total Population Total Households 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2,754 1,097 293 804 119 87 280 611 2.51 632 9 101 6 13 89 191 214 9 2,702 1,101 246 855 113 72 274 642 2.45 706 10 106 6 13 136 205 221 9 2,677 1,112 209 903 106 64 268 674 2.41 708 10 93 2,684 1,133 190 943 102 62 265 704 2.37 688 9 77 2,692 1,151 179 972 99 63 261 728 2.34 673 8 64 7 14 128 228 215 9 With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 2,833 1,094 372 722 145 138 287 524 2.59 585 8 170 5 19 49 162 163 9 2,805 1,093 337 756 128 107 287 571 2.57 606 8 128 5 15 72 175 195 8 7 7 14 137 218 220 9 14 131 225 216 9 24 110 964 267 1,861 4 Change 475 280 -79 359 -17 -102 186 213 -.16 706 5 23 -4 -30 246 114 379 -27 Percent 16.2 24.2 -19.8 47.5 -6.1 -38.3 62.8 67.8 -6.5 55.6 :!50.0 8.7 -80.0 -57.7 87.9 91.2 86.3 -26.7 Change 5,716 2,111 591 1,520 -79 590 645 955 -.09 2,349 2 -15 3 91 643 243 1,378 4 Percent 63.5 68.7 44.4 87.2 -17.2 89.1 65.0 99.6 -3.1 110.0 1.1 -1.4 14.3 478.9 200.3 1,012.5 285.3 n/a Change -141 57 -193 250 -46 -75 -26 204 -.25 88 0 -106 2 -5 79 66 52 0 Percent -5.0 5.2 -51.9 34.6 -31.7 -54.3 -9.1 38.9 -9.7 15.0 .0 -62.4 40.0 -26.3 161.2 40.7 31.9 .0 57 �PONTIAC Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration ROCHESTER Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration ROCHESTER HILLS Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 58 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 71,166 24,769 10,845 13,924 10,238 6,761 5,100 2,670 2.87 56,308 370 18,471 3,877 2,419 6,344 2,035 20,013 2,779 70,034 24,665 10,866 13,799 10,920 6,611 4,931 2,203 2.84 55,246 418 15,916 3,782 2,726 6,407 1,983 21,219 2,795 67,018 24,022 10,295 13,727 11,124 6,362 4,680 1,856 2.79 55,150 475 14,448 3,863 2,889 6,272 2,071 22,350 2,782 64,823 23,533 9,641 13,892 11,069 6,236 4,444 1,784 2.75 56,846 461 15,572 3,784 3,118 6,356 2,178 22,796 2,581 63,372 23,419 62,898 23,663 62,658 9,048 a,n8 14,371 11 ,080 6,226 4,387 1,726 2.71 57,942 482 16,776 3,699 3,267 6,113 2,316 22,700 2,589 14,885 11,268 6,309 4,392 1,694 2.66 56,958 496 16,346 3,547 3,251 5,769 2,418 22,544 2,587 1,675 2.61 55,803 508 15,352 3,383 3,198 5,514 2,475 22,833 2,540 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 7,178 3,473 842 2,631 588 1,068 1,004 813 2.07 12,757 146 2,181 357 196 2,830 721 6,240 86 7,761 3,665 928 2,737 506 1,015 1,193 951 2.12 15,106 152 2,470 327 232 2,658 867 8,311 89 8,335 3,848 1,028 2,820 444 964 1,342 1,098 2.17 17,650 140 2,551 337 315 2,634 983 10,582 108 8,958 4,069 1,123 2,946 398 962 1,432 1,277 2.20 19,552 128 2,662 360 411 2,569 1,072 12,227 123 9,678 4,321 1,257 3,064 357 958 1,502 1,504 2.24 21,107 123 2,733 348 2,662 1,133 13,494 130 10,550 4,613 1,471 3,142 325 956 1,555 1,777 2.29 21,921 117 2,635 325 517 2,656 1,164 14,372 135 11,393 4,874 1,719 3,155 297 952 1,588 2,037 2.34 22,636 113 2,499 304 538 2,642 1,177 15,228 135 1990 1995 2000 61,718 22,334 8,935 13,399 2,232 3,696 5,656 10,750 2.76 18,667 443 3,984 217 1,014 5,068 1,277 6,451 213 2005 2010 2015 2020 66,365 24,206 9,404 14,802 2,212 3,709 6,015 12,270 2.74 23,716 502 5,583 231 1,337 5,809 1,221 8,799 234 69,537 25,773 9,523 16,250 2,310 3,759 6,307 13,397 2.70 28,343 535 6,515 314 1,560 6,265 1,419 11,485 250 72,033 27,230 9,245 17,985 2,448 3,962 6,627 14,193 2.65 31,420 535 6,814 401 1,815 6,699 1,601 13,287 268 73,749 28,612 8,776 19,836 2,622 4,167 7,047 14,776 2.58 34,007 549 7,150 459 2,028 7,135 1,749 14,663 274 75,840 30,055 8,696 21,359 2,812 4,409 7,470 15,364 2.52 35,521 556 7,181 502 2,136 7,306 1,855 15,708 2TT TT,801 31,382 8,796 22,586 3,004 4,645 7,851 15,882 2.48 36,669 562 7,045 529 2,196 7,418 1,916 484 23,972 8,636 15,336 11,475 6,408 4,414 16,728 275 Change -8,508 -797 -2,209 1,412 1,237 -353 -686 -995 -.26 -505 138 -3,119 -494 n9 -830 440 2,820 -239 Percent ·12.0 ·3.2 ·20.4 10.1 12.1 -5.2 ·13.5 -37.3 •9,0 •,9 37,3 -16.9 ·12.7 32.2 ·13.1 21.6 14.1 -8.6 Change 4,215 1,401 877 524 -291 -116 584 1,224 .27 9,879 Percent 58.7 40.3 104.2 19.9 -49.5 -10,9 58.2 150,6 13,1 -33 -22,6 14.6 -14,8 174,5 -6.6 318 -53 342 -188 456 8,988 49 Change 16,083 9,048 -139 9,187 772 949 2,195 5,132 -.28 18,002 119 3,061 312 1,182 2,350 639 10,277 62 77,4 63.2 144,0 57,0 --Percent ~ 40.5 .1,6 68,6 34,6 25.7 38,8 47.7 -10,3 96.4 26,9 76,8 143,8 116,6 46.4 50.0 159,3 29,1 �ROSE TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration ROYAL OAK Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade · Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration ROYAL OAK TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 4,926 1,588 772 816 196 399 465 528 3.10 200 41 25 2 10 5 0 115 2 5,853 1,896 903 993 177 523 552 644 3.09 227 32 27 6,472 2,122 970 1,152 159 613 626 724 3.05 458 33 35 11 14 35 9 314 7 7,114 2,366 1,011 1,355 153 687 720 806 3.01 653 37 47 11 23 82 17 428 8 7,753 2,614 1,048 1,566 153 730 813 918 2.97 766 38 56 11 23 86 23 521 8 8,422 2,869 1,112 1,757 158 755 905 1,051 2.94 9,020 3,095 1,185 1,910 167 757 982 1,189 2.91 906 38 69 10 20 94 30 638 7 4,094 1,507 413 1,094 -29 358 517 661 -.19 706 -3 8 10 89 30 523 5 83.1 94.9 53.5 134.1 -14.8 89.7 111.2 125.2 -6.0 353.0 -7.3 176.0 400.0 100.0 1,780.0 n/a 454.8 250.0 5 6 0 149 7 842 38 64 10 21 90 27 584 8 44 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 65,493 28,366 7,432 20,934 4,969 8,181 8,334 6,882 2.31 34,871 365 2,922 2,162 1,751 6,831 2,139 18,275 426 65,367 28,658 7,140 21,518 4,894 8,453 8,669 6,642 2.28 35,350 388 2,889 2,067 1,599 8,048 2,460 17,454 445 64,479 28,756 6,690 22,066 4,940 8,637 8,825 6,354 2.24 36,056 381 2,732 2,200 1,466 8,404 2,726 17,670 477 64,087 28,832 6,385 22,447 5,207 8,590 8,864 6,171 2.22 37,609 366 2,872 2,426 1,451 8,723 2,944 18,326 501 64,253 29,094 6,219 22,875 5,431 8,636 8,936 6,091 2.21 38,149 376 2,834 2,545 1,391 8,947 3,207 18,336 513 64,951 29,598 6,293 23,305 5,710 8,748 9,082 6,058 2.19 37,964 380 2,652 2,563 1,281 8,821 3,381 18,367 519 65,544 30,039 6,456 23,583 5,983 8,819 9,209 6,028 2.18 38,084 383 2,465 2,529 1,193 8,697 3,480 18,824 513 51 1,673 -976 2,649 1,014 638 875 -854 -.13 3,213 18 -457 367 -558 1,866 1,341 549 87 .1 5.9 -13.1 12.7 20.4 7.8 10.5 -12.4 -5.5 9.2 4.9 -15.6 17.0 -31.9 27.3 62.7 3.0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 5,133 2,468 744 1,724 1,179 784 285 220 2.08 2,635 1 157 250 258 464 457 903 145 5,391 2,527 820 1,707 1,274 726 304 223 2.13 2,536 4 143 243 237 422 462 879 146 5,548 2,576 861 1,715 1,367 653 314 537 108 249 -141 133 -40 -36 51 .12 -161 6 -50 -83 -160 -15 79 28 34 10.7 4.4 40.7 -7.6 10.8 -5.8 -10.3 26.7 6.1 -6.2 n/a -27.6 -26.3 -42.2 -3.7 20.6 3.3 31.2 5,011 2,468 612 1,856 1,234 693 350 191 2.03 2,617 0 181 315 379 408 383 842 109 5,152 2,447 704 1,743 1,154 760 340 193 2.11 2,675 0 202 224 305 520 418 877 129 5,173 2,455 718 1,737 1,081 819 340 215 2.11 2,683 0 170 234 279 529 424 908 139 5,084 2,451 723 1,728 1,103 829 316 203 2.07 2,685 0 166 246 270 500 441 919 143 242 2.15 2,456 6 131 232 219 393 462 870 143 20.4 59 �... SOUTHFIELD Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 75,695 32,115 8,278 23,837 5,405 7,932 8,655 10,123 2.36 108,593 536 8,980 8,744 8,975 17,604 17,973 44,535 1,246 1995 75,331 32,459 8,032 24,427 5,636 8,271 9,349 9,203 2.32 111,422 481 7,501 7,490 9,445 16,260 20,955 48,031 1,259 2000 74,377 32,397 7,848 24,549 5,798 8,455 9,769 8,375 2.30 114,248 466 6,451 7,244 9,519 15,443 22,328 51,488 1,309 2005 73,503 32,419 7,438 24,981 6,139 8,640 9,916 7,724 2.27 114,279 485 6,363 7,172 9,837 14,998 22,409 51,702 1,313 2010 73,323 32,659 7,210 25,449 6,479 8,870 10,067 7,243 2.25 112,142 493 5,930 6,824 9,911 14,357 23,190 50,162 1,275 2015 73,654 33,142 7,216 25,926 6,856 9,171 10,241 6,874 2.22 107,867 493 5,283 6,359 9,496 13,376 23,485 48,141 1,234 2020 73,959 33,608 7,312 26,296 7,204 9,444 10,365 6,595 2.20 104,740 493 4,733 5,933 9,096 12,640 23,489 47,174 1,182 Change 2010 12,553 4,927 1,133 3,794 2015 13,067 5,074 1,083 3,991 581 1,183 976 2,334 2.58 3,199 52 347 180 Change 1,012 217 1,316 32 2020 13,381 5,163 1,043 4,120 530 1,164 935 2,534 2.59 3,267 49 329 180 44 1,032 223 1,375 35 441 116 681 16 Percent 102.4 90.1 25.1 118.9 -11.8 45.9 27.7 333.2 6.5 81.6 113.0 7.2 462.5 69.2 74.6 108.4 98.1 84.2 2015 13,683 5,276 1,173 4,103 596 1,225 1,035 2,420 2.59 3,199 52 347 180 43 1,012 217 1,316 32 2020 13,996 5,368 1,123 4,245 545 1,206 994 2,623 2.61 3,267 49 329 180 44 1,032 223 1,375 35 Change percent SOUTH LYON (1990 Boundaries)1990 Total Population 6,612 Total Households 2,716 With Children 834 Without Children 1,882 Income Quartile 1 601 Income Quartile 2 798 Income Quartile 3 732 Income Quartile 4 585 Persons Per Household 2.43 Total Employment 1,799 Ag, Min, Nat Res 23 Manufacturing 307 TCU 32 Wholesale Trade 26 Retail Trade 591 FIRE 107 Services 694 Pub Administration 19 1995 8,166 3,252 1,029 2,223 639 921 831 861 2.51 2,228 28 314 53 15 687 144 965 22 2000 10,642 4,270 1,203 3,067 733 1,136 1,011 1,390 2.49 2,520 41 312 105 25 783 165 1,065 24 2005 11,771 4,680 1,193 3,487 697 1,197 1,041 1,745 2.52 2,838 54 348 145 35 886 186 1,158 SOUTH LYON (1995 Boundarles)1990 Total Population 6,612 Total Households 2,716 With Children 834 Without Children 1,882 Income Quartile 1 601 Income Quartile 2 798 Income Quartile 3 732 Income Quartile 4 585 Persons Per Household 2.43 Total Employment 1,799 Ag, Min, Nat Res 23 Manufacturing 307 TCU 32 Wholesale Trade 26 Retail Trade 591 FIRE 107 Services 694 Pub Administration 19 1995 8,166 3,252 1,029 2,223 639 921 831 861 2.51 2,228 28 314 53 15 687 144 965 22 2000 11,002 4,390 1,253 3,137 746 1,167 1,048 1,429 2.51 2,520 41 312 105 25 783 165 1,065 24 2005 12,296 4,855 1,268 3,587 715 1,239 1,094 1,807 2.53 2,838 54 348 145 35 886 186 1,158 26 60 26 639 1,199 1,015 2,074 2.55 3,086 55 359 170 41 975 205 1,252 29 2010 13,137 5,127 1,233 3,894 655 1,243 1,077 2,152 2.56 3,086 55 359 170 41 975 205 1,252 29 43 -1,736 1,493 -966 2,459 1,799 1,512 1,710 -3,528 -.16 -3,853 -43 -4,247 -2,811 121 -4,964 5,516 2,639 -64 6,769 2,447 209 2,238 -71 366 203 1,949 .16 1,468 26 22 148 18 7,384 2,652 289 2,363 -56 408 262 2,038 .17 1,468 26 22 148 18 441 116 681 16 Percent ·2.3 4.6 ·11.7 10.3 33.3 19.1 19.8 ·34.9 -6.6 ·3.5 -8.0 -47.3 ·32.1 1.3 -28.2 30.7 5.9 -5.1 --- 1111 97.6 34,7 125.6 .9,3 51.1 35,8 348.4 7.1 81,6 113,0 7.2 462,5 69,2 74,6 108.4 98,1 84.2 �SPRINGFIELD TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 9,927 3,276 1,554 1,722 385 623 1,010 1,258 3.03 1,244 166 189 15 93 80 6 695 0 12,660 4,193 1,946 2,247 460 677 1,285 1,771 3.02 1,703 94 342 27 39 229 5 967 0 14,587 4,868 2,178 2,690 515 688 1,473 2,192 3.00 2,427 100 388 32 44 413 28 1,422 0 16,598 5,597 2,360 3,237 588 740 1,688 2,581 2.97 3,199 121 496 38 65 677 59 1,742 1 18,628 6,338 2,537 3,801 664 801 1,876 2,997 2.94 3,579 124 555 39 71 701 76 2,012 1 20,734 7,101 2,795 4,306 738 22,579 7,774 3,070 4,704 801 990 2,238 3,745 2.90 4,008 126 577 35 64 697 100 2,408 1 SYLVAN LAKE 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 1,905 848 185 663 71 133 315 329 2.25 1,134 13 35 1 295 493 45 212 40 1,861 848 156 692 69 117 349 313 2.19 1,236 12 36 1,807 849 124 725 58 103 401 287 2.13 1,302 1,757 852 98 754 45 91 459 257 2.06 1,306 10 23 0 333 594 63 233 50 1,782 882 88 794 34 83 519 246 2.02 1,308 11 17 1 325 600 68 236 50 889 2,069 3,405 2.92 3,815 124 574 38 68 700 90 2,220 1 Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1,893 840 203 637 103 191 248 298 2.25 1,081 12 122 2 251 452 39 179 24 1,915 847 198 649 86 160 281 320 2.26 1,087 14 43 TROY 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 79,002 28,501 10,580 17,921 2,801 4,425 7,326 13,949 2.77 116,358 461 21,555 3,190 8,797 20,934 13,657 47,255 509 82,136 30,049 10,442 19,607 3,012 4,651 7,577 14,809 2.73 125,075 493 18,785 3,374 8,832 21,600 14,556 56,879 556 85,158 31,658 10,051 21,607 3,413 5,036 7,800 15,409 2.69 128,710 526 16,589 3,496 9,136 21,969 14,871 61,533 590 85,836 32,793 9,121 23,672 3,801 5,508 8,290 15,194 2.62 129,113 536 14,548 3,525 9,144 21,452 15,183 64,122 603 87,282 34,076 8,746 25,330 4,199 5,971 8,760 15,146 2.56 126,606 538 12,415 3,486 8,775 20,370 15,229 65,184 609 89,110 35,378 8,687 26,691 4,574 6,392 9,203 15,209 2.52 125,073 540 10,TT9 3,423 8,432 19,536 15,124 66,636 603 Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 72,884 26,173 10,109 16,064 2,640 4,152 6,924 12,457 2.78 104,498 403 22,210 3,313 8,070 19,781 12,671 37,577 473 281 482 39 191 36 320 545 53 227 42 11 31 0 337 584 59 233 47 Change 12,652 4,498 1,516 2,982 416 367 1,228 2,487 -.13 2,764 -40 388 20 -29 617 94 1,713 1 Percent 127.5 137.3 97.6 173.2 108.1 58.9 121.6 197.7 -4.2 222.2 -24.1 205.3 133.3 -31.2 771.3 1,566.7 246.5 n/a Change -111 42 -115 157 -69 -108 271 -52 -.23 227 -1 -105 -1 74 148 29 57 26 Percent -5.9 5.0 -56.7 24.6 -67.0 -56.5 109.3 -17.4 -10.3 21.0 -8.3 -86.1 -50.0 29.5 32.7 74.4 31.8 108.3 Change 16,226 9,205 -1,422 10,627 1,934 2,240 2,279 2,752 -.27 20,575 137 -11,431 110 362 -245 2,453 29,059 130 Percent 22.3 35.2 -14.1 66.2 73.3 53.9 32.9 22.1 -9.5 19.7 34.0 -51 .5 3.3 4.5 -1.2 19.4 77.3 27.5 61 �WALLED LAKE Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change 6,278 2,796 823 1,973 603 762 817 614 2.25 6,441 61 2,347 146 337 1,323 248 1,807 172 6,479 2,977 721 2,256 548 827 882 720 2.18 7,059 53 2,250 187 591 1,446 282 2,068 182 6,932 3,281 640 2,641 518 922 976 865 2.11 7,328 50 1,708 271 682 1,614 323 2,482 198 7,255 3,532 540 2,992 518 984 1,060 970 2.05 8,024 53 1,646 314 779 1,752 388 2,877 215 7,725 3,825 478 3,347 510 1,070 1,150 1,095 2.02 8,458 56 1,543 357 883 1,774 437 3,188 220 8,236 4,135 449 3,686 505 1,180 1,240 1,210 1.99 8,601 56 1,378 384 938 1,730 473 3,419 223 8,730 4,398 473 3,925 499 1,295 1,303 1,301 1.98 8,669 56 1,227 389 968 1,683 494 3,629 223 2,452 1,602 -350 1,952 -104 533 486 687 -.26 2,228 -5 -1,120 243 631 360 246 1,822 51 WATERFORD TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change 66,692 25,488 8,883 16,605 4,142 6.659 7,949 6,738 2.62 23,106 607 1,572 889 1,209 8,941 1,424 7,699 765 69,222 26,997 8,730 18,267 4,311 7,037 8,673 6,976 2.56 27,152 786 1,599 685 1,559 10,374 1,625 9,531 993 69,679 27,777 8,243 19,534 4,440 7,231 9,105 7,001 2.51 31,269 849 1,597 658 1,840 11,571 1,899 11,551 1,304 70,561 28,613 7,794 20,819 4,714 7,426 9,375 7,098 2.47 34,978 803 1,789 678 2,142 12,886 2,169 12,968 1,543 71,719 29,503 7,496 22,007 4,968 7,665 9,656 7,214 2.43 37,373 834 1,805 645 2,420 13,659 2,414 13,811 1,785 73,299 30,547 7,488 23,059 5,257 7,968 9,985 7,337 2.40 38,491 849 1,721 601 2,551 13,848 2,595 14,327 1,999 74,577 31,422 7,590 23,832 5,522 8,230 10,254 7,416 2.37 39,343 862 1,621 560 2,625 13,942 2,712 14,883 2,138 7,885 5,934 -1,293 7,227 1,380 1,571 2,305 678 -.24 16,237 255 49 -329 1,416 5,001 1,288 7,184 1,373 WEST BLOOMFIELD TWP 1990 Total Population 54,507 Total Households 19,216 With Children 7,138 Without Children 12,078 Income Quartile 1 1,002 Income Quartile 2 2,230 Income Quartile 3 4,289 Income Quartile 4 11,695 Persons Per Household 2.84 Total Employment 13,710 Ag, Min, Nat Res 355 Manufacturing 504 TCU 266 Wholesale Trade 536 Retail Trade 2,904 FIRE 1,309 Services 7,646 Pub Administration 190 1995 2000 2005 2010 2020 Change 57,162 20,873 6,746 14,127 844 2,361 4,777 12,891 2.74 15,718 396 545 196 680 3,399 1,489 8,765 248 2015 59,566 22,268 6,548 15,720 768 2,473 5,220 13,807 2.67 17,881 417 528 205 786 3,849 1,756 9,986 354 65,991 27,132 5,237 21,895 1,501 3,581 6,901 15,149 2.43 21,640 472 641 218 1,087 5,006 2,685 11,077 11,484 7,916 -1,901 9,817 62 Percenl 39.1 57.3 -42.5 98.9 ·17.2 69.9 59.5 111.9 ·11.6 34.6 •8,2 47.7 166,4 187,2 27.2 99.2 100.8 29.7 Percent 11.8 23.3 •14.6 43,5 33.3 23,6 29.0 10.1 •9,3 70.3 42.0 3.1 .37,0 117.1 55,9 90.4 93,3 179.5 .--61,168 23,611 5,922 17,689 939 2,764 5,596 14,312 2.59 19,738 428 620 231 915 4,469 2,067 10,634 374 62,899 24,954 5,430 19,524 1,127 3,056 6,111 14,660 2.52 20,858 451 657 241 1,022 4,816 2,344 10,906 421 64,703 26,199 5,267 20,932 1,323 3,339 6,561 14,976 2.47 21,298 466 656 234 1,067 4,934 2,551 10,941 449 454 499 1,351 2,612 3,454 -.40 7,930 117 137 -48 551 2,102 1,376 3,431 264 percent ~ 41,2 .26.6 81.3 49,8 60,6 60,9 29.5 .14.3 57,8 33.0 27,2 -18,0 102.8 72.4 105.1 44,9 138,9 �WHITE LAKE TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration WIXOM Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration WOLVERINE LAKE Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 22,608 7,787 3,355 4,432 998 1,718 2,542 2,529 2.90 3,189 320 207 53 189 607 95 1,657 61 26,527 9,201 3,863 5,338 1,061 1,779 3,108 3,253 2.88 3,360 360 108 25 212 756 113 1,718 68 28,911 10,044 4,086 5,958 1,100 1,711 3,456 3,777 2.88 4,284 346 152 72 242 945 164 2,278 85 31,013 10,822 4,189 6,633 1,169 1,699 3,706 4,248 2.87 5,187 312 212 81 285 1,236 220 2,735 106 32,690 11,496 4,210 7,286 1,245 1,695 3,829 4,727 2.84 5,774 286 250 79 309 1,421 269 3,035 125 34,206 12,122 4,322 7,800 1,328 1,708 3,918 5,168 2.82 6,130 283 274 73 309 1,513 306 3,231 141 35,390 12,643 4,456 8,187 1,414 1,731 3,969 5,529 2.80 6,400 280 254 67 308 1,581 334 3,425 151 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 17,490 7,137 2,209 4,928 774 1,881 1,975 2,507 2.45 18,936 7,592 2,416 5,176 815 1,812 2,047 2,918 2.49 9,424 124 3,173 910 1,442 1,098 241 2,378 58 20,028 7,908 2,597 5,311 827 1,696 2,097 3,288 2.53 9,238 107 2,814 917 1,473 1,083 261 2,527 56 15,579 8,550 4,119 957 3,162 610 1,597 1,130 782 2.08 6,562 130 4,309 302 648 326 73 734 40 11,487 5,102 1,439 3,663 628 1,797 1,453 1,224 2.25 7,430 96 4,203 488 798 542 64 1,191 48 13,506 5,789 1,738 4,051 629 1,894 1,642 1,624 2.33 8,386 113 3,920 652 976 921 112 1,639 53 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 4,578 1,739 529 1,210 255 423 689 372 2.63 477 17 4,667 1,777 540 1,237 266 430 708 373 2.63 529 10 3 2 4 56 72 346 36 4,747 1,880 504 1,376 305 465 772 338 2.53 619 8 8 4 13 63 84 402 37 4,747 1,931 477 1,454 325 487 802 317 2.46 655 9 11 5 17 49 66 309 33 4,700 1,823 517 1,306 287 444 739 353 2.58 578 8 5 3 8 60 79 378 37 4,727 1,657 674 983 202 380 567 508 2.85 355 14 0 0 0 58 63 190 30 4,676 1,703 606 1,097 227 407 631 438 2.75 418 18 0 0 0 44 61 265 30 6,,511 1,976 4,535 721 1,899 1,843 2,048 2.39 9,115 141 3,793 750 1,172 1,051 166 1,984 58 9,504 143 3,560 851 1,365 1,102 210 2,215 58 66 87 424 36 Change 12,782 4,856 1,101 3,755 416 13 1,427 3,000 -.10 3,211 -40 47 14 119 974 239 1,768 90 Percent 56.5 62.4 32.8 84.7 41.7 .8 56.1 118.6 -3.6 100.7 -12.5 22.7 26.4 63.0 160.5 251 .6 106.7 147.5 Change 11,478 3,789 1,640 2,149 217 99 967 2,506 .46 2,676 -23 -1,495 615 825 757 188 1,793 16 Percent 134.2 92.0 171.4 68.0 35.6 6.2 85.6 320.5 22.0 40.8 -17.7 -34.7 203.6 127.3 232.2 257.5 244.3 40.0 Change 20 274 -197 471 123 107 235 -191 -.39 300 -5 11 5 17 8 24 234 6 Percent .4 16.5 -29.2 47.9 60.9 28.2 41.4 -37.6 -13.8 84.5 -35.7 n/a n/a n/a 13.8 38.1 123.2 20.0 63 �.. OAKLAND COUNTY 1990 Total Population 1,083,592 Total Households 410,520 With Children 143,997 Without Children 266,523 Income Quartile 1 64,471 Income Quartile 2 92,274 Income Quartile 3 109,543 Income Quartile 4 144,232 Persons Per Household 2.64 Total Employment 681,037 Ag, Min, Nat Res 8,397 Manufacturing 116,987 TCU 30,089 Wholesale Trade 46,746 Retail Trade 130,230 FIRE 70,704 Services 268,006 Pub Administration 9,878 1995 2000 1,150,872 1,192,164 461,578 440,003 147,820 148,486 291,517 313,758 65,881 67,131 97,279 100,905 120,034 127,794 156,809 165,748 2.62 2.58 745,309 806,126 8,592 8,831 119,339 116,201 28,447 30,025 49,855 51,454 138,807 144,912 80,548 88,892 308,944 353,750 10,1n 12,061 2005 1,232,182 483,455 143,752 339,703 70,490 105,540 134,437 172,988 2.55 856,189 8,983 120,613 31,818 54,920 153,806 94,505 378,829 12,715 2010 1,272,192 506,060 140,173 365,887 74,037 110,799 142,028 179,196 2.51 883,393 9,241 122,512 32,562 56,905 156,589 100,398 391,901 13,285 2015 1,318,997 530,457 142,236 388,221 78,211 116,652 885,258 9,334 117,948 32,374 56,139 154,007 104,001 397,773 13,682 9,410 113,296 31,682 55,070 151,734 105,797 407,103 13,734 2010 5,010 2,045 529 1,516 579 676 355 435 2.45 1,470 6 144 20 21 532 216 511 20 2015 5,061 2,135 480 1,655 573 735 350 477 2.37 1,528 8 145 26 28 526 242 533 20 2020 5,096 2,212 442 1,770 570 787 346 509 2.30 1,579 10 144 31 34 519 267 555 19 Change 549 553 -225 778 2010 3,836 1,228 457 771 154 329 342 403 3.12 278 131 2015 4,203 1,343 505 838 157 356 381 449 3.13 300 135 13 22 17 30 22 61 0 2020 4,543 1,446 55·9 887 159 378 425 484 3.14 318 138 15 23 17 33 27 65 Change 2,135 683 229 454 8 185 209 281 -.01 164 20 8 15 17 29 27 48 0 149,800 185,794 2.49 2020 1,359,846 551,773 146,477 405,296 82,157 121,767 156,425 Change 276,254 141,253 2,480 138,773 17,686 29,493 191,424 2.46 887,826 47,192 -.18 206,789 1,013 -3,691 1,593 8,324 21,504 35,093 139,097 3,856 46,882 Percent 25.5 34.4 1.7 52.1 27.4 32.0 42.8 32.7 -6.6 30.4 12.1 ·3.2 5.3 17.8 16.5 49.6 51.9 39.0 ST. CLAIR COUNTY ALGONAC Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration BERLIN TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 64 1990 4,547 1,659 667 992 548 469 383 259 2.74 1,185 0 97 2 0 524 129 401 32 1995 4,843 1,793 685 1,108 570 527 390 306 2.70 1,134 0 118 2 0 453 149 396 16 2000 4,923 1,Bn 649 1,228 578 572 376 351 2.62 1,231 2 124 8 7 468 170 434 18 2005 4,970 1,962 590 1,372 584 623 366 389 2.53 1,371 4 135 14 1990 2,408 763 330 433 151 193 216 203 3.16 154 118 1995 2,831 899 374 525 154 234 253 258 3.15 173 119 5 11 0 15 0 23 0 2000 3,174 1,014 404 610 153 270 289 302 3.13 212 123 2005 3,499 1,121 427 694 154 302 313 352 3.12 248 127 9 18 11 23 11 49 0 7 8 0 4 0 17 0 7 14 6 19 6 37 0 14 516 192 476 20 11 21 16 26 16 57 0 0 22 318 .37 250 -.44 394 10 47 29 34 -5 138 154 -13 Percent 12.1 33.3 -33.7 78.4 4.0 67.8 -9.7 96.5 -15.9 33.2 rJa 48.5 1,450.0 rJa -1.0 107.0 38,4 -40.6 --- Percent ~ 89.5 69.4 104.8 5.3 95,9 96.8 138,4 .,4 106.5 16,9 114.3 187,5 rJa 725.0 rJa 2a2.4 .0 j �BROCKWAY TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1,603 507 247 260 120 130 163 94 3.16 146 44 10 0 25 3 6 58 0 1995 1,798 560 280 280 110 132 214 104 3.21 208 44 85 0 23 3 8 45 0 2000 1,942 601 302 299 97 131 265 108 3.23 223 45 81 1 14 5 10 66 1 2005 2,083 641 320 321 86 132 308 115 3.25 252 46 89 2 BURTCHVILLE TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 3,559 1,353 510 843 320 465 293 275 2.63 400 157 15 0 21 113 13 81 0 1995 3,798 1,444 534 910 301 496 288 359 2.63 400 155 15 0 21 99 17 93 0 CAPAC 1990 1,583 576 259 317 217 156 142 61 2.75 501 0 88 1995 1,641 589 281 308 231 143 159 56 2.79 589 0 44 8 8 52 102 345 30 Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 6 39 88 268 11 2015 2,365 724 360 364 70 133 389 132 3.27 273 48 82 4 6 11 15 105 2 2020 2,487 763 381 382 65 134 424 140 3.26 279 49 76 5 6 13 16 112 2 Change Percent 884 256 134 122 -55 4 261 46 .10 133 5 66 5 -19 10 10 54 2 55.1 50.5 54.3 46.9 -45.8 3.1 160.1 48.9 3.1 91.1 11.4 660.0 7 12 83 2 2010 2,223 681 338 343 77 132 349 123 3.26 267 47 88 3 7 9 14 97 2 2000 4,059 1,565 549 1,016 289 544 287 445 2.59 448 125 25 11 26 109 17 133 2 2005 4,248 1,664 536 1,128 282 577 296 509 2.55 523 101 34 19 31 131 19 184 4 2010 4,434 1,767 521 1,246 281 609 309 568 2.51 581 94 42 26 35 148 25 207 4 2015 4,622 1,873 517 1,356 285 643 328 617 2.47 619 91 49 Change Percent 1,223 616 8 608 -28 208 59 3n -.20 252 -69 41 29 16 56 20 155 4 34.4 45.5 1.6 72.1 -8.8 44.7 20.1 137.1 -7.7 63.0 -43.9 273.3 4 2020 4,782 1,969 518 1,451 292 673 352 652 2.43 652 88 56 29 37 169 33 236 4 2000 1,704 611 293 318 242 134 180 55 2.79 617 2005 1,744 628 293 335 252 124 196 56 2.78 673 2 45 11 4 44 110 419 38 2010 1,787 646 292 354 256 113 215 62 2.77 716 3 43 12 3 39 113 461 2015 1,829 665 291 374 255 104 236 70 2.75 742 4 37 11 3 33 110 498 46 2020 1,863 682 288 394 248 95 259 80 2.73 759 5 31 10 3 28 103 532 47 Change 40 9 5 45 103 380 34 11 42 28 36 160 29 222 280 106 29 77 31 -61 117 19 -.02 258 5 -57 9 -3 -11 15 264 36 n/a -76.0 333.3 166.7 93.1 n/a n/a 76.2 49.6 153.8 191.4 n/a Percent 17.7 18.4 11 .2 24.3 14.3 -39.1 82.4 31.1 -.6 51.5 nla -64.8 900.0 -50.0 -28.2 17.0 98.5 327.3 65 �... CASCO TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration CHINA TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration CLAY TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 66 1990 4,552 1,453 703 750 278 360 420 395 3.13 197 99 33 22 0 2 0 41 0 1995 4,984 1,593 774 819 307 391 421 474 3.13 216 101 48 16 0 7 0 44 0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 5,263 1,696 814 882 331 415 421 529 3.10 296 104 62 23 9 10 17 66 5 5,485 1,793 827 966 354 428 441 570 3.06 396 107 70 44 17 12 48 88 10 5,683 1,891 835 1,056 370 440 471 610 3.01 462 110 77 52 25 15 83 90 10 5,866 1,996 846 1,150 386 458 513 639 2.94 515 113 81 60 33 18 108 92 10 5,993 2,086 855 1,231 406 477 560 643 2.87 552 116 84 66 40 20 122 94 10 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2,644 813 408 405 85 210 290 228 3.25 1,267 313 179 467 3 159 0 146 3,185 1,001 469 532 93 272 382 254 3.18 1,417 342 315 442 8 131 0 179 3,448 1,120 475 645 98 308 469 245 3.08 1,544 334 350 465 17 138 13 224 3,679 1,238 461 777 110 332 564 232 2.97 1,730 326 382 531 26 157 31 271 3,901 1,355 446 909 125 350 657 223 2.88 1,853 336 406 568 34 163 51 289 4,143 1,480 4,334 1,587 444 444 1,036 146 370 743 221 2.80 1,893 339 403 573 42 164 65 301 1,143 171 387 0 219 2.73 1,901 341 391 562 48 164 76 313 0 3 6 6 6 6 810 Change 1,441 633 152 481 128 117 140 248 -.26 355 17 51 44 40 18 122 53 10 Change 1,690 774 36 738 86 177 520 -9 -.52 634 28 212 95 45 5 76 167 6 1990 1995 2000 2005 8,866 3,367 1,114 2,253 721 836 874 936 2.63 1,152 113 89 66 19 303 36 502 24 2010 10,097 3,762 1,262 2,500 687 905 978 1,192 2.68 1,294 118 2015 2020 10,894 4,035 1,324 2,711 11,677 4,291 1,370 2,921 12,407 4,535 1,407 3,128 13,156 4,793 647 942 1,024 1,422 2.70 1,489 124 138 116 44 312 74 645 36 604 989 1,087 1,611 2.72 1,717 129 161 148 63 346 101 727 42 552 1,029 1,134 1,820 2.74 1,880 136 181 171 79 360 131 1.485 3,308 503 1,100 13,765 5,012 1,570 3,442 464 1,177 Change 4,899 1,645 456 1,189 -257 341 1,189 2,001 2.74 1,232 2,139 2.75 1,203 .11 1,988 142 2,076 147 194 200 104 362 113 93 26 297 47 570 30 191 188 779 93 362 158 811 43 43 358 924 34 105 134 85 59 145 181 846 344 42 18 Percent 31.7 43.6 21.6 64.1 46.0 32.5 33.3 62.8 ·8.3 180.2 17.2 154.5 200.0 nla 900.0 nla 129.3 nla Percent 63.9 95.2 8.8 182.2 101.2 84.3 179.3 -3.9 -16.0 50.0 8.9 118.4 20.3 1,500.0 3.1 rJa 114.4 rJa Percent 55.3 48.9 40.9 52.8 -35.6 40.8 41.0 128,5 4.3 50.2 30,1 118,0 203,0 447.4 19,5 402,8 68,5 75,0 �CLYDE TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 5,052 1,603 745 858 221 417 595 370 3.15 322 114 5,718 1,844 6,214 2,059 799 1,260 231 557 802 469 3.02 439 111 17 27 10 22 32 153 67 6,608 2,257 763 1,494 259 623 895 480 2.93 560 110 34 40 18 47 37 198 76 6,968 2,454 724 1,730 302 689 971 492 2.84 645 116 7,337 2,660 711 1,949 359 761 1,035 505 2.76 707 117 68 53 35 64 57 232 81 7,640 2,843 709 2,134 423 833 1,072 515 2.69 760 119 83 56 43 69 64 245 81 2,588 1,240 -36 1,276 202 416 477 145 -.46 51.2 TT.4 -4.8 148.7 91.4 99.8 80.2 39.2 -14.7 136.0 4.4 n/a 27.3 n/a 165.4 146.2 133.3 1,057.1 0 44 0 26 26 105 7 795 1,049 217 484 707 436 3.10 349 115 0 14 0 15 31 116 58 51 50 26 58 47 218 79 438 5 83 12 43 43 38 140 74 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 3,673 1,185 3,941 1,295 560 735 142 357 400 396 3.04 336 131 59 4,200 1,401 583 4,498 1,508 5,185 1,720 862 291 360 439 418 2.98 462 136 75 63 27 20 31 103 7 1,950 691 378 313 60.3 67.2 76.2 818 4,859 1,622 758 864 436 341 440 405 FIRE Services Pub Administration 3,235 1,029 496 533 130 282 322 295 3.14 257 128 56 33 0 5 0 32 3 COTTRELLVILLE TWP COLUMBUS TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment 643 132 328 372 353 3.10 259 131 44 36 0 13 189 369 428 415 0 32 3 9 15 9 65 5 3.00 416 132 68 55 18 18 20 98 7 1990 1995 2000 2005 3,088 1,098 485 613 255 300 3,527 1,224 560 664 244 326 355 299 2.88 3,771 1,298 591 707 226 335 386 351 2.91 452 35 154 20 44 63 11 119 6 3,997 1,374 606 768 213 340 419 402 2.91 536 36 170 31 48 70 31 140 10 Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade 303 240 2.81 274 33 80 14 37 Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 46 0 60 4 Ag, Min, Nat Res 542 388 34 133 15 45 60 0 99 2 43 646 3.00 503 138 79 71 36 23 43 106 7 874 846 566 325 439 390 3.01 534 139 82 77 43 25 52 109 7 436 43 117 95 -.13 277 11 26 44 43 20 52 77 4 58.7 335.4 15.2 36.3 32.2 -4.1 107.8 8.6 46.4 133.3 n/a 400.0 n/a 240.6 133.3 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 4,205 1,449 614 835 199 342 447 461 2.90 590 38 182 38 49 74 4,409 1,530 627 903 186 348 479 517 4,566 1,600 637 963 176 351 509 564 2.85 623 43 177 47 40 75 80 151 10 1,478 502 152 350 -79 51 206 324 .04 349 10 97 33 3 29 80 91 6 47.9 45.7 31.3 57.1 -31.0 17.0 68.0 135.0 1.5 127.4 30.3 121.3 235.7 8.1 63.0 n/a 151.7 150.0 54 145 10 2.88 616 41 182 44 45 75 71 148 10 67 �.... EAST CHINA TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration EMMETT Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration EMMETT TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 68 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 3,818 1,683 351 1,332 607 516 298 262 2.27 2,947 9 4,012 1,796 372 1,424 656 570 314 256 2.23 3,076 12 90 692 34 3,216 1,239 376 863 374 304 284 277 2.60 2,033 0 92 556 0 166 28 1,174 17 3,395 1,359 372 987 433 352 286 288 2.50 2,169 0 61 531 0 154 57 1,355 11 3,547 1,476 363 1,113 493 410 286 287 2.40 2,396 3 69 559 9 161 81 1,496 18 3,659 1,577 349 1,228 554 463 289 271 2.32 2,715 6 79 638 17 180 120 1,649 26 683 25 188 165 1,763 27 1990 1995 2000 2005 297 92 43 49 22 29 28 13 3.23 89 0 0 0 0 41 12 36 0 316 98 42 56 12 32 325 102 39 63 7 31 57 7 3.19 85 0 0 0 0 14 14 57 0 333 106 35 71 44 10 3.22 72 0 0 0 0 16 14 42 0 4 28 67 7 3.14 98 0 0 0 0 13 15 70 0 87 2020 4,189 1,893 402 1,491 696 616 330 251 2.21 3,174 15 91 682 42 199 1,834 27 22 194 734 9 2010 2015 2020 Change 335 110 30 80 4 24 75 7 3.05 106 0 0 0 0 11 15 80 0 339 114 27 87 346 118 25 93 49 4 4 20 83 7 2.97 110 0 0 0 0 9 14 87 0 18 89 7 2.93 112 0 0 0 0 7 12 93 0 1995 2000 2005 1,888 573 246 327 112 174 156 131 3.29 169 89 3 2010 2015 2,158 651 273 378 105 192 190 164 3.31 211 92 4 6 7 36 2020 2,427 727 298 429 100 205 220 202 3.34 255 95 7 8 10 39 8 86 2 2,701 802 327 475 95 213 252 242 3.37 282 97 8 10 12 39 12 102 2 3,001 883 368 515 92 220 289 282 3.40 300 100 9 12 12 39 16 110 2 3,268 955 411 544 0 4 30 61 0 15 -1 126 42 1990 4 -.38 1,141 188 222 1,908 26 188 1,519 468 203 265 113 144 118 93 3.25 137 88 2 4 5 19 0 19 0 6 37 Change 973 654 26 628 322 312 46 -26 89 224 327 315 3.42 317 102 10 14 12 39 20 118 2 26 -18 44 -18 -11 61 -6 -.30 23 0 0 0 0 -34 0 57 0 Change 1,749 487 208 279 -24 80 209 222 .18 180 14 8 10 7 20 20 99 2 Percent 30.3 52.8 6.9 72.8 86.1 102.6 16.2 -9.4 -14.7 56.1 n/a -1.1 22.7 n/a 13.3 692.9 62.5 52.9 Percent 16.5 28.3 -41.9 89.8 -81.8 -37.9 217.9 -46.2 -9.2 25.8 .0 .0 .0 ,0 -82.9 .0 158.3 ,0 Perce~t 115.1 104.1 102.5 105,3 -21,2 55,6 177,1 238.7 5,4 131.4 15,9 400,0 250,0 140,0 105,3 n/a 521,1 n/8 �FORT GRATIOT TWP Total Population Total Households 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 8,981 11,223 4,175 12,079 12,960 4,906 1,631 3,275 13,895 5,307 14,722 5,685 1,730 3,5n 1,819 3,866 874 1,678 1,317 1,037 2.64 921 1,850 1,427 1,109 2.62 9,078 68 25 163 151 4,720 312 3,536 103 965 2,037 1,501 1,182 2.59 9,482 68 26 194 187 4,885 306 3,709 107 3,266 10,302 3,783 With Children 1,258 1,418 1,508 Without Children 2,008 2,365 702 1,204 2,667 4,538 1,564 2,974 763 1,387 1,096 825 1,529 1,205 929 2.69 6,797 979 2.66 7,838 66 22 101 Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res 613 985 880 788 2.75 3,769 996 881 2.72 56 102 5,405 61 14 Retail Trade 21 41 1,836 35 8 2,947 71 44 3,594 FIRE Services 381 1,308 328 1,939 296 2,620 79 4,055 307 3,111 Pub Administration 24 73 90 97 Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade 63 19 8,605 68 24 131 114 4,491 315 3,362 100 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 1,210 1,495 404 180 224 78 147 495 221 274 78 177 1,693 560 246 314 74 198 1,889 625 265 360 72 217 118 61 156 84 185 103 216 120 3.00 3.02 119 61 162 61 3.02 267 73 2,272 754 309 445 70 247 272 165 3.01 Ag, Min, Nat Res 3.02 210 67 2,075 688 283 405 70 233 244 141 3.02 304 73 Manufacturing 17 37 0 0 3 0 0 4 44 6 3 7 55 12 6 296 77 59 17 9 14 2,452 813 338 475 70 256 297 190 3.02 309 70 3 28 3 47 7 10 9 61 13 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 1,037 86 47 2.94 1,251 421 188 233 93 160 108 60 2.97 1,403 471 206 265 92 179 130 70 2.98 1,549 520 217 303 90 190 159 81 121 26 130 31 1,828 618 235 383 80 195 228 115 2.96 153 39 Ag, Min, Nat Res 110 26 1,686 568 224 344 86 194 192 96 2.97 145 40 Manufacturing 21 TCU Wholesale Trade 47 0 35 37 2 Retail Trade 3 0 29 52 0 4 45 15 6 17 10 10 2 45 17 8 19 13 10 2 1,955 663 247 416 73 191 263 136 2.95 157 38 44 18 10 20 15 10 2 GRANT TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration GREENWOOD TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment FIRE Services Pub Administration 353 155 198 89 131 8 5 0 8 2 9 5 9 2 12 14 79 16 2.98 143 36 42 27 4 14 8 10 2 17 86 17 58 18 12 15 20 91 17 56 18 14 16 22 96 17 Change 5,741 2,419 561 1,858 352 1,052 621 394 -.16 5,713 12 -76 173 146 3,049 -75 2,401 83 Percent 63.9 74.1 44.6 92.5 57.4 106.8 70.6 50.0 -5.8 151 .6 21.4 -74.5 823.8 356.1 166.1 -19.7 183.6 345.8 Change 1,242 409 158 251 -8 109 179 129 .02 190 9 39 18 14 13 19 68 10 Percent 102.6 101.2 87.8 112.1 -10.3 74.1 151.7 211 .5 .7 159.7 14.8 229.4 n/a n/a 433.3 633.3 242.9 142.9 Change 918 310 92 218 -16 60 177 89 .01 47 12 23 -29 10 17 15 2 -3 Percent 88.5 87.8 59.4 110.1 -18.0 45.8 205.8 189.4 .4 42.7 46.2 109.5 -61.7 n/a 566.7 n/a 25.0 -60.0 69 �2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 7,872 2,863 1,077 1,786 401 1,095 900 467 2.75 2,272 27 1,288 105 51 257 149 337 58 8,431 3,040 1,159 1,881 397 1,111 990 542 2.77 2,323 30 1,271 117 61 257 176 350 61 8,937 3,192 1,251 1,941 391 1,107 1,066 628 2 .80 2,331 33 1,224 125 68 256 198 363 IRA TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 5,587 2,151 773 1,378 470 780 578 323 2.60 1,022 9 446 62 11 190 67 224 13 6,264 2,346 888 1,458 432 919 645 350 2.67 1,673 17 1,014 53 14 213 74 249 39 KENOCKEE TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 1,854 598 253 345 125 188 179 106 3.10 230 110 12 4 3 18 3 55 25 2,190 705 293 412 115 228 219 143 3.11 273 106 14 4 6 38 3 72 30 2,469 799 321 478 108 260 249 182 3.09 342 106 22 12 10 54 12 92 2,723 886 339 547 103 287 278 218 3.07 418 106 31 20 15 74 18 116 2,966 972 355 617 99 312 302 259 3.05 465 108 38 27 19 3,226 1,062 383 679 97 336 328 301 3.04 490 103 44 28 3,460 1,142 416 726 97 354 352 339 3.03 509 99 49 84 22 128 90 26 137 34 38 39 40 KIMBALL TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 7,247 2,435 1,050 1,385 617 771 627 420 2.98 993 131 175 24 66 228 13 214 142 2010 7,996 2,742 1,066 1,676 628 846 683 585 2.92 1,345 112 216 64 100 435 31 247 140 8,478 2,963 1,038 1,925 622 886 701 754 2.86 1,553 100 248 59 109 527 33 317 160 8,951 3,181 982 2,199 9,445 3,394 937 2,457 637 975 703 1,079 2.78 2,077 70 6,839 2,534 969 1,565 418 1,016 722 378 2.70 1,894 20 1,131 67 27 223 97 282 47 7,342 2,696 1,019 1,677 408 1,068 810 410 2.72 2,117 22 1,222 91 39 247 122 318 56 632 927 710 912 2.81 1,883 92 304 58 127 679 39 402 182 97 321 59 137 776 50 447 190 64 Change 3,350 1,041 478 563 -79 327 488 305 .20 1,309 24 778 63 57 66 131 139 51 Change 1,606 544 163 381 Percent 60.0 48.4 61.8 40.9 -16.8 41.9 84.4 94.4 7.8 128.1 266.7 174.4 101.6 518.2 34.7 195.5 62.1 392.3 Percent 86.6 91 .0 64.4 37 110.4 ·22.4 88.3 96.6 219.8 -2.3 121.3 -10.0 308.3 -28 166 173 233 -.07 279 -11 24 600.0 146 21 76 26 91 700.0 422.2 866.7 165.5 40 15 60.0 2015 2020 10,496 Change 3,249 1,386 -90 1,476 33 326 73 Perce~ 9,999 22 3,620 937 2,683 644 1,036 701 1,239 2.76 2,184 103 309 63 136 839 59 480 195 28 24 94 29 3,821 960 2,861 650 1,097 700 1,374 2.75 2,248 107 284 65 131 886 68 512 195 954 -.23 1,255 -24 109 41 65 658 55 298 53 44.8 56.9 -8.6 106,6 5.3 42.3 11 .6 227.1 -7.1 126,4 -18.3 62,3 170,8 98,5 288.6 423,1 139,3 37,3 �LYNN TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 921 299 2020 Change 928 308 110 198 65 73 128 42 3.01 175 163 4 0 0 0 0 8 0 Percent 967 319 108 211 981 328 97 231 51 54 169 54 2.99 213 146 6 0 0 0 0 59 2 993 337 87 250 45 44 184 1,007 347 79 1,019 356 74 282 34 32 206 84 2.86 227 '' 35 6 0 0 0 1 83 2 98 57 -50 107 -37 -53 102 45 -.22 54 -27 2 0 0 0 10.6 19.1 -40.3 61.1 -52.1 -62.4 98.1 115.4 -7.1 31.2 -16.7 50.0 .0 .0 .0 n/a 1,085.7 n/a 124 175 71 85 104 39 3.08 173 162 4 0 0 0 0 7 0 FIRE Services Pub Administration MARINE CITY 56 64 153 46 3.03 194 153 4 0 0 0 0 36 1 64 2.95 231 150 6 0 0 0 0 73 2 268 39 37 197 74 2.90 229 142 6 0 0 0 1 78 2 76 2 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent Total Population 4,769 1,762 693 1,069 5,195 1,944 725 1,219 5,282 Total Households 5,029 1,857 5,443 2,183 628 1,555 548 809 520 306 2.49 3,124 8 937 33 87 920 &3 1,022 34 5,488 2,256 604 1,652 554 845 526 331 2.43 3,115 10 897 38 65 913 94 1,065 33 719 494 -89 583 -14 268 107 133 -.27 1,056 10 326 33 35 2,494 0 756 8 112 796 41 754 27 550 681 476 237 2.67 2,688 2 840 14 108 813 51 830 30 2,020 691 1,329 548 724 494 254 2.61 2,950 4 908 20 113 898 61 913 33 5,368 2,099 656 1,443 546 766 508 279 2.56 3,108 6 956 27 108 926 71 980 34 15.1 28.0 -12.8 54.5 -2.5 46.4 25.5 67.2 -10.1 51.3 nla 57.1 660.0 1.6 27.3 235.7 66.7 -5.7 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent Total Population 8,515 Total Households 3,363 1,068 2,295 714 1,025 1,002 622 2.53 5,301 0 1,653 706 486 9,076 3,703 1,102 2,601 863 1,181 1,058 601 2.45 9,505 4,031 1,095 2,936 1,042 1,341 1,083 565 2.36 1,071 536 2.28 6,115 0 2,129 799 485 6,831 2 7,438 3 2,351 863 438 1,151 152 1,797 77 2,534 853 421 10,113 4,574 1,000 3,574 1,412 1,603 1,055 504 2.21 7,747 4 2,557 835 375 1,489 166 2,235 86 10,482 4,838 1,006 3,832 1,582 1,721 1,060 475 2.17 7,746 6 2,437 791 312 1,572 173 2,367 10,793 5,029 1,049 3,980 1,717 1,780 1,095 437 2.15 7,675 7 2,291 739 254 1,628 175 2,496 85 2,278 1,666 -19 1,685 1,003 755 93 -185 -.39 2,374 7 638 33 -232 646 31 1,228 23 26.8 49.5 -1.8 73.4 140.5 73.7 9.3 -29.7 -15.2 44.8 n/a 38.6 4.7 -47.7 65.8 21.5 96.8 37.1 With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 568 5n Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment 419 198 2.71 2,059 Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing 0 TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration MARYSVILLE With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 571 5 64 717 28 639 982 144 1,268 62 726 1,131 557 629 453 218 2.71 955 157 1,524 66 9,820 4,315 1,044 3,271 1,234 1,474 1,341 160 2,043 83 88 196 66 426 -2 71 I �MEMPHIS PART Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag. Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 2000 394 149 2005 421 159 2010 50 99 52 54 107 115 42 40 37 33 26 55 15 2.59 209 0 25 22 20 82 20 1990 1995 325 127 358 138 46 92 40 87 41 32 39 15 2.56 168 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 448 169 2015 480 180 58 122 29 19 104 28 2020 512 190 Change 64 24 187 63 2.64 228 2.65 251 19 93 24 2.65 272 290 126 25 21 112 32 2.69 305 0 0 0 0 0 23 25 24 21 18 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 3 0 0 2 5 .0 -33.3 .0 .0 2 5 n/a n/a 280 139 98.6 0 0 .0 2020 Change 1,492 529 113 416 Percent 97.5 110.7 44.7 184.9 63.8 13.8 207.0 95.0 -6.2 141.4 55.6 -31.8 16.3 -30.4 -17.1 70 17 2.67 2 0 141 184 202 222 243 4 262 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015 2,822 0 39 44.8 -16 -11 -39.0 -34.4 73 187.2 17 .14 137 113.3 5.3 0 -9 MUSSEY TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 1,530 478 253 225 47 145 185 101 3.20 215 27 22 43 23 70 0 30 1,879 584 293 291 33 153 271 127 3.22 213 27 10 38 22 75 0 41 2,133 672 307 365 28 152 355 137 3.17 318 30 11 42 20 69 4 140 2,366 755 316 439 33 152 420 150 3.13 421 33 16 2,591 838 324 514 21 70 8 219 151 481 164 3.09 474 36 16 50 17 66 12 270 0 0 2 6 7 PORT HURON Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 33,681 13,143 5,081 8,062 5,267 3,965 2.443 1,468 2.56 23,958 15 4,876 1,277 467 5,131 1,719 9,626 2010 33,778 13,191 5,204 7,987 5,395 4,059 2,381 1,356 2.56 22,785 35 4,045 1,326 553 4,856 1,750 9,423 797 33,003 13,046 5,026 8,020 5,433 4,074 2,302 1,237 2.53 21,391 46 3,466 1,204 607 4,324 1,531 9,358 855 32,272 12,911 4,712 8,199 5,337 4,099 2,251 1,224 2.50 20.452 52 31,745 12,915 4,415 8,500 5,276 4,152 2,272 1,215 2.46 1,221 2.42 19,812 19,075 1,228 2.38 18,786 58 2,503 1,Q70 715 3,634 62 2,098 66 51 1,804 -3,072 72 847 Percent 57.5 49.6 60.0 48 2,928 1,103 666 3,848 1,454 9,501 900 42 927 343 584 57 156 533 181 3.04 499 39 16 52 16 61 17 3,022 1,007 366 641 77 165 568 197 3.00 519 42 15 50 16 30 20 383 96 -.20 304 15 -7 7 -7 -12 21 81.5 291 58 21 310 280 933.3 7 7 7 rJa 2015 2020 31,660 13,102 4,285 8,817 5,309 4,259 2,313 31,680 13,317 4,230 9,087 5,368 4,367 2,354 Change -2,001 Perce~ -5.9 1.3 -16.7 12.7 1.9 10.1 -3.6 -16.3 -7.2 -21.6 340.0 -63.0 -16.8 53.3 .38.8 174 -851 1,025 101 402 -89 -240 -.18 -5,172 1,052 721 3,351 1,063 716 -214 249 3,141 -1,990 -363 1,438 9,429 1,400 1,356 9,399 9,631 5 965 992 1,009 162 n/a -21,1 .1 19.1 �1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children 7,621 2,748 1,016 1,732 2020 Change 8,330 3,022 1,084 1,938 8,743 3,209 1,087 2,122 9,149 3,397 1,073 584 923 746 538 1,087 823 574 2.76 1,220 880 623 9,880 3,792 1,057 2,735 456 1,518 1,040 778 2.61 6,745 60 693 735 10,166 3,980 1,062 2,918 480 1,614 1,072 2,545 1,232 46 1,186 Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 9,512 3,584 1,054 2,530 446 1,411 990 737 2.65 PORT HURON TWP RILEY TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration ST.CLAIR Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 495 2.77 3,480 55 574 537 298 822 18 1,139 37 4,787 54 650 748 278 1,502 18 1,491 46 486 2.72 5,549 55 673 795 248 1,799 21 1,901 57 2,324 458 1,315 936 688 2.69 6,185 59 722 788 240 2,062 25 6,584 2,228 60 727 774 218 2,281 28 2,433 61 63 188 2,397 32 2,576 64 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2,153 2,715 658 329 329 834 3,150 979 435 3,564 1,116 469 647 94 260 506 256 3.19 314 3,977 1,253 506 747 105 294 4,409 1,398 560 838 122 333 615 328 3.15 385 93 82 18 23 34 28 105 2 83 152 395 439 86 192 253 170 3.27 351 205 3.26 208 77 202 82 83 85 75 2 19 7 66 2 5 67 10 0 37 15 7 63 79 10 16 22 14 86 0 28 544 87 224 442 226 3.22 252 6 10 563 291 3.17 362 91 84 14 22 28 21 100 2 814 2.55 6,8!18 uo 653 689 165 2,477 35 2,717 62 2020 4,788 Percent 33.4 44.8 3,378 5 79 152 ·133 1,655 17 1,578 25 4.5 68.5 ·17.8 74.9 43.7 64.4 ·7.9 97.1 9.1 13.8 28.3 -44.6 201 .3 94.4 138.5 67.6 Change Percent 2,635 869 290 579 58 219 401 191 -.14 196 17 4 20 4 32 35 ·104 691 326 319 ·.22 2 2 122.4 132.1 88.1 176.0 69.9 144.1 158.5 112.4 ·4.2 94.2 22.1 5.3 1,000.0 21.1 457.1 n/a 292.9 n/a 1,527 619 908 141 371 654 361 3.14 404 94 79 22 23 39 35 110 82 0 0 1 2 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 6,382 2,505 796 1,709 446 689 642 728 2.55 6,741 2,654 803 1,851 434 725 684 811 2.54 3,385 43 788 33 44 841 472 1,120 833 43 53 867 531 1,202 45 7,443 2,966 860 2,106 428 819 783 936 2.51 3,825 54 790 65 66 847 653 1,307 43 2,327 950 150 800 -65 261 288 466 ·.03 942 7 114 54 56 63 375 261 12 45.5 47.1 21.1 61.3 ·13.2 46.8 58.2 99.1 3,623 49 7,125 2,820 829 1,991 429 773 734 884 2.53 3,738 52 821 55 60 858 594 1,253 45 6,021 2,355 791 1,564 456 648 597 654 2.56 2,883 47 5,609 2,191 764 1,427 470 608 551 562 2.56 2,820 48 676 11 10 649 11 25 3,071 45 725 23 34 784 278 752 370 764 420 1,046 31 929 36 1,020 40 5,116 2,016 710 1,306 493 558 495 470 2.54 44 ·1.1 32.7 14.9 16.9 490.9 560.0 8.0 134.9 25.0 38.7 73 �ST. CLAIR TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration WALES TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 4,614 1,582 620 962 328 421 415 418 2.92 1,336 231 418 20 50 445 15 156 1 5,351 1,844 716 1,128 372 491 530 451 2.90 1,400 230 333 32 57 583 23 141 1 5,959 2,068 797 1,271 424 545 638 461 2.88 1,623 220 405 7,096 2,471 931 1,540 501 616 877 477 2.87 2,023 219 478 7,765 2,688 1,034 1,654 515 662 998 513 2.89 2,074 222 479 103 95 685 111 8,374 2,873 1,144 1,729 67 604 43 225 10 6,508 2,268 858 1,410 469 580 760 459 2.87 1,888 209 447 70 81 669 66 327 19 49 88 92 691 89 347 19 513 707 1,102 551 2.91 2,098 223 467 360 19 114 97 677 128 373 19 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2,294 720 322 398 179 204 162 175 3.19 452 313 57 0 3 6 0 18 55 2,633 835 367 468 215 227 168 225 3.15 438 256 65 0 6 16 0 42 53 2,848 914 391 523 241 239 172 262 3.12 454 200 72 3,255 1,071 416 655 286 265 217 303 3.04 524 132 3,477 1,152 439 713 298 279 252 323 3.02 3,676 1,224 465 759 7 9 43 7 57 3,058 994 404 590 266 253 192 283 3.08 497 153 85 14 12 79 13 76 90 20 15 96 17 86 89 21 17 103 21 93 59 65 68 70 70 538 124 300 292 293 339 3.00 548 118 86 22 19 108 25 100 YALE 1990 1995 2000 2005 Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1,983 744 291 453 320 224 119 81 2.67 1,140 2010 2,043 760 313 447 329 235 117 79 2.69 1,102 2015 2020 2,092 782 323 459 340 246 118 78 2.68 1,150 2,105 2,117 2,122 800 314 486 353 251 17 79 2.63 1,243 819 304 515 366 252 119 82 2.58 9 4 9 0 326 28 712 14 9 4 10 9 5 12 2 278 31 887 19 1,303 10 839 294 545 379 249 124 87 2.53 1,331 10 2,120 857 283 574 390 243 5 13 3 246 32 973 21 4 12 3 204 30 1,045 23 74 6 91 8 0 429 31 565 10 283 29 798 16 132 92 2.47 1,366 10 3 11 3 174 28 1,113 24 Change 3,760 1,291 524 767 185 286 687 133 .00 762 -8 49 94 47 232 113 217 18 Percent Change 1,382 504 143 361 121 88 131 164 -.18 96 -195 29 22 16 102 25 82 15 Percent Change 137 113 -8 121 70 19 13 11 -.19 226 4 -88 3 3 -255 -3 Percent 548 14 81.5 81 .6 84.5 79.7 56.4 67.9 165.5 31 .8 ·.1 57.0 -3.5 11.7 470.0 94.0 52.1 753.3 139.1 1,800.0 60.2 70.0 44.4 90.7 67.6 43.1 80.9 93.7 -5.7 21.2 -62.3 50.9 n/a 533.3 1,700.0 n/a 455.6 27.3 6.9 15.2 -2.7 26,7 21 .9 8.5 10.9 13.6 -7.2 19.8 66.7 -96.7 37,5 n/a .59,4 -9.7 97,0 140.0 �ST CLAIR COUNTY Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 145,607 52,867 20,802 32,065 14,242 15,608 13,281 9,736 2.75 55,730 2,533 10,565 3,984 1,657 13,121 3,038 19,440 1,392 1995 158,921 57,683 22,410 35,273 14,616 17,291 14,698 11,078 2.76 60,556 2,535 11,044 4,353 1,808 14,864 3,251 21,217 1,484 2000 167,478 61,370 22,858 38,512 14,899 18,580 15,801 12,090 2.73 64,654 2,462 11,270 4,567 1,945 15,697 3,279 23,744 1,690 2005 175,050 64,794 22,670 42,124 15,201 19,624 16,907 13,062 2.70 69,393 2,412 11,502 4,819 2,175 16,793 3,569 26,255 1,868 2010 182,766 68,329 22,574 45,75~ 15,551 20,607 18,015 14,156 2.67 72,462 2,491 11,449 5,005 2,314 17,646 3,944 27,643 1,970 2015 191,525 72,281 23,156 49,125 16,080 21,749 19,205 15,247 2.65 73,476 2,522 10,864 5,062 2,333 17,829 4,249 28,595 2,022 2020 199,160 75,784 23,966 51,818 16,602 22,773 20,250 16,159 2.63 74,3~18 2,546 10,226 5,063 2,327 17,932 4,469 29,798 2,037 1990 111,801 42,506 10,810 31,696 10,763 11,033 9,112 11,598 2.63 113,309 780 7,119 2,559 2,884 18,704 7,494 71,487 2,282 1995 113,735 43,944 10,997 32,947 10,834 10,478 9,550 13,082 2.59 125,701 753 6,869 2,416 2,986 18,698 9,340 82,070 2,569 2000 114,847 45,006 10,787 34,219 11,069 10,020 9,780 14,137 2.55 134,310 679 6,082 2,142 2,995 18,502 9,932 91,359 2,619 2005 115,968 46,080 10,287 35,793 11,117 9,922 10,238 14,803 2.52 136,549 594 6,016 2,051 3,126 18,495 9,746 93,793 2,728 2010 117,790 47,302 10,012 37,290 11,071 9,978 10,659 15,594 2.49 136,781 557 5,803 1,989 3,113 18,422 9,886 94,192 2,819 2015 120,248 48,786 10,155 38,631 11,197 10,154 11,090 16,345 2.46 135,106 525 5,366 1,948 2,978 17,901 9,906 93,582 2,900 2020 122,289 50,079 10,458 39,621 11,380 10,327 11,441 16,931 2.44 134,694 502 4,946 1,937 2,853 17,496 9,817 94,190 2,953 Change 10,488 7,573 -352 7,925 617 -706 2,329 5,333 -.19 21,385 -278 -2,173 -622 -31 -1,208 2,323 22,703 671 1990 2,292 1,021 257 764 85 225 256 455 2.24 4,214 263 150 118 300 879 264 2,194 46 1995 2,562 1,147 271 876 81 260 283 523 2.23 4,580 275 107 88 403 423 285 2,960 39 2000 2,839 1,279 284 995 87 285 299 608 2.22 4,765 264 116 98 461 411 323 3,035 57 2005 3,071 1,387 280 1,107 98 286 310 693 2.21 4,960 245 130 124 510 440 398 3,038 75 2010 3,351 1,494 301 1,193 109 270 328 787 2.24 5,284 243 141 137 558 480 460 3,184 81 2015 3,626 1,5n 355 1,222 117 250 343 867 2.30 5,505 239 146 143 579 503 514 3,294 87 2020 3,886 1,633 434 1,199 120 223 353 937 2.38 5,692 236 146 144 587 520 553 3,416 90 Change 1,594 612 177 435 35 -2 97 482 .13 1,478 -27 -4 26 287 -359 289 1,222 44 Change 53,553 22,917 3,164 19,753 2,360 7,165 6,969 6,423 -.13 18,668 13 -339 1,079 670 4,811 1,431 10,358 645 Percent 36.8 43.3 15.2 61.6 16.6 45.9 52.5 66.0 -4.6 33.5 .5 -3.2 27.1 40.4 36.7 47.1 53.3 46.3 WASHTENAW ANN ARBOR Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration ANN ARBOR TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration Percent 9.4 17.8 -3.3 25.0 5.7 -6.4 25.6 46.0 -7.2 18.9 -35.6 -30.5 -24.3 -1.1 -6.5 31.0 31.8 29.4 Percent 69.5 59.9 68.9 56.9 41.2 -.9 37.9 105.9 6.0 35.1 -10.3 -2.7 22.0 95.7 -40.8 109.5 55.7 95.7 75 �AUGUSTA TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 4,415 1,473 4,578 1,576 527 1,049 4,768 1,650 537 1,113 173 342 572 4,867 1,721 4,959 1,793 469 5,102 1,877 5 ,236 1,955 821 482 18.6 32.7 461 462 -102 1,324 1,416 198 425 1,493 584 28 128 -18.1 64.2 564 909 181 319 458 515 3.00 862 121 48 15 41 90 42 505 0 180 333 516 547 2.90 830 124 49 14 563 2.89 823 119 52 502 1,219 182 368 610 561 2.83 1,055 122 82 53 364 56 566 9 65.7 7.4 102.1 130 424 104 419 117 414 426 75 -79 0 0 0 0 0 -15.6 .0 2010 344 2015 2020 Change Percent 342 338 18 5.6 134 41 136 37 138 13 -8 93 99 2 1 10.4 -19.5 25.0 .0 272 68 405 0 0 1995 2000 2005 337 128 344 346 132 TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 0 0 14 0 60 0 0 13 0 77 0 0 76 95 120 -10.6 17 373 320 125 41 BRIDGEWATER TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 90 92 8.9 -.32 58 463 48 1990 89 0 15 1,347 129 46 2.68 1,428 49 50 370 83 128 280 561 122 38 96 41 468 45 83 1 2 17 108 2.63 105 0 15 695 559 2.72 15.5 40.1 61 .1 97 BARTON HILLS Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing 84 2 4 10 109 2.56 557 2.77 1,227 209 447 738 137 58 30 41 161 130 47 189 397 650 45 87 86 813.3 41 .5 414.4 178.6 33 105 21 2 1 0 -3 43 52 42 83 2.45 -26 -.11 118 29 0 1 32.6 .0 6.7 0 0 .0 .0 2 2 23 104 2.65 1 2 29 100 2.62 35 96 2.57 106 0 15 108 0 16 113 90 2 .51 116 0 17 0 17 0 16 0 0 0 0 78 14 0 78 0 0 16 0 13 0 0 15 0 81 0 85 0 0 0 0 83 0 3 0 25 0 0 21.4 .0 41.7 .0 2015 2020 Change Percent 20.3 36.2 -23.7 68.0 0 0 17 -75.0 420.0 -23.9 -4.3 1990 1995 2000 2005 1,304 2010 1,389 1,403 1,434 1,471 450 156 294 66 85 143 156 2.90 1,522 494 150 1,569 265 516 133 383 77 541 121 420 565 113 591 114 477 613 119 163 -37 494 100 107 200 41 54 53 55 -30 -35.3 163 187 2.81 60 173 93 52 176 177 180 183 40 206 2.72 225 2.65 243 28.0 71.8 265 163 2.60 323 160 258 2.58 365 148 18 0 2 10 5 42 25 376 142 22 26 2 3 15 16 107 29 3 2 17 17 112 48 54 59 252 136 31 0 19 10 4 45 7 344 72 72 1 2 12 9 74 43 86 452 62.1 268 112 2.56 -.34 393 132 141 -4 31 4 32 1 5 5 0 18 18 115 0 19 19 118 68 -19 9 15 73 -100.0 90,0 61 871.4 381 136 -11.7 56.0 -2.9 3.2 n/a 375.0 162,2 �CHELSEA Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration DEXTER (1990 Boundaries) Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag , Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 3,TT2 1,394 481 913 243 389 478 284 2.71 4,934 341 1,220 31 93 865 157 2,196 31 2020 4,013 1,487 475 1,012 198 406 4,112 1,538 445 1,093 162 410 624 342 2.67 6,346 243 1,381 12 7 1,240 179 3,243 41 4,189 1,595 396 1,199 150 405 6TT 363 2.63 6,801 223 1,415 5 8 1,381 203 3,521 45 4,264 1,651 349 1,302 140 396 725 390 2.58 7,059 210 1,427 5 10 1,526 214 3,617 50 4,364 1,710 322 1,388 132 384 4,452 1,759 306 1,453 125 369 807 458 2.53 7,324 18t} 1,303 3 7 1,728 221 3,815 58 no 424 2.55 7,203 198 1,374 3 8 1,641 221 3,705 53 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 1,497 1,726 760 208 552 173 212 218 157 2.27 2,877 72 963 61 152 441 141 941 106 1,856 835 204 631 186 211 239 199 2.22 2,935 69 950 65 172 438 160 964 117 1,940 910 166 744 202 210 239 259 2.13 3,096 65 1,017 76 195 468 182 965 128 2,041 983 136 847 211 214 234 324 2.08 3,297 66 1,063 85 218 512 205 1,009 139 2,174 1,060 121 939 214 221 232 393 2.05 3,403 67 1,054 91 229 540 230 1,042 150 2,294 1,124 113 1,011 211 220 231 462 2.04 3,464 67 1,025 93 235 560 249 1,079 156 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2,131 960 229 731 204 237 279 240 2.22 2,935 69 950 65 172 2,285 1,060 201 859 221 240 286 313 2.16 3,096 65 1,017 76 195 2,391 1,135 2,635 1,279 138 _ 1,141 230 248 278 523 2.06 438 468 182 965 128 2,523 1,215 151 1,064 233 250 278 454 2.08 3,403 67 1,054 91 229 540 230 1,042 150 638 203 435 149 195 180 114 2.35 2,572 68 993 64 131 360 121 780 55 DEXTER (1995 Boundaries) 1990 Total Population 1,497 Total Households 638 With Children 203 Without Children 435 Income Quartile 1 149 Income Quartile 2 195 Income Quartile 3 180 Income Quartile 4 114 Persons Per Household 2.35 Total Employment 2,572 Ag, Min, Nat Res 68 Manufacturing 993 TCU 64 Wholesale Trade 131 Retail Trade 360 FIRE Services Pub Administration 564 319 2 .70 5,988 287 1,345 10 18 1,156 173 2,963 36 121 780 55 1,726 760 208 552 173 212 218 157 2.27 2,877 72 963 61 152 441 141 941 106 160 964 117 171 964 229 241 280 385 2.11 3,297 66 1,063 85 218 512 205 1,009 139 3,464 67 1,025 93 235 560 249 1,079 156 Change 680 365 -175 540 -118 -20 329 174 -.17 2,390 -152 83 -28 -86 863 64 1,619 27 Percent 18.0 26.2 -36.4 59.1 -48.6 -5.1 68.8 61 .3 -6.5 48.4 -44.6 6.8 -90.3 -92.5 99.8 40.8 73.7 87.1 Change 797 486 -90 576 62 25 51 348 -.31 892 -1 32 29 104 200 128 299 101 Percent 53.2 76.2 -44.3 132.4 41.6 12.8 28.3 305.3 -13.0 34.7 -1.5 3.2 45.3 79.4 55.6 105.8 38.3 183.6 Change 1,138 641 -65 706 81 53 98 409 -.29 892 -1 32 29 104 200 128 299 101 Percent 76.0 100.5 -32.0 162.3 54.4 27.2 54.4 358.8 -12.2 34.7 -1.5 3.2 45.3 79.4 55.6 105.8 38.3 183.6 77 r '{ ~ ,r I �DEXTER TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration FREEDOM TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration LIMA TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 78 1990 4,407 1,523 680 1995 4,914 205 290 411 617 2.89 316 80 12 0 12 1,695 749 946 200 313 449 733 2.90 357 63 12 0 19 61 109 41 67 144 51 843 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 5,209 1,816 5,462 1,938 780 1,158 217 366 492 863 2.82 5,692 2,063 5,926 2,193 1,686 n3 n9 1,414 6,093 2,303 783 1,520 273 491 558 201 981 2.65 364 -.25 817 501 66 -14 24 12 4 -1 38.3 51.2 15.1 80.3 33.2 69.3 35.8 59.0 -8.6 158.5 -17.5 100.0 n1 1,039 196 335 472 813 2.87 620 62 15 3 19 10 80 369 62 742 62 17 6 17 39 97 433 71 1,290 234 406 512 911 2.76 n1 63 19 4 12 50 111 431 81 253 450 536 954 2.70 780 103 677 68 147 792 64 22 4 12 54 122 428 56 129 431 68 322 86 96 55 -8.3 5,500.0 111.5 295.4 134.1 4 11 55 n/a 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 1,486 541 196 345 96 119 177 149 2.75 381 206 31 38 7 20 15 59 1,519 560 192 368 94 114 195 157 2.71 451 243 49 40 1 24 18 68 8 1,563 585 189 396 97 110 215 163 2.67 467 242 55 37 0 27 23 73 1,596 606 182 1,631 1,671 651 1,708 671 222 86 13 18 27 14.9 24.0 -4.1 40.0 36.5 -4.2 40.1 19.5 -7.3 15.2 -11.2 109.7 -36.8 -85.7 65.0 120.0 45.8 14 9 180.0 Percent 5 10 424 104 110 224 168 2.63 468 217 60 38 0 31 32 79 11 628 178 450 113 111 232 172 2.60 465 205 64 36 0 32 34 82 12 130 181 188 -8 470 122 112 483 131 114 138 241 176 2.57 248 178 454 193 65 31 1 33 34 84 13 2.55 439 183 65 24 1 33 33 35 -5 71 29 -.20 58 -23 34 -14 -6 1990 1995 2000 2005 2,132 720 269 451 98 141 189 292 2.96 374 131 102 1 0 36 0 104 0 2010 2,343 809 262 547 104 150 183 372 2.90 2015 2020 2,430 2,531 2,639 2,781 863 235 628 106 151 920 212 708 117 153 146 504 2.75 978 1,038 205 833 130 159 2,915 1,089 Change 783 369 226 863 412 406 110 114 1 0 55 0 126 0 520 97 111 2 2 89 5 212 2 165 441 2.82 659 91 116 4 3 193 10 239 3 197 781 125 155 132 566 2.70 765 88 119 2 3 233 15 301 4 131 163 130 619 136 659 2.68 813 2.68 830 82 112 -43 33 22 -53 367 -.28 456 3 3 -49 10 0 3 249 21 261 225 26 341 4 26 85 117 2 332 4 1 237 4 36.7 51.3 -16.0 91.4 33.7 15.6 -28.0 125.7 .g,6 121,9 -37.4 9.8 .0 rJa 625,0 rJa 227,9 rJa �LODI TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration LYNDON TWP 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 3,902 1,305 614 2015 2020 4,488 1,494 4,908 1,644 746 5,289 1,790 763 1,027 5,667 1,940 777 1,163 126 240 533 891 2.95 1,359 108 16 73 26 149 76 760 151 129 265 614 932 2.92 1,482 113 17 88 39 167 78 803 177 6,060 2,098 817 1,281 132 297 696 973 2.89 1,563 117 18 99 52 181 79 828 189 6,380 2,234 860 1,374 134 332 771 997 2.86 1,628 121 17 106 64 192 77 850 201 691 113 202 321 669 2.99 684 93 16 40 3 73 63 387 9 700 794 117 212 386 779 3.00 714 95 14 43 0 76 68 407 11 898 119 221 456 848 2.99 1,111 101 15 55 13 101 69 634 123 Change 2,478 929 246 683 21 130 450 328 -.13 944 28 1 66 61 119 14 463 192 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change 2,228 702 2,366 772 283 489 67 180 2,773 929 285 2,923 985 297 644 688 Ag, Min, Nat Res 242 212 3.17 125 45 26 TCU Wholesale Trade 0 7 14 0 26 0 5 21 0 27 65 195 272 453 2.97 221 41 29 2 3 . 45 7 7 8 63 192 275 399 2.98 209 40 29 2 3 44 15 66 10 3,055 1,033 314 719 66 196 268 503 2.96 232 . 43 Manufacturing 266 259 3.06 126 39 27 58 185 281 300 3.05 154 38 27 2 2 28 5 44 2,642 876 287 589 61 188 281 346 3.02 185 38 28 3 3 40 10 54 9 827 269 433 79 169 2,510 824 289 535 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2,455 875 382 493 123 264 276 212 2.81 2,046 19 1,111 21 0 2,706 964 409 555 129 285 303 247 2.81 2,244 19 2,916 1,048 424 624 133 303 327 285 2.78 2,345 20 1,261 24 0 365 89 553 3,139 1,138 443 695 137 316 355 330 2.76 2,337 21 1,244 25 0 350 93 567 37 3,311 1,215 456 759 140 321 381 373 2.73 2,309 23 1,200 26 0 338 95 585 42 Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration MANCHESTER Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1,753 646 266 380 123 202 183 138 2.71 1,260 14 567 21 3 262 38 347 8 2,198 791 340 451 126 244 238 183 2.78 1,855 17 1,009 21 0 305 60 426 17 323 74 473 25 1,197 24 0 365 83 527 29 33 20 69 11 29 1 3 47 25 72 12 331 45 286 -13 27 26 291 -.22 107 -2 3 -4 33 25 46 5 Change 1,558 569 190 379 17 119 198 235 .01 1,049 9 633 5 -3 76 57 238 34 Percent 63.5 71.2 40.1 98.8 18.6 64.4 140.2 49.0 -4.5 138.0 30.1 6.3 165.0 2,033.3 163.0 22.2 119.6 2,133.3 Percent 37.1 47.2 16.7 66.1 -16.5 16.0 10.7 137.3 -6.8 85.6 -4.4 11.5 n/a -57.1 235.7 n/a 176.9 71.4 Percent 88.9 88.1 71.4 99.7 13.8 58.9 108.2 170.3 .4 83.3 64.3 111.6 23.8 -100.0 29.0 150.0 68.6 425.0 79 �MANCHESTER TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 1,739 583 259 324 65 115 196 207 2.98 180 88 72 13 0 0 0 7 0 1,933 2,086 700 301 399 67 93 310 230 2.98 294 116 116 12 0 4 4 30 12 2,210 751 306 445 73 91 356 231 2.94 345 114 128 14 0 13 11 52 13 2,329 803 310 493 78 92 400 233 2.90 366 113 138 15 0 17 14 2,450 857 321 536 82 96 443 236 2.86 378 113 139 16 0 21 17 55 17 2,557 904 336 568 85 101 480 238 2.83 388 114 137 16 0 24 19 56 22 MILAN PART Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 3,060 1,174 470 704 242 321 360 251 2.61 2,051 62 794 75 44 506 57 424 89 3,404 1,307 515 792 289 323 400 295 2.60 2,291 55 859 102 3,534 1,364 528 836 332 305 411 316 2.59 2,253 56 863 117 3,663 1,432 523 909 382 305 409 336 2.56 2,511 60 955 137 61 760 109 367 62 3,741 1,496 503 993 439 301 403 353 2.50 2,743 65 1,045 156 63 846 129 374 65 3,770 1,545 483 1,062 491 289 393 372 2.44 2,905 67 1,069 177 61 936 147 379 69 3,751 1,577 460 1,117 537 272 380 388 2.38 3,022 67 1,057 196 57 1,027 161 386 71 NORTHFIELD TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 6,732 2,452 919 1,533 324 741 792 595 2.75 1,292 125 437 36 65 161 11 440 17 2010 7,616 2,757 1,058 1,699 304 808 914 731 2.76 1,489 140 366 36 66 296 16 544 25 2015 2020 8,416 3,044 1,175 1,869 295 861 1,024 864 2.76 1,803 150 350 47 78 379 28 733 38 9,082 3,307 1,236 2,071 318 893 1,095 1,001 2.75 2,248 166 408 76 103 514 60 867 54 9,744 3,570 1,290 2,280 336 924 1,156 1,154 2.73 2,457 185 10,426 3,841 1,367 2,474 358 944 1,214 1,325 2.71 2,587 200 456 122 128 533 68 1,018 62 11,001 4,073 1,440 2,633 377 948 1,256 1,492 2.70 2,676 212 454 135 133 532 70 1,076 64 80 644 286 358 65 102 253 224 3.00 238 115 103 11 0 0 0 9 0 54 54 659 79 428 55 681 90 336 56 54 15 444 102 120 532 65 951 58 Change 818 321 77 244 20 -14 284 31 -.15 208 26 65 3 0 24 19 49 22 Percent 47.0 55.1 29.7 75.3 30.8 -12.2 144.9 15.0 -5.2 115.6 29.5 90.3 23.1 .0 n/a n/a 700.0 n/a Change 691 403 -10 413 295 -49 20 137 -.23 971 5 263 121 13 521 104 -38 -18 Percent Change 4,269 1,621 521 1,100 53 207 Percent 464 897 -.04 1,384 87 17 99 68 371 59 636 47 22.6 34.3 -2.1 58.7 121.9 -15.3 5.6 54.6 -8.7 47.3 8.1 33.1 161.3 29.5 103.0 182.5 -9.0 -20.2 63.4 66.1 56.7 71.8 16.4 27.9 58.6 150,8 -1.6 107.1 69.6 3.9 275.0 104.6 230.4 536.4 144.5 276,5 �1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing 17,120 6,803 2,053 4,750 1,341 2,079 1,703 1,680 2.52 11,963 239 2,721 21,748 8,534 3,040 5,494 1,558 2,490 2,103 2,383 2.55 13,610 286 2,503 2020 Change Percent 26,058 10,112 3,751 6,361 1,752 2,890 2,456 3,014 2.58 15,302 303 2,337 30,860 11,738 4,695 7,043 1,836 3,214 2,936 3,752 2.63 17,247 307 2,451 43,117 15,307 7,377 7,930 1,869 3,648 3,964 5,826 49,830 17,268 8,976 8,292 1,909 3,861 4,508 6,990 2.89 20,052 32,710 10,465 6,923 3,542 568 1,782 2,805 5,310 .37 8,089 191 .1 153.8 337.2 74.6 TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 485 546 3,581 688 402 708 3,146 580 449 3,982 905 4,315 809 415 4,399 1,319 36,673 13,445 5,916 7,529 1,845 3,434 3,437 4,729 2.73 18,560 321 2,453 925 537 590 PITTSFIELD TWP 4,138 1,110 5,658 666 6,848 699 406 4,380 1,536 7,835 704 2.82 19,400 331 2,340 1,007 383 4,249 1,722 8,660 708 42.4 85.7 164.7 316.1 14.7 67.6 338 99 41.4 2,203 1,051 362 4,130 696 -518 566 -184 549 1,146 6,272 159 -19.0 116.7 -33.7 15.3 161.9 199.4 29.6 1,854 9,418 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent Total Population 3,734 4,151 4,627 4,842 Total Households 1,223 495 728 1,368 536 832 121 166 4,398 1,466 1,568 542 1,026 144 139 728 557 2.95 1,315 294 75 79 126 207 91 441 2 1,667 538 1,129 158 141 5,070 1,770 554 1,216 170 152 867 581 2.86 1,485 309 89 101 147 209 97 531 2 5,259 1,857 579 1,278 182 167 919 589 2.83 1,539 313 90 111 152 205 98 568 2 1,525 634 84 550 68 -22 478 110 -.22 687 30 28 51 69 95 27 385 2 40.8 51.8 17.0 75.5 59.6 -11.6 108.4 23.0 -7.2 80.6 10.6 45.2 85.0 83.1 86.4 38.0 210.4 n/a SALEM TWP With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration SALINE 114 189 441 479 3.05 852 283 62 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 7,788 2,952 1,089 1,863 286 623 806 1,237 2.64 7,857 30 8,191 3,137 1,065 2,072 296 628 797 1,416 2.61 9,040 3,518 1,065 2,453 324 639 771 1,784 2.57 8,924 2,607 178 301 1,441 440 8,589 3,321 1,042 2,279 308 634 780 1,599 2.59 8,859 57 2,595 205 317 1,555 452 3,071 401 3,233 445 3,333 478 9,439 3,688 1,108 2,580 339 636 761 1,952 2.56 8,884 84 2,278 234 299 1,610 453 3,418 508 2,779 1,193 104 1,089 29 26 -2 1,140 -.11 2,288 75 -383 133 108 620 27 1,327 381 41.7 47.8 10.4 73.0 9.4 4.3 -.3 140.4 -4.1 34.7 833.3 -14.4 131.7 56.5 62.6 6.3 63.5 300.0 Total Households 2,495 1,004 1,491 Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 800 568 0 60 83 110 71 183 6,660 Ag, Min, Nat Res 648 546 3.00 1,125 285 58 67 113 144 81 376 1 Total Population With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment 552 529 3.03 971 281 57 59 101 548 918 126 146 310 610 763 812 2.67 6,596 9 2,661 101 191 990 426 2,091 127 105 74 294 7,384 2,779 1,077 1,702 295 627 809 1,048 2.66 7,492 17 2,669 125 245 1,194 391 2,556 295 2,550 148 269 1,285 399 2,817 359 8,483 44 2.90 1,413 303 84 90 139 212 94 489 2 71 2,452 224 312 1,597 457 81 ( e n ,, y R ::>r I �1990 1,276 412 176 236 51 94 121 146 3.10 324 176 17 4 4 70 0 53 0 1995 1,363 437 184 253 44 90 132 171 3.12 382 181 16 4 3 89 0 89 0 2000 1,416 455 186 269 38 87 138 192 3.11 540 175 15 4 5 124 0 178 39 2005 1,459 473 183 290 37 86 141 209 3.08 687 169 15 6 7 218 0 224 48 2010 1,495 491 179 312 37 87 141 226 3.04 718 158 15 7 9 234 0 237 58 2015 1,535 511 181 330 38 88 142 243 3.00 724 143 14 8 11 241 0 244 63 2020 1,568 528 185 343 39 90 140 259 2.97 718 126 13 8 13 242 0 250 66 Change 292 116 9 107 -12 -4 19 113 -.13 394 -50 -4 4 9 172 0 197 66 Percent 22.9 SCIO TWP (1990 Boundaries) 1990 9,097 Total Population 3,304 Total Households 1,281 With Children 2,023 Without Children Income Quartile 1 235 Income Quartile 2 550 Income Quartile 3 847 Income Quartile 4 1,672 Persons Per Household 2.75 Total Employment 8,823 Ag, Min, Nat Res 269 Manufacturing 3,258 TCU 382 Wholesale Trade 764 Retail Trade 1,062 FIRE 111 Services 2,818 Pub Administration 159 1995 10,766 3,901 1,511 2,390 225 592 1,155 1,929 2.76 9,214 297 3,853 378 962 1,055 137 2,377 155 2000 12,192 4,455 1,711 2,744 210 662 1,483 2,100 2.74 9,431 293 3,818 409 1,092 1,024 181 2,433 181 2005 13,396 4,903 1,909 2,994 218 829 1,750 2,106 2.73 10,081 280 4,096 487 1,230 1,095 252 2,434 207 2010 14,610 5,368 2,096 3,272 260 956 2,024 2,128 2.72 10,766 288 4,293 542 1,370 1,191 316 2,539 227 2015 15,802 5,848 2,286 3,562 326 1,058 2,278 2,186 2.70 11,056 294 4,258 579 1,440 1,249 373 2,618 245 2020 16,699 6,249 2,432 3,817 395 1,148 Change 7,602 2,945 1,151 1,794 160 598 1,630 557 -.08 2,350 31 869 217 715 229 306 -112 Percent 83.6 89.1 89.9 88.7 68.1 108.7 192.4 33.3 -2.9 26.6 11.5 26.7 56.8 93.6 21.6 275.7 -4.0 95 59.7 SCIO TWP (1995 Boundaries) 1990 Total Population 9,097 Total Households 3,304 With Children 1,281 Without Children 2,023 Income Quartile 1 235 Income Quartile 2 550 Income Quartile 3 847 Income Quartile 4 1,672 Persons Per Household 2.75 Total Employment 8,823 Ag, Min, Nat Res 269 Manufacturing 3,258 TCU 382 Wholesale Trade 764 Retail Trade 1,062 FIRE 111 Services 2,818 Pub Administration 159 1995 10,766 3,901 1,511 2,390 225 592 1,155 1,929 2.76 9,214 297 3,853 378 962 1,055 137 2,377 155 2000 11,917 4,330 1,686 2,644 192 636 1,443 2,059 2.75 9,431 293 3,818 409 1,092 1,024 181 2,433 181 2005 13,051 4,753 1,874 2,879 199 799 1,703 2,052 2.75 10,081 280 4,096 487 1,230 1,095 252 2,434 207 2010 14,260 5,216 2,061 3,155 242 929 1,978 2,067 2.73 10,766 288 4,293 542 1,370 1,191 316 2,539 227 2015 15,453 5,693 2,256 3,437 307 1,029 2,232 2,125 2.71 11,056 294 4,258 579 1,440 1,249 373 2,618 245 2020 16,358 6,094 2,407 3,687 376 1,120 2,430 2,168 2.68 11,173 300 4,127 599 1,479 1,291 417 2,706 254 Change 7,261 2,790 1,126 1,664 141 570 Percent 79.8 SALINE TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 82 2,4n 2,229 2.67 11,173 300 4,127 599 1,479 1,291 417 2,706 254 1,583 496 -.07 2,350 31 869 217 715 229 306 -112 95 28.2 5.1 45.3 -23.5 -4.3 15.7 n.4 -4.1 121.6 -28.4 -23.5 100.0 225.0 245.7 .0 371.7 n/a 84.4 87.9 82.3 60.0 103.6 186.9 29.7 -2.5 26.6 11.5 26.7 56.8 93.6 21.6 275,7 -4.0 59.7 �SHARON TWP 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing 1,366 459 192 267 1,631 545 2020 Change 1,806 604 230 374 34 85 246 239 2.99 462 236 135 Percent 1,979 663 240 423 TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 0 0 20 0 24 2,153 721 252 469 30 102 282 307 2.99 511 196 160 9 0 43 15 72 16 2,341 782 278 504 32 114 299 337 2.99 512 182 162 12 0 45 18 74 19 2,508 835 309 526 34 128 313 360 3.00 515 172 160 15 0 47 21 76 24 1,142 376 117 259 -20 47 145 204 .03 146 -31 38 15 0 27 21 52 24 83.6 81.9 60.9 97.0 -37.0 58.0 86.3 130.8 .9 39.6 -15.3 31 .1 n/a .0 135.0 216.7 n/a 54 81 168 156 2.98 369 203 122 0 218 327 43 84 214 204 2.99 416 242 131 0 0 21 0 22 0 3 0 26 4 45 13 32 92 266 273 2.98 500 210 149 6 0 40 12 69 14 nla 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children 8,720 3,060 1,420 1,640 9,232 3,323 1,419 Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 583 526 917 1,034 2.85 9,433 3,525 1,319 2,206 602 9,530 3,719 1,143 2,576 626 382 1,191 1,520 2.56 9,634 3,916 982 2,934 646 380 1,232 1,658 2.46 6,292 265 107 6,651 273 125 83 47 9,861 4,135 896 3,239 657 410 1,286 1,782 2.38 6,944 282 140 99 63 161 174 5,961 64 10,085 4,328 856 3,472 668 447 1,343 1,870 2.33 7,239 289 151 112 77 166 197 6,180 67 1,365 1,268 -564 1,832 85 -79 426 836 -.52 624 11 68 79 77 15 135 218 21 15.7 41.4 -39.7 111.7 14.6 -15.0 46.5 80.9 -18.2 9.4 4.0 81.9 239.4 n/a 9.9 217.7 3.7 45.7 SUPERIOR TWP Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration SYLVAN TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment 1,904 591 475 1,038 1,219 2.78 5,999 277 424 33 0 151 62 5,962 46 80 37 0 138 68 5,361 38 1,143 1,356 2.68 6,193 275 87 51 17 134 90 5,492 47 1990 1995 2000 6,615 278 83 2,508 818 359 459 50 171 260 337 3.07 2,888 944 400 544 3,088 1,025 406 619 36 178 311 419 3.06 28 178 347 472 3.01 68 32 143 118 5,503 56 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 3,275 1,110 401 709 32 183 3,453 1,196 395 801 40 191 399 566 2.89 1,671 30 3,649 1,286 406 880 51 204 421 610 2.84 1,725 807 6 7 774 5 6 211 32 647 16 3,814 1,362 424 938 64 218 437 643 2.80 1,748 36 733 6 5 221 40 689 18 1,306 544 65 479 14 47 177 306 -.27 841 14 72 -11 -5 171 40 542 18 52.1 66.5 18.1 104.4 28.0 27.5 68.1 90.8 -8.7 92.7 63.6 10.9 -64.7 -50.0 342.0 n/a 368.7 n/a 376 519 2.95 154 146 5,763 60 Ag, Min, Nat Res 907 22 1,047 18 1,333 22 Manufacturing 661 TCU Wholesale Trade 17 10 807 13 8 778 6 5 1,517 26 799 4 7 Retail Trade 50 44 FIRE Services Pub Administration 0 147 0 90 8 166 16 196 24 157 0 416 8 487 12 586 15 0 34 83 l f V n K e 1n ':J( ty R or I �WEBSTER TWP 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 3,235 1,096 460 636 89 181 292 534 2.95 444 74 321 0 4 18 0 27 0 4,141 1,397 583 4,695 1,588 649 939 96 226 433 833 2.96 514 87 315 0 12 35 2 63 0 5,253 1,790 702 1,088 109 256 5,792 1,984 759 1,225 120 295 568 1,001 2.92 6,374 2,186 850 1,336 132 344 652 1,058 2.92 720 814 96 210 374 717 2.96 465 74 335 0 9 18 0 29 0 498 927 2.93 615 101 356 0 15 54 4 682 115 382 0 18 65 128 384 85 6 96 0 0 0 0 22 85 9 109 0 2015 8,245 YORK TWP 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 6,225 1,412 637 6,754 1,652 n5 975 99 233 551 769 4.09 1,315 156 6 14 77 30 50 690 292 7,166 1,835 680 1,155 113 255 635 832 3.91 1,285 166 12 24 93 77 69 549 295 7,506 2,008 649 1,359 133 301 706 868 3.74 1,560 182 43 36 112 157 97 607 7,835 2,183 625 1,558 158 351 783 891 3.59 1,739 195 51 50 129 226 124 622 863 920 3.47 1,883 211 58 63 141 270 151 630 326 342 359 YPSILANTI Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 84 90 206 457 659 4.41 2,364 167 6 15 65 27 48 1,632 404 2,358 949 1,409 142 393 739 1,084 2.92 739 139 375 0 21 76 8 103 Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration an 2020 6,878 2,378 646 1,732 185 410 Change Percent 3,643 1,262 112.6 115.1 106.3 121 .5 59.6 117.1 153.1 103.0 -1.2 66.4 489 773 53 212 447 550 -.03 295 65 54 0 18 67 87.8 16.8 .0 450.0 372.2 9 n/a 82 0 303.7 .0 2020 Change Percent 8,633 2,408 1,142 52 1,090 119 263 475 285 -1 .03 -371 57 58 38.7 80.9 2,554 689 1,865 209 469 932 944 3.38 1,993 8.2 140.6 372 59 84 268 125 -990 -32 132.2 127.7 103.9 43.2 -23.3 -15.7 34.1 966.7 393.3 129.2 992.6 260.4 -60.7 -7.9 224 64 74 149 295 173 642 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 23,646 8,540 2,132 6,408 3,600 2,322 1,333 1,285 2.77 20,586 146 4,381 809 161 2,933 606 10,918 632 2015 2020 Change Percent 24,818 8,548 2,197 6,351 3,472 2,374 1,464 1,238 2.90 19,773 125 4,290 893 172 2,688 661 10,414 530 23,125 22,495 8,431 1,703 6,728 3,750 2,297 1,174 1,210 2.67 19,594 138 3,506 648 164 2,917 22,117 21,927 8,514 1,453 7,061 3,943 2,366 1,104 1,101 2.58 17,581 143 2,988 524 157 2,675 509 10,018 21,770 8,605 1,409 7,196 4,072 2,406 1,073 1,054 2.53 -3,048 57 -788 845 600 32 -391 -184 -.37 -12.3 .7 16,857 143 2,715 471 149 2,566 491 9,781 541 -2,916 18 -26.7 -14.9 -12.9 -14.7 14.4 -1,575 -422 -23 -122 -170 -633 11 -36.7 -47.3 -13.4 -4.5 -25.7 -6.1 2.1 8,498 1,956 6,542 3,712 2,267 1,214 1,305 2.72 20,285 148 3,807 730 155 2,904 564 11,310 667 546 11,053 622 8,432 1,537 6,895 3,825 2,323 1,132 1,152 2.62 18,612 141 3,292 584 165 2,818 527 10,495 590 567 -35.9 13.3 17.3 1.3 �YPSILANTI TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration WASHTENAW COUNTY Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 45,335 17,663 6,655 11,008 3,786 5,282 4,867 3,728 2 .57 21,970 152 11,528 1,911 729 2,404 2015 47,664 18,828 6,861 11,967 3,928 5,802 5,168 3,930 2.53 18,561 137 6,980 1,515 770 2,854 647 5,467 191 2020 Change 48,685 19,442 6,879 12,563 3,953 6,160 5,348 3,981 2.50 19,567 147 6,504 1,317 883 3,261 758 6,460 Percent 50,032 20,069 6,860 13,209 3,994 6,366 5,588 4,121 2.49 21,173 170 6,401 1,184 1,042 3,838 237 259 51,729 20,779 6,975 13,804 4,022 6,595 5,873 4,289 2.49 22,262 174 6,214 1,040 1,194 4,386 1,035 7,940 279 53,958 21,708 7,291 14,417 4,114 6,890 6,201 4,503 2.49 22,897 178 5,826 927 1,299 4,791 1,151 8,426 299 56,044 22,585 7,659 14,926 4,213 7,153 6,510 4,709 2.48 23,359 182 5,413 838 1,370 5,106 1,233 8,908 309 10,709 4,922 1,004 3,918 427 1,871 1,643 981 -.09 1,389 30 -6, 115 -1,073 641 2,702 677 4,367 160 23.6 27.9 15.1 35.6 11.3 35.4 33.8 26.3 -3.3 6.3 19.7 -53.0 -56.1 87.9 112.4 121.8 96.2 107.4 556 4,541 149 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 282,934 300,489 112,613 35,696 76,917 23,541 27,478 313,130 118,626 36,463 82,163 24,098 27,858 325,599 124,559 36,587 30,217 36,453 2.64 242,770 4,582 31,697 6,091 6,892 35,661 14,297 137,824 5,726 340,274 130,880 37,454 93,426 24,914 29,546 34,310 42,110 2.60 258,184 4,489 32,177 6,281 7,995 39,082 15,693 146,131 6,336 357,443 138,026 39,741 98,285 25,571 30,669 36,481 45,305 2.59 258,962 4,501 30,727 6,336 8,090 39,220 16,286 147,245 6,557 373,362 144,617 42,563 102,054 26,294 31,696 38,435 48,192 2.58 260,270 4,513 28,982 6,347 8,089 39,277 16,597 149,757 6,708 90,428 40,071 9,180 30,891 3,285 4,803 12,627 19,356 -.12 46,375 -37 -8,381 -565 1,912 6,111 5,627 39,549 2,159 32.0 38.3 27.5 43.4 14.3 17.9 48.9 67.1 -4.6 21.7 -.8 -22.4 -8.2 31.0 18.4 51.3 35.9 47.5 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 30,011 12,087 3,191 29,150 11,990 2,831 9,159 2,355 3,841 3,790 2,004 2.43 14,568 122 3,823 1,584 110 1,127 490 28,945 12,028 2,781 9,247 7,090 222 28,823 12,093 2,782 9,311 2,565 3,946 3,742 1,840 2.38 13,675 127 3,279 1,572 97 1,018 480 6,901 201 -2,344 25 -759 784 667 736 -26 -1,352 -.20 -2,868 -9 -1,087 253 -288 -1,474 -162 -10 -91 -7.5 .2 -21.4 9.2 35.1 22.9 -.7 -42.4 -7.7 -17.3 -6.6 -24.9 19.2 -74.8 -59.1 -25.2 -.1 -31.2 104,546 33,383 71,163 23,009 26,893 25,808 28,836 2.71 TCU Wholesale Trade 213,895 4,550 37,363 6,912 6,177 Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 33,166 10,970 110,208 4,549 28,335 33,259 2.67 228,331 4,663 33,737 6,377 6,529 34,737 13,171 123,975 5,142 1990 1995 Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing 903 7,376 87,972 24,570 28,651 32,269 39,069 2.61 252,759 4,458 32,232 6,196 7,554 37,864 14,899 143,483 6,073 WAYNE COUNTY ALLEN PARK 15,389 117 8,896 2,098 3,776 3,896 2,317 2.48 15,121 113 4,447 1,402 111 4,152 1,513 99 1,561 512 6,977 262 1,289 489 29,514 12,015 2,985 9,030 2,243 3,798 3,837 2,137 2.46 14,949 118 3,996 1,539 115 1,181 492 7,216 250 7,270 238 Total Population 31,167 30,900 Total Households 12,068 3,541 8,527 12,210 3,418 8,792 2,012 3,614 3,874 2,710 2.53 With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1,898 3,210 3,768 3,192 2.58 16,543 136 4,366 1,319 385 2,492 642 6,911 292 2,464, 3,896 3,760 1,908 2.41 14,071 125 3,546 1,593 103 1,065 487 6,940 212 85 ; 1 ,f y n K te m er ,ty :R tor �1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 3,972 1,922 4TT 1,445 561 682 455 224 2.07 4,474 116 616 233 432 527 184 2,308 58 4,158 1,996 519 1,477 584 724 464 224 2.08 4,846 106 640 259 487 575 202 2,515 62 4,275 2,041 560 1,481 597 753 468 223 2.09 5,143 94 632 285 541 607 216 2,702 66 4,343 2,068 596 1,472 606 773 471 218 2.10 5,381 83 608 299 596 628 222 2,876 69 BELLEVILLE Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 3,285 1,541 371 1,170 399 475 400 267 2.13 3,498 104 443 153 252 744 185 1,551 66 BROWNSTOWN TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 18,811 6,414 3,269 3,145 1,286 1,565 1,751 1,812 2.93 3,992 195 1,043 363 314 599 220 1,226 32 19,939 6,797 3,415 3,382 1,370 1,560 1,724 2,143 2.93 5,471 253 1,089 716 493 884 217 1,787 32 21,794 7,438 3,596 3,842 1,408 1,652 1,764 2,614 2.93 7,085 257 1,132 865 595 1,020 259 2,905 52 22,574 7,750 3,524 4,226 1,321 1,747 1,791 2,891 2.91 8,469 256 1,167 1,015 704 1,269 331 3,658 69 23,412 8,100 3,470 4,630 1,255 1,828 1,836 3,181 2.89 9,164 274 1,185 1,160 800 1,381 380 3,911 73 24,382 8,484 3,529 4,955 1,192 1,907 1,902 3,483 2.87 9,730 292 1,159 1,289 858 1,461 429 4,165 25,388 8,867 3,658 5,209 1,128 1,986 1,987 3,766 2.86 10,162 309 1,122 1,373 893 1,520 465 4,402 78 CANTON TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 57,040 19,536 9,680 9,856 2,292 4,058 5,903 7,283 2.92 14,229 98 1,650 482 1,338 5,244 632 4,410 375 2010 65,978 22,591 10,985 11,606 2,427 4,610 6,627 8,927 2.92 17,508 126 2,370 618 1,409 6,262 766 5,537 420 2015 2020 71,656 24,873 11,500 13,373 2,526 5,103 7,138 10,106 2.88 21,091 155 2,968 854 1,611 7,002 1,002 6,971 528 TT,892 27,222 12,061 15,161 2,643 5,594 7,743 11,242 2.86 24,574 193 3,573 970 1,910 7,833 1,246 8,237 612 84,377 29,554 12,830 16,724 2,760 6,005 8,271 12,518 2.86 27,206 199 4,072 1,114 2,195 8,378 1,491 9,121 636 91,055 31,909 13,931 17,978 2,885 6,397 8,784 13,843 2.85 29,129 204 4,340 1,235 2,378 8,684 1,725 9,900 663 97,206 34,072 15,136 18,936 3,004 6,738 9,250 15,080 2.85 30,565 207 4,443 1,302 2,498 8,892 1,909 10,643 671 3,269 1,579 361 1,218 438 520 393 228 2.07 3,730 119 508 184 351 425 151 1,940 52 3,690 1,798 426 1,372 520 625 434 219 2.05 4,064 111 561 208 379 472 162 2,116 55 n Chang 1,058 527 225 302 207 298 71 -49 -.03 1,883 -21 165 146 -116 37 1,325 3 Percent 32.2 34.2 60.6 25.8 51.9 62.7 17.8 -18.4 -1.5 53.8 -20.2 37.2 95.4 136.5 -15.6 20.0 85.4 4.5 Change 6,5TT 2,453 389 2,064 -158 421 236 1,954 -.07 6,170 114 79 1,010 579 921 245 3,176 46 Percent 35.0 38.2 11 .9 65.6 -12.3 26.9 13.5 107.8 -2.4 154.6 58.5 7.6 278.2 184.4 153.8 111.4 259.1 143.8 Change 40,166 14,536 5,456 9,080 712 2,680 3,347 7,797 -.07 Percent 70.4 74.4 56.4 92.1 344 16,336 109 2,793 820 1,160 3,648 1,277 6,233 296 31.1 66.0 56.7 107.1 -2.3 114.8 111.2 169.3 170.1 86.7 69.6 202.1 141.3 78,9 86 d �DEARBORN Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 89,286 35,444 9,968 25,476 8,353 9,226 9,013 8,852 2 .52 101,444 267 36,042 5,676 2,850 16,592 7,931 31,032 1,054 91,074 35,913 10,495 25,418 8,581 9,630 9,416 8,286 2.54 110,269 290 42,072 4,645 3,734 15,731 7,399 35,295 1,103 2020 Change 90,929 35,916 10,588 25,328 8,762 9,859 9,610 7,685 2.53 113,846 301 42,568 4,338 4,094 14,247 7,448 39,700 1,150 Percent 90,816 35,964 10,472 25,492 9,088 9,946 9,702 7,228 2.53 113,421 309 41,012 4,187 4,507 13,425 7,286 41,548 1,147 91,331 36,163 10,559 25,604 9,443 10,041 9,792 6,887 2.53 111,413 314 39,562 4,082 4,847 12,797 7,167 41,518 1,126 92,073 36,507 10,863 25,644 9,818 10,176 9,880 6,633 2.52 108,311 319 37,106 4,034 5,009 12,102 7,084 41,531 1,126 92,738 36,876 11,215 25,661 10,153 10,310 9,965 6,448 2.51 105,538 325 34,536 4,005 5,080 11,568 6,949 41,971 1,104 3,452 1,432 1,247 185 1,800 1,084 952 -2,404 .00 4,094 58 -1,506 -1,671 2,230 -5,024 -982 10,939 50 3.9 4.0 12.5 .7 21.5 11.7 10.6 -27.2 -.2 4.0 21.7 -4.2 -29.4 78.2 -30.3 -12.4 35.3 4.7 DEARBORN HEIGHTS 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade 60,850 23,441 6,727 16,714 58,834 23,523 6,037 17,486 57,159 23,572 5,490 18,082 4,566 6,342 6,520 6,013 2.60 16,788 147 3,109 513 538 4,947 750 6,241 543 5,005 6,881 6,319 5,318 2.50 16,874 204 2,909 674 443 4,852 860 6,393 539 5,383 7,307 6,098 4,784 2.42 17,027 232 2,741 631 417 4,608 1,041 6,798 559 55,671 23,561 4,927 18,634 5,767 7,545 5,915 4,334 2.36 17,563 248 2,778 651 447 4,599 1,202 7,085 553 54,610 23,625 4,531 19,094 6,121 7,832 5,696 3,976 2.31 17,671 271 2,680 688 450 4,579 1,400 7,061 542 53,817 23,769 4,324 19,445 6,462 8,105 5,522 3,680 2.26 17,521 291 2,491 708 438 4,472 1,576 7,009 536 53,443 24,037 4,238 19,799 6,795 8,361 5,409 3,472 2.22 17,379 306 2,300 711 424 4,378 1,704 7,035 521 -7,407 596 -2,489 3,085 2,229 2,019 -1,111 -2,541 -.37 591 159 -809 198 -114 -569 954 794 -22 -12.2 2.5 -37.0 18.5 48.8 31.8 -17.0 -42.3 -14.4 3.5 108.2 -26.0 38.6 -21.2 -11.5 127.2' 12.7 -4.1 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 992,291 360,4TT 150,926 209,551 180,482 89,246 56,663 34,086 2.75 952,023 349,288 145,954 203,334 182,622 84,373 51,975 30,318 2.73 915,952 339,923 137,457 202,466 181,205 81,003 49,148 28,567 2.69 383,716 2,242 55,701 26,945 18,551 45,398 27,521 182,465 24,893 368,879 2,236 50,595 24,513 17,663 42,660 22,302 186,799 22,111 357,343 2,253 48,233 22,916 16,663 40,603 19,167 185,814 21,694 884,345 332,531 129,916 202,615 180,707 TT,836 46,696 27,292 2.66 348,206 2,291 46,380 22,179 15,729 38,995 17,889 183,115 21,628 858,648 327,215 125,251 201,964 180,620 75,432 44,877 26,286 2.62 341,745 2,360 44,021 21,764 14,800 37,737 17,434 181,898 21,731 837,294 322,892 122,197 200,695 179,857 73,836 43,665 25,534 2.59 337,352 2,401 41,401 21,425 14,025 36,801 16,937 182,628 21,734 -190,685 -51,106 -28,135 -22,971 5,517 -22,207 -19,915 -14,501 -.16 -75,138 194 -21,970 -9,899 -6,352 -12,703 -15,824 -2,337 -6,247 -18.5 -13.7 -18.7 -10.3 3.2 -23.1 -31.3 -36.2 -5.7 -18.2 8.8 -34.7 -31.6 -31.2 -25.7 -48.3 -1.3 -22.3 Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration DETROIT Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturlng TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1,027,979 373,998 150,332 223,666 174,340 96,043 63,580 40,035 2.75 412,490 2,207 63,371 31,324 20,377 49,504 32,761 184,965 27,981 87 ) IE 11 =I tc �ECORSE Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 12,180 4,576 1,717 2,859 2,127 1,141 792 516 2.66 5,898 11,738 4,495 1,717 2,778 2,355 1,077 675 388 2.61 5,612 11,132 4,392 1,617 2,775 2,500 1,007 585 300 2.53 5,256 33 3,113 185 404 502 134 806 79 10,680 4,296 1,508 2,788 2,547 950 535 264 2.49 5,020 32 2,765 172 413 572 148 847 71 10,359 4,251 1,413 2,838 2,588 909 510 244 2.44 4,749 32 2,464 159 409 627 159 837 62 10,116 4,240 1,350 2,890 2,638 880 490 232 2.39 4,462 32 2,167 147 394 663 170 832 57 9,908 4,241 1,299 2,942 2,682 861 473 225 2.34 4,212 32 1,918 135 378 688 175 833 53 -2,272 -335 -418 83 555 -280 -319 -291 -.33 -1,686 -2 -1,955 -65 -26 266 103 -55 -18.7 -7.3 -24.3 2.9 26.1 -24.5 -40.3 -56.4 -12.2 -28.6 -5.9 -50.5 -32.5 -6.4 63.0 37.8 14.1 -50.9 34 34 3,873 200 404 422 127 730 108 3,540 191 405 478 123 753 88 48 FLAT ROCK 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 7,290 2,670 1,178 1,492 710 605 751 604 2.73 6,853 0 3,747 418 138 1,275 191 985 99 7,810 2,887 1,273 1,614 823 604 778 682 2.71 7,919 0 4,327 447 141 1,531 199 1,173 101 7,932 2,995 1,275 1,720 923 580 785 707 2.65 8,682 10 4,356 624 160 1,636 233 1,549 114 7,984 3,075 1,241 1,834 969 601 809 696 2.60 9,524 17 4,417 798 185 1,844 275 1,860 128 7,988 3,149 1,195 1,954 1,025 616 830 678 2.54 10,014 23 4,389 960 206 1,994 308 1,997 137 8,032 3,236 1,179 2,057 1,087 632 848 669 2.48 10,214 30 4,187 1,071 221 2,085 337 2,137 146 8,083 3,321 1,176 2,145 1,150 647 859 665 2.43 10,252 37 3,929 1,134 231 2,146 357 2,267 151 793 651 -2 653 42 108 61 -.30 3,399 37 182 716 93 871 166 1,282 52 10.9 24.4 -.2 43.8 62.0 6.9 14.4 10.1 -10.9 49.6 4.9 171.3 67.4 68.3 86.9 130.2 52.5 GARDEN CITY Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 88 440 n/a 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 31,074 11,324 3,821 7,503 1,890 3,320 4,069 2,045 2.74 11,920 131 840 112 351 3,264 312 6,709 201 2015 Change 30,111 11,344 3,437 7,907 1,991 3,553 4,079 1,721 2.65 13,121 135 875 104 404 3,329 320 7,743 211 2020 Percent 31,846 11,204 4,192 7,012 1,795 2,988 3,965 2,456 2.84 10,390 120 737 139 281 2,908 359 5,648 198 29,572 11,388 3,141 8,247 2,217 3,621 3,947 1,603 2.60 13,789 138 978 99 463 3,487 338 8.075 211 28,938 11,436 2,857 8,579 2,437 3,727 3,804 1,468 2.53 13,969 142 1,020 90 504 3,523 344 8,140 206 28,502 11,532 2,701 8,831 2,644 3,828 3,696 1,364 2.47 13,915 145 1,003 81 521 3,469 348 8,145 203 28,318 11,693 2,632 9,061 2,840 3,928 3,632 1,293 2.42 13,840 148 966 74 528 3,420 348 8,159 -3,528 489 -1,560 2,049 1,045 940 -333 -1, 163 -.42 3,450 -11.1 4.4 -37.2 29.2 58.2 31.5 -8.4 -47.4 -14.8 33.2 28 23.3 31.1 -46.8 87.9 17.6 -3.1 44.5 197 229 -65 247 512 -11 2,511 -1 -.5 �GIBRALTAR Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 4,297 1,576 590 986 199 402 526 449 2.73 988 11 192 116 89 117 15 416 32 2015 4,238 1,605 528 1,on 194 412 555 444 2.64 975 12 118 138 88 122 12 467 18 2020 4,196 1,638 469 1,169 186 421 583 448 2.56 1,101 14 96 149 94 131 14 581 4,179 1,679 410 1,269 175 440 626 438 2.49 1,199 16 84 159 103 155 18 639 25 4,225 1,736 376 1,360 170 4,300 1,796 364 1,432 165 487 709 435 2.39 1,285 21 79 169 109 169 27 686 25 4,409 1,861 367 1,494 160 507 743 451 2.37 1,316 24 GROSSE ILE TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 9,781 3,505 1,335 2,170 232 438 938 1,897 2.79 1,759 36 185 58 18 322 114 969 57 10,776 3,918 1,408 2,510 220 473 1,190 2,035 2.75 1,948 32 59 64 17 437 32 1,244 63 11,320 4,176 1,422 2,754 200 489 1,427 2,060 2.71 2,465 48 68 87 29 482 51 1,617 83 11,882 4,456 1,421 3,035 200 521 1,759 1,976 2.67 2,774 67 79 112 41 547 75 1,757 96 12,636 4,791 1,494 3,297 230 567 2,120 1,874 2.64 2,988 89 98 139 53 589 102 1,823 95 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 5,711 2,400 663 1,737 166 473 379 1,382 2.38 7,473 85 17 104 61 1,432 456 5,259 59 5,665 2,411 624 1,787 165 507 358 1,381 2.35 7,647 87 15 111 61 1,425 468 5,4 9 61 5,652 5,657 2,436 631 1,805 165 561 309 1,401 2.32 7,766 89 11 111 53 1,347 475 5,620 60 GROSSE POINTE Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 5,681 2,391 696 1,695 235 427 464 1,265 2.38 5,862 74 109 80 49 1,330 444 3,696 80 5,732 2,388 707 1,681 197 427 436 1,328 2.40 6,557 83 19 89 56 1,363 421 4,446 80 22 5,745 2,391 701 1,690 177 436 403 1,375 2.40 7,061 85 16 97 56 1,381 444 4,914 68 464 670 432 2.43 1,252 18 82 166 109 164 22 666 25 167 108 173 32 710 25 Change 112 285 -223 508 -39 105 217 2 -.36 328 13 -115 51 19 56 17 294 -7 Percent 2.6 18.1 -37.8 51.5 -19.6 26.1 41.3 .4 -13.1 33.2 118.2 -59.9 44.0 21.3 47.9 113.3 70.7 -21.9 2015 2020 Change 13,408 5,118 1,624 3,494 265 608 2,455 1,790 2.62 3,162 110 114 163 65 614 129 1,872 95 14,245 5,460 1,793 3,667 311 655 2,755 1,739 2.61 3,341 131 132 186 78 635 157 1,929 93 4,464 1,955 458 1,497 79 217 1,817 -158 -.18 1,582 95 -53 128 60 313 43 960 36 Percent 45.6 55.8 34.3 69.0 34.1 49.5 193.7 -8.3 -6.5 89.9 263.9 -28.6 220.7 333.3 97.2 37.7 99.1 63.2 Change -24 45 -65 110 -70 134 -155 136 -.05 1,904 15 -98 31 4 17 31 1,924 -20 Percent -.4 1.9 -9.3 6.5 -29.8 31.4 -33.4 10.8 -2.3 32.5 20.3 -89.9 38.8 8.2 1.3 7.0 52.1 -25.0 2,424 619 1,805 164 538 335 1,387 2.33 7,685 88 12 113 57 1,382 473 5,497 63 n 89 II C t, )i JI ,t, 0 }6 nt El ;tc �GROSSE PTE FARMS Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 10,092 3,838 1,252 2,586 279 599 674 2,286 2.63 5,501 59 93 150 170 1,083 409 3,471 66 10,093 3,861 1,219 2,642 244 625 653 2,339 2.61 6,043 63 110 165 183 1,131 389 3,945 57 9,965 3,866 1,155 2,711 217 667 628 2,354 2.58 6,659 60 101 198 185 1,146 408 4,508 53 9,762 3,882 1,034 9,539 3,900 922 2,978 210 792 645 2,253 2.45 9,231 3,944 835 3,109 230 901 665 -861 106 -417 523 -49 302 -9 -8.5 2,148 2.34 -138 7,186 9,372 3,922 865 3,057 219 849 657 2,197 2.39 7,209 57 106 223 200 1,176 428 4,945 51 101 228 194 1,136 431 5,009 52 GROSSE PTE PK Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 12,852 4,843 1,722 3,121 739 794 1,016 2,294 2.65 2,216 24 96 29 98 433 203 1,233 100 12,902 4,866 1,692 3,174 689 738 1,077 2,362 2.65 2,790 27 95 58 75 561 200 1,714 60 12,858 4,877 1,652 3,225 666 683 1,142 2,386 2.64 3,379 26 80 68 75 569 210 2,301 50 12,710 4,897 1,532 3,365 656 640 1,228 2,373 2.60 3,551 24 87 72 78 589 214 2,445 42 12,531 4,920 1,424 3,496 676 597 1,313 2,334 2.55 3,613 25 78 77 78 585 218 2,509 GROSSE PTE SHR (PT) Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 90 2,848 206 732 630 2,314 2.51 7,040 56 107 211 199 1,187 418 4,812 50 43 2.8 56 1,641 -10 -33.3 20.2 -17.6 50.4 -1 .3 -6.0 -11.0 32.2 .0 3.2 54.0 10.0 1.8 4.4 47.3 -15.2 2015 2020 Change Percent 12,418 12,340 4,974 1,3n 3,597 708 529 1,459 -512 58 4,947 1,383 3,564 694 560 1,390 2,303 2.51 3,617 25 67 80 76 565 220 2,540 44 7,271 59 96 231 187 1,103 427 5,112 -.29 1,no 0 3 81 17 20 18 2,590 117 15 1,357 42 -58 -4.0 2.7 -20.0 15.3 -4.2 -33.4 43.6 -.7 -6.5 64.0 4.2 -41 .7 175.9 -24.5 27.0 7.4 110.1 -58.0 2,278 2.48 3,635 25 56 80 74 550 218 131 -345 476 -31 -265 443 -16 -.17 1,419 1 -40 51 -24 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2,810 1,014 234 780 79 40 83 812 2.77 481 0 17 8 11 0 42 343 60 2015 Change 2,728 1,016 183 833 80 36 62 838 2.69 531 0 17 7 19 0 44 381 63 2020 Percent 2,850 1,009 275 734 82 42 102 783 2.82 429 0 21 9 10 17 42 288 42 2,629 1,020 128 892 80 32 45 863 2.58 562 0 22 6 25 0 45 404 60 2,538 1,025 86 939 82 28 32 883 2.48 572 0 22 5 27 0 46 415 57 2,468 1,030 66 964 2,405 1,035 -445 26 -221 247 5 -16 -15.6 2.6 -80.4 33.7 6.1 -38.1 -80.4 15.2 -17.7 84 27 25 894 2.40 573 0 21 4 27 0 47 420 54 54 981 87 26 20 902 2.32 575 0 20 3 26 0 47 -82 119 -.50 146 0 428 -1 -6 16 -17 5 140 51 9 34.0 .0 -4.8 -66.7 160.0 -100.0 11 .9 48.6 21.4 �GROSSE PTE WOODS Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration HAMTRAMCK Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 17,715 6,557 2020 17,621 6,587 Change Percent 17,217 6,622 2,083 4,504 16,974 6,652 1,756 4,896 613 1,154 1,603 3,187 2.70 5,806 26 201 76 98 1,708 563 1,163 1,709 3,152 2.68 5,784 196 64 133 1,315 543 1,185 1,788 3,082 2.64 6,161 24 202 64 138 1,186 16,810 6,686 1,703 4,983 621 1,349 1,991 2,725 2.51 6,513 33 235 16,707 6,722 2,119 4,438 17,431 6,598 2,019 4,579 679 2,869 149 650 3,263 141 688 3,710 149 1,695 5,027 646 1,388 2,040 2,648 2.49 6,530 35 225 53 185 873 763 4,251 145 -1,008 165 -424 589 33 234 437 -539 -.22 724 9 24 -23 87 -835 84 1,382 -4 -5.7 2.5 -20.0 13.3 5.4 20.3 27.3 -16.9 -8.0 12.5 34.6 11.9 -30.3 88.8 -48.9 12.4 48.2 -2.7 22 1,890 4,732 563 1,250 1,842 2,967 2.60 6,445 30 233 63 164 1,129 705 3,973 148 593 1,303 1,928 2,828 2.55 6,530 32 241 60 179 1,034 737 4,099 148 56 183 940 756 4,162 148 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 18,372 7,908 2,183 5,725 4,017 2,265 1,079 547 2.32 7,723 40 2,490 18,166 7,810 2,252 17,601 7,607 2,214 5,393 4,174 2,214 228 582 1,839 331 1,849 267 550 1,801 312 2,313 800 419 2.31 7,853 43 1,608 298 512 1,684 323 2,762 16,980 7,424 2,033 5,391 4,077 2,172 773 402 2.29 7,948 47 1,498 364 589 623 646 16,502 7,312 1,870 5,442 3,982 2,173 763 394 2.26 7,796 49 1,352 302 459 1,507 337 3,140 650 16,184 7,271 1,772 5,499 3,942 2,186 756 387 2.23 7,576 50 1,192 297 416 1,391 340 3,234 656 15,964 7,276 1,712 5,564 3,939 2,203 752 382 2.19 7,401 51 1,058 288 381 1,304 338 3,334 647 -2,408 -632 -471 -161 -78 -62 -327 -165 -.13 -322 11 -1,432 60 -201 -535 7 1,485 283 -13.1 -8.0 -21.6 -2.8 -1.9 -2.7 -30.3 -30.2 -5.6 -4.2 27.5 -57.5 26.3 -34.5 -29.1 2.1 80.3 77.7 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 14,311 6,591 1,368 5,223 1,728 2,099 1,773 991 2.17 5,485 35 178 157 268 1,906 264 2,498 179 14,242 6,624 1,377 5,247 1,774 2,126 1,761 963 2.15 5,361 37 172 152 263 1,790 261 2,508 178 -661 51 -116 167 254 221 -30 -394 -.12 -683 17 27 2 40 -971 -62 273 -9 -4.4 .8 -7.8 3.3 16.7 11.6 -1 .7 -29.0 -5.2 -11.3 85.0 18.6 1.3 17.9 -35.2 -19.2 12.2 -4.8 5,558 4,144 2,257 928 481 2.33 7,703 40 1,831 300 496 1,620 331 3,010 ti 1990 1995 2000 2005 14,903 6,573 1,493 5,080 14,878 6,587 1,524 5,063 14,731 6,590 1,508 5,082 1,520 1,905 1,538 1,971 1,578 2,028 14,568 6,582 1,435 5,147 1,641 2,046 1,791 1,357 2.27 1,833 1,245 2.26 1,856 1,128 2.24 1,821 1,074 2.21 14,413 6,571 1,381 5,190 1,682 2,069 1,792 1,028 2.19 Ag, Min, Nat Res 6,044 20 5,819 24 Manufacturing 145 5,913 21 141 158 164 240 5,805 29 174 162 260 5,667 32 181 161 270 2,351 266 2,216 264 2,444 184 2,528 172 2,064 265 2,518 176 HARPER WOODS Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade 150 223 2,761 FIRE Services Pub Administration 323 232 2,600 274 2,235 187 2,303 184 146 91 T ~ ,r 0 t) ]I J~ ,tt 01 1e nt: EF ;to I �HIGHLAND PARK Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 20,121 8,041 2,875 5,166 5,129 1,588 912 412 2.50 14,905 0 7,226 325 1,214 1,470 161 4,120 389 1995 19,158 7,911 2,719 5,192 5,468 1,399 763 281 2.42 7,714 0 1,253 253 1,506 1,253 141 3,105 203 2000 18,118 7,742 2,528 5,214 5,650 1,230 642 220 2.34 6,732 1 699 225 1,695 1,172 144 2,669 127 2005 16,964 7,549 2,200 5,349 5,598 1,155 586 210 2.25 6,508 1 676 203 1,859 1,145 154 2,381 89 2010 16,295 7,413 2,048 5,365 5,590 1,086 545 192 2.20 6,443 1 654 1n 2,019 1,088 161 2,258 85 2015 15,849 7,366 1,953 5,413 5,629 1,042 516 179 2.15 6,304 1 623 156 2,090 1,021 166 2,164 83 2020 15,578 7,396 1,894 5,502 5,715 1,015 496 170 2.11 6,188 1 593 140 2,119 969 169 2,116 HURON TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 10,447 3,511 1,438 2,073 485 910 1,067 1,049 2.98 1,554 244 78 62 111 183 80 714 82 1995 12,423 4,182 1,691 2,491 526 1,148 1,269 1,239 2.97 2,033 279 205 204 239 214 90 766 36 2000 13,656 4,624 1,838 2,786 561 1,336 1,392 1,335 2.95 2,584 308 284 332 318 268 127 917 30 2005 14,843 5,065 1,952 3,113 635 1,532 1,517 1,381 2.93 3,192 342 345 459 400 357 179 1,081 29 2010 15,926 5,474 2,067 3,407 720 1,722 1,614 1,418 2.91 3,609 358 398 506 493 427 232 1,165 30 2015 16,959 5,874 2,231 3,643 811 1,915 1,719 1,429 2.89 3,972 372 459 533 576 484 287 1,229 32 2020 17,824 6,223 2,405 3,818 899 2,091 1,819 1,414 2.86 INKSTER Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 30,772 11,196 4,472 6,724 4,157 3,050 2,517 1,472 2.75 5,740 83 957 270 126 1,082 199 2,561 462 1995 30,031 11,248 4,300 6,948 4,626 2,943 2,472 1,207 2.67 6,176 83 1,393 249 152 1,256 198 2,189 656 2000 28,752 11,151 3,966 7,185 4,946 2,808 2,397 1,000 2.58 6,341 88 1,580 248 175 1,301 227 2,054 668 2005 27,512 11,052 3,528 7,524 5,141 2,749 2,241 921 2.49 6,557 96 1,648 243 205 1,450 258 1,996 661 2010 26,386 11,026 3,100 7,926 5,366 2,689 2,121 850 2.39 6,652 100 1,692 234 217 1,545 285 1,930 649 2015 25,610 11,080 2,827 8,253 5,608 2,653 2,023 796 2.31 6,659 105 1,676 225 221 1,596 310 1,880 646 2020 25,276 11,253 2,670 8,583 5,877 2,650 1,963 763 2.25 6,582 108 1,588 214 221 1,629 326 1,864 632 92 81 4,248 382 497 533 648 528 337 1,291 32 Change Percent -4,543 -645 -981 336 586 -573 -416 -242 -.40 -8,717 1 -6,633 -185 905 -501 8 -2,004 -308 -22.6 -8.0 -34.1 6.5 11.4 -36.1 -45.6 -58.7 -15.8 -58.5 Change Percent 7,377 2,712 967 1,745 70.6 77.2 67.2 84.2 85.4 129.8 70.5 34.8 -3.7 173.4 56.6 537.2 759.7 483.8 188.5 321 .3 414 1,181 752 365 -.11 2,694 138 419 471 537 345 257 577 -50 n/a -91.8 -56.9 74.5 -34.1 5.0 -48.6 -79.2 80.8 -61.0 Change Percent -5,496 57 -1,802 1,859 1,720 -400 -17.9 .5 -40.3 27.6 41.4 -13.1 -22.0 -48.2 -18.3 14.7 30.1 65.9 -20.7 75.4 50,6 63,8 -27.2 36.8 -554 -709 -.50 842 25 631 -56 95 547 127 -697 170 �LINCOLN PARK Total Population Total Households With Children 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 41,822 16,247 2020 Change 41,298 16,286 Percent 40,388 16,232 5,434 Without Children 10,813 5,410 10,876 5,239 10,993 39,727 16,178 4,984 11,194 39,151 16,175 4,748 11,427 38,693 16,230 4,623 11,607 38,328 16,327 4,551 11,776 Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 4,168 5,112 4,285 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household 2,682 2.57 4,624 5,351 4,087 2,224 Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing 12,380 20 5,023 5,480 3,855 1,874 2.49 11,938 5,317 5,430 3,664 1,767 2.46 12,246 24 600 5,590 5,409 3,512 1,664 2.42 12,144 24 6,104 5,435 3,306 1,482 2.35 11,731 23 451 -8.4 .5 -16.2 8.9 46.4 6.3 -22.8 TCU Wholesale Trade 633 399 4,670 -8.8 -5.2 15.0 -48.0 -63.0 34.8 25.3 41.3 -26.2 -2.7 FIRE 400 396 5,271 417 Services 5,015 4,366 4,283 567 4,250 577 4,003 574 3,806 565 3,702 Pub Administration 375 377 385 384 377 375 365 -3,494 80 -883 963 1,936 323 -979 -1,200 -.23 -649 3 -417 -399 139 1,183 165 -1,313 -10 Retail Trade LIVONIA Total Population Total Households 868 2.54 11,925 18 713 367 20 616 442 5,408 284 500 251 487 5,683 555 226 524 5,858 5,852 5,414 3,393 1,571 2.38 11,906 23 499 223 536 5,870 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 100,850 100,586 99,562 98,562 97,393 39,716 8,483 96,551 96,344 40,985 7,937 -4,506 -4.5 14.1 35,931 12,557 37,227 11,598 38,259 10,473 39,153 9,298 23,374 25,629 27,786 29,855 31,233 Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 4,155 4,655 7,033 5,247 8,502 5,957 9,211 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment 10,815 13,928 7,825 11,326 13,421 11,678 12,832 2.60 11,935 12,050 2.52 111,613 998 15,062 6,639 9,755 12,084 11,238 2.45 112,195 1,001 13,523 5,438 With Children Without Children 234 538 5,853 -44.7 40,281 8,082 32,199 7,281 10,238 12,192 10,570 2.40 111,182 1,002 11,947 5,221 12,451 5,054 -4,620 9,674 1,359 3,739 3,634 1,496 -3,815 -.46 17,105 84 -12,351 -643 4,306 3,982 6,596 14,894 237 ·36.8 41.4 90.0 51.7 13.8 -27.4 -16.2 18.4 9.1 -53.7 -11.4 53.0 21.3 84.0 53.6 21.1 33,048 7,894 10,667 12,311 10,113 2.35 110,240 1,003 10,551 4,979 12,438 22,687 14,449 42,674 2.81 2.70 Ag, Min, Nat Res 93,135 919 100,267 1,045 Manufacturing 23,002 18,792 107,438 1,045 16,409 TCU Wholesale Trade 5,622 5,236 9,648 10,678 5,546 11,604 5,417 12,283 Retail Trade 18,705 7,853 27,780 20,862 10,853 32,566 21,873 13,063 37,573 23,023 13,762 40,216 23,269 14,163 41,144 1,122 1,265 1,359 1,402 1,395 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 9,820 4,424 9,572 4,405 1,200 3,205 1,749 9,575 9,731 4,574 1,207 3,367 -1,408 -65 -257 192 432 270 -451 -316 -.27 -428 16 -12.6 -1.4 -17.6 6.0 FIRE Services Pub Administration '!ELVIN DALE Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment 8 ,132 11,139 10,755 10,309 4,639 4,599 1,451 3,148 4,534 1,389 3,145 1,278 3,146 1,555 1,743 1,642 1,821 1,694 1,816 930 371 2.34 806 265 2.27 706 208 2.22 3,618 25 3,688 32 3,616 697 146 1,464 3,175 1,427 1,615 1,079 518 2.40 1,823 663 180 2.17 Ag, Min, Nat Res 22 3,756 21 Manufacturing 1,057 881 772 753 TCU Wholesale Trade 652 291 189 231 371 415 165 462 498 Retail Trade 629 748 760 FIRE 267 297 333 796 369 819 374 Services Pub Administration 958 1,095 52 1,072 52 1,060 51 999 49 3,874 58 34 22,986 14,413 41,773 1,389 4,471 1,182 3,289 1,811 1,850 631 179 2.14 1,859 1,885 628 202 2.13 3,522 37 3,446 38 628 142 512 565 147 822 385 949 47 517 822 390 922 45 -492 -505 286 193 123 -36 -13 30.3 16.7 -41.8 -61.0 -11.4 -11.0 72.7 -46.5 -77.5 123.8 30.7 46.1 -3.8 -22.4 93 J �NORTHVILLE PART Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change 2,859 1,255 326 929 259 311 331 354 2.28 4,677 91 356 120 264 1,287 535 1,868 156 3,311 1,421 373 1,048 207 375 400 439 2.33 4,702 89 353 164 266 1,157 577 1,937 159 3,280 1,432 329 1,103 157 408 405 462 2.29 4,694 94 357 182 237 1,070 634 1,991 129 3,221 1,439 261 1,178 143 410 386 500 2.24 4,973 104 392 200 223 1,074 696 2,170 114 3,167 1,443 196 1,247 128 401 361 553 2.19 5,112 107 403 220 201 1,023 765 2,272 121 3,138 1,445 150 1,295 113 377 339 616 2.17 5,169 110 395 242 166 956 839 2,333 3,137 1,449 118 1,331 99 345 321 684 2.16 5,254 112 381 269 132 902 888 278 2,440 572 128 130 -26 Percent 9.7 15.5 -63.8 43.3 -61.8 10.9 -3.0 93.2 -5.0 12.3 23.1 7.0 124.2 -50.0 -29.9 66.0 30.6 -16.7 Change 12,687 5,533 1,011 4,522 492 1,235 2,376 1,430 -.25 Percent 73.3 90.1 51.8 107.8 105.4 106.2 140.3 50.7 -8.8 1,902 17 213 615 203 -199 836 512 -295 34.3 24.3 109.8 1,708.3 89.0 -14.8 272.3 17.9 -58.1 Change 334 461 -599 1,060 -337 Percent 3.5 10.8 -56.4 33.1 -44.2 -1.9 -2.5 72.2 -6.6 7.3 13.9 -27.5 287.5 78.7 -41.2 77.1 42.3 -28.1 1990 NORTHVILLE TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 17,313 6,144 1,950 4,194 467 1,163 1,694 2,820 2.82 5,539 70 194 36 228 1,342 307 2,854 508 19,597 7,133 2,139 4,994 470 1,382 2,089 3,192 2.75 5,315 65 327 75 231 1,315 368 2,648 286 22,090 8,149 2,365 5,784 491 1,623 2,522 3,513 2.71 5,664 69 342 177 274 1,323 539 2,719 221 24,344 9,147 2,456 6,691 625 1,812 2,946 3,764 2.66 6,287 77 397 289 332 1,339 713 2,954 186 26,560 10,112 2,586 7,526 742 2,014 3,374 3,982 2.63 6,779 83 419 431 379 1,281 897 3,089 200 28,492 10,976 2,769 8,207 856 2,217 3,757 4,146 2.60 7,149 85 418 559 410 1,204 1,040 3,223 210 30,000 11,677 2,961 8,716 959 2,398 4,070 4,250 2.57 7,441 PLYMOUTH Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 9,522 4,263 1,062 3,201 763 1,179 1,145 1,176 2.23 8,635 122 1,574 8 244 2,750 1,137 2,661 139 2020 9,422 4,279 928 3,351 642 1,191 1,146 1,300 2.20 7,888 159 1,100 8 323 1,746 1,258 3,189 105 9,290 4,306 784 3,522 562 1,217 1,120 1,407 2.16 8,251 157 1,170 10 357 1,566 1,406 3,486 99 9,117 4,331 600 3,731 517 1,210 1,098 1,506 2.11 8,587 143 1,190 11 387 1,520 1,557 3,683 96 9,034 4,361 460 3,901 479 1,180 1,071 1,631 2.07 8,859 134 1,207 12 411 1,576 1,720 3,702 97 9,463 4,563 444 4,119 453 1,177 1,096 1,837 2.07 9,094 136 1,185 23 428 1,603 1,892 3,727 100 9,856 4,724 463 4,261 426 1,157 1,116 2,025 2.09 9,265 139 1,141 31 436 1,618 2,014 3,786 100 94 87 407 651 431 1,143 1,143 3,366 213 194 -208 402 -160 34 -10 330 -.11 577 21 25 149 -132 -385 353 -22 -29 849 -.15 630 17 -433 23 192 -1,132 877 1,125 -39 �PLYMOUTH TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration REDFORD TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration RIVER ROUGE Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 23,686 26,781 10,090 3,211 6,879 847 2,134 2,301 4,808 2.65 21,928 162 8,473 1,049 2,011 3,334 1,070 5,428 401 2020 28,686 11,036 3,265 7,771 938 2,389 2,472 5,237 2.60 23,726 195 9,042 1,060 2,268 3,436 1,400 5,941 384 30,315 11,951 3,230 8,721 1,110 2,654 2,737 5,450 2.54 24,717 218 9,245 1,102 2,501 3,364 1,642 6,268 377 31,919 12,842 3,250 9,592 1,279 2,938 3,002 5,623 2.49 25,473 245 9,413 1,081 2,685 3,503 1,864 6,298 384 32,752 13,436 3,279 10,157 1,429 3,176 3,189 5,642 2.44 25,585 260 9,184 1,041 2,753 3,565 2,048 6,341 393 33,322 13,911 3,336 10,575 1,568 3,391 3,341 5,611 2.40 25,445 271 8,800 995 2,773 3,601 2,173 6,438 394 8,825 3,011 5,814 751 1,811 2,055 4,208 2.68 19,738 128 6,400 1,128 1,691 3,569 947 5,447 428 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 54,387 20,134 6,914 13,220 3,006 6,050 6,460 4,618 2.70 17,030 344 3,670 796 1,499 4,127 675 5,560 359 54,157 20,255 6,930 13,325 3,052 6,777 6,390 4,036 2.67 17,771 370 4,121 904 1,218 4,207 757 5,778 416 53,537 20,238 6,823 13,415 3,125 7,194 6,329 3,590 2.65 18,521 365 4,346 1,086 1,029 4,106 829 6,278 482 53,067 20,218 6,598 13,620 3,289 7,267 6,255 3,407 2.62 19,408 351 4,409 1,257 957 4,166 991 6,744 533 52,837 20,296 6,440 13,856 3,404 7,400 6,222 3,270 2.60 19,708 363 4,387 1,417 865 4,122 1,1n 6,835 542 52,861 20,482 6,455 14,027 3,525 7,556 6,226 3,175 2.58 19,829 374 4,330 1,537 TT2 4,011 1,350 6,902 553 52,972 20,693 6,550 14,143 3,636 7,698 6,248 3,111 2.56 19,813 382 4,168 1,603 701 3,912 1,478 7,018 551 1990 1995 2005 2010 2015 2020 11,314 4,256 1,772 2,484 2,079 1,097 741 339 2.66 2,618 75 783 403 159 314 138 695 51 10,780 4,102 1,797 2,305 2,196 1,038 615 253 2.63 2,785 75 870 400 174 379 138 709 40 2000 10,195 3,934 1,750 2,184 2,231 983 518 202 2.59 2,748 76 765 393 170 9,574 3,716 1,663 2,053 2,189 933 419 175 2.58 2,702 82 603 356 166 510 182 780 23 9,478 3,697 1,670 2,027 2,202 933 399 163 2.56 2,626 86 528 338 157 537 193 768 19 9,430 3,701 1,687 2,014 2,220 937 391 153 2.55 2,556 403 152 756 33 9,786 3,787 1,691 2,096 2,200 946 453 188 2.58 2,766 79 678 375 172 468 168 798 28 88 466 319 148 554 201 765 15 Change 9,636 5,086 325 4,761 817 1,580 1,286 1,403 -.29 5,707 143 2,400 -133 1,082 32 1,226 991 -34 Percent 40.7 57.6 10.8 81.9 108.8 87.2 62.6 33.3 -10.8 28.9 111.7 37.5 -11.8 64.0 .9 129.5 18.2 -7.9 Change -1,415 559 -364 923 630 1,648 -212 -1,507 -.14 2,783 38 498 807 -798 -215 803 1,458 192 Percent -2.6 2.8 -5.3 7.0 21.0 27.2 -3.3 -32.6 -5.2 16.3 11.0 13.6 101.4 -53.2 -5.2 119.0 26.2 53.5 Change -1,884 -555 -85 -470 141 -160 -350 -186 -.11 -62 13 -317 Percent -16.7 -13.0 -4.8 -18.9 6.8 -14.6 -47.2 -54.9 -4.2 -2.4 17.3 -40.5 -20.8 -6.9 76.4 45.7 10.1 -70.6 -84 -11 240 63 70 -36 95 �. RIVERVIEW Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 13,894 5,057 1,804 3,253 1,054 1,198 1,192 1,613 2.75 4,747 25 373 166 165 1,614 187 2,031 186 13,636 5,175 1,646 3,529 1,293 1,246 1,109 1,527 2.63 5,527 31 311 164 169 1,830 177 2,595 250 13,209 5,228 1,470 3,758 1,547 1,254 1,021 1,406 2.53 5,971 34 272 178 184 1,917 179 2,916 291 12,789 5,287 1,285 4,002 1,813 1,276 957 1,241 2.42 6,435 35 235 190 203 2,130 176 3,134 332 12,348 5,326 1,141 4,185 2,097 1,272 878 1,079 2.32 6,648 34 224 196 212 2,243 160 3,243 336 11,915 5,351 1,034 4,317 2,342 1,264 793 952 2.23 6,732 33 206 196 209 2,283 144 3,322 339 11 ,503 5,368 942 4,426 2,548 1,253 713 854 2.14 6,789 28 188 190 203 2,304 127 3,413 336 ROCKWOOD Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 3,141 1,099 446 653 237 250 320 292 2.86 1,192 247 179 20 68 278 63 296 41 3,159 1,126 417 709 243 242 338 303 2.81 1,492 279 278 21 98 302 75 412 27 3,156 1,148 383 765 3,133 1,161 3,106 1,174 309 865 222 253 385 314 2.65 1,811 238 281 52 153 403 106 543 35 3,094 1,191 288 903 210 267 400 314 2.60 1,869 229 269 58 163 421 116 576 37 3,088 1,209 276 933 199 282 415 313 2.55 1,902 220 253 62 169 433 122 605 ROMULUS Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 22,897 7,845 3,700 4,145 2,047 2,303 2,091 1,404 2.92 29,231 220 7,068 10,366 1,148 2,955 384 6,200 890 23,086 8,104 3,639 4,465 2,215 2,494 2,046 1,349 2.85 31,708 241 8,261 9,839 955 3,494 323 7,577 1,018 2020 22,798 8,181 3,480 4,701 2,324 2,605 1,974 1,278 2.79 34,938 268 8,675 10,519 838 3,908 339 9,177 1,214 22,563 8,264 3,249 5,015 2,425 2,663 1,950 1,226 2.73 38,270 306 8,977 11,384 813 4,526 392 10,461 1,411 22,325 8,357 3,033 5,324 2,547 2,701 1,910 1,199 2.67 40,323 321 9,148 11,866 761 4,980 422 11,238 1,587 22,222 8,493 2,919 5,574 2,671 2,751 1,893 1,178 2.62 41,540 334 8,990 12,100 700 5,286 448 11,919 1,763 22,240 8,655 2,871 5,784 2,790 2,809 1,893 1,163 2.57 42,152 345 8,650 12,071 651 5,510 464 12,587 1,874 96 248 233 354 313 2.75 1,612 272 278 32 118 335 85 462 30 344 817 235 243 371 312 2.70 1,720 247 282 42 137 373 96 510 33 38 Change -2,391 311 -862 1,173 1,494 55 -479 -759 -.60 2,042 3 -185 24 38 690 -60 1,382 150 Change -53 110 -170 280 -38 32 95 21 -.30 710 -27 74 42 101 155 59 309 -3 Change -657 810 -829 1,639 743 506 -198 -241 -.35 12,921 125 1,582 1,705 -497 2,555 80 6,387 984 Percent -17.2 6.1 -47.8 36.1 141.7 4.6 -40.2 -47.1 -22.0 43.0 12.0 -49.6 · 14.5 23.0 42.8 -32.1 68.0 80.6 Percent -1 .7 10.0 -38.1 42.9 -16.0 12.8 29.7 7.2 -10.6 59.6 -10.9 41.3 210.0 148.5 55.8 93.7 104.4 -7.3 Percent -2.9 10.3 -22.4 39.5 36.3 22.0 -9.5 -17.2 -12.0 44.2 56.8 22.4 16.4 -43.3 86.5 20.8 103.0 110.6 �SOUTHGATE Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration SUMPTER TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration TAYLOR Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 30,771 12,135 3,764 8,371 2,322 3,362 3,675 2,776 2.54 13,436 7 883 225 239 5,479 1,663 4,646 294 30,018 12,336 3,384 8,952 2,705 3,708 3,508 2,415 2.43 14,568 19 987 194 323 5,876 1,569 5,362 238 2020 Change 29,243 12,495 3,024 9,471 3,091 3,967 3,322 2,115 2.34 15,460 26 1,034 186 386 5,862 1,624 6,119 223 Percent 28,604 12,622 2,681 9,941 3,499 4,124 3,111 1,888 2.27 16,023 34 1,102 177 451 5,925 1,627 6,504 203 28,033 12,761 2,409 10,352 3,895 4,280 2,898 1,688 2.20 16,123 36 1,124 164 499 5,799 1,640 6,660 201 27,645 12,939 2,254 10,685 4,255 4,416 2,735 1,533 2.14 15,989 38 1,093 152 522 5,577 1,644 6,763 200 27,556 13,206 2,183 11,023 4,597 4,546 2,633 1,430 2.09 15,900 39 1,044 141 535 5,401 1,630 6,914 196 -3,215 1,071 -1,581 2,652 2,275 1,184 -1,042 -1,346 -.45 2,464 32 161 -84 296 -78 -33 2,268 -98 -10.4 8.8 -42.0 31.7 98.0 35.2 -28.4 -48.5 -17.7 18.3 457.1 18.2 -37.3 123.8 -1.4 -2.0 48.8 -33.3 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 10,891 3,687 1,690 1,997 11,466 3,882 1,737 2,145 711 1,102 1,099 970 2.95 700 75 1 11,910 4,031 1,750 2,281 697 1,075 1,170 1,089 2.95 1,019 85 85 102 15 327 0 43 173 38 507 0 12,632 4,307 1,651 2,656 661 921 1,369 1,356 2.93 1,522 100 148 149 133 262 83 647 0 12,975 4,437 1,635 2,802 632 36 0 144 26 418 0 12,276 4,173 1,700 2,473 684 1,003 1,277 1,209 2.94 1,326 96 124 137 84 222 60 603 0 13,280 4,552 1,640 2,912 601 760 1,522 1,669 2.92 1,793 102 194 154 190 316 122 715 0 2,389 865 -50 915 -120 -350 511 824 -.04 1,219 35 193 93 189 214 107 388 0 21.9 23.5 -3.0 45.8 -16.6 -31.5 50.5 97.5 -1.2 212.4 52.2 1,9300.0 152.5 1,8900.0 209.8 713.3 118.7 .0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 66,803 25,111 8,903 16,208 6,473 8,094 6,195 4,349 2.66 64,775 25,108 7,809 17,299 6,660 8,219 61,797 25,363 6,257 19,106 7,008 8,592 5,756 4,007 2.44 33,289 281 4,754 2,310 1,956 11,417 1,715 10,136 720 34,677 303 4,927 2,393 2,012 11,902 1,866 10,592 682 63,023 25,184 6,846 18,338 6,814 8,394 5,868 4,108 2.50 35,268 311 5,091 2,484 2,028 12,021 2,027 10,620 686 61,322 25,736 5,947 19,789 7,258 8,829 5,713 3,936 2.38 35,206 324 4,922 2,544 1,952 11,777 2,270 10,730 687 -9,489 893 -4,910 5,803 1,420 1,568 -1,139 -956 -.47 5,823 -36 1,294 468 -226 1,790 591 1,870 72 -13.4 3.6 -45.2 41.5 24.3 21.6 -16.6 -19.5 -16.4 19.8 -10.0 35.7 22.5 -10.4 17.9 35.2 21.1 11.7 721 1,110 1,011 845 2.95 574 67 1 61 70,811 24,843 10,857 13,986 5,838 7,261 6,852 4,892 2.85 29,383 360 3,628 2,076 2,178 9,987 1,679 8,860 615 69,067 25,097 9,923 15,174 6,216 7,767 6,524 4,590 2.75 31,320 288 4,315 2,191 2,020 10,954 1,576 9,261 715 88 6,034 4,195 2.58 838 1,453 1,514 2.92 1,684 101 180 156 168 292 105 682 0 35,341 318 5,098 2,540 1,993 11,903 2,173 10,625 691 97 j �TRENTON Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration VAN BUREN TWP Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration WAYNE Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 98 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 20,582 7,851 2,609 5,242 1,418 1,836 2,228 2,369 2.62 13,112 109 5,290 672 256 1,533 577 4,422 253 20,534 8,068 2,394 5,674 1,536 2,109 2,170 2,253 2.55 13,183 127 4,796 669 302 1,703 441 4,876 269 20,036 8,097 2,151 5,946 1,593 2,322 2,031 2,151 2.47 13,131 121 4,132 710 322 1,779 390 5,379 298 19,482 8,123 1,839 6,284 1,627 2,575 1,863 2,058 2.40 13,282 119 3,498 746 356 1,971 378 5,885 329 18,960 8,147 1,578 6,569 1,681 2,808 1,664 1,994 2.33 13,413 105 3,293 765 371 2,074 342 6,138 325 18,455 8,167 1,392 6,775 1,742 3,023 1,474 1,928 2.26 13,280 89 2,992 762 370 2,111 307 6,323 326 18,006 8,186 1,251 6,935 1,808 3,206 1,307 1,865 2.20 13,134 75 2,705 741 363 2,128 270 6,533 319 Change -2,576 335 -1,358 1,693 390 1,370 -921 -504 -.42 22 -34 -2,585 69 107 595 -307 2,111 66 Percent -12.5 4.3 -52.1 32.3 27.5 74.6 -41.3 -21 .3 -16.1 .2 -31.2 -48.9 10.3 41 .8 38.8 -53.2 47.7 26.1 Percent 33.8 52.4 4.7 81 .6 111.7 76.1 30.3 12.9 -12.2 200.9 81.7 61 .8 240.9 484.6 196.9 210.7 237.5 -7.7 Percent 2.4 12.1 -11 .1 28.4 34.0 33.8 -12.3 -18.7 -8.7 2.3 53.5 -31.9 49.0 61 .9 -15.4 -45.0 39.3 75.2 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 20,995 7,876 2,991 4,885 1,361 2,090 2,555 1,870 2.67 5,707 109 1,791 391 761 1,152 140 1,298 65 23,416 8,917 3,255 5,662 1,627 2,455 2,799 2,036 2.63 8,596 101 2,330 557 1,379 2,117 177 1,884 51 24,466 9,578 3,224 6,354 1,871 2,706 2,923 2,078 2.55 11,111 125 2,649 799 2,014 2,429 228 2,821 46 25,405 10,201 3,132 7,069 2,122 2,953 3,042 2,084 2.49 13,357 147 2,906 960 2,606 2,869 297 3,524 48 26,324 10,821 3,062 7,759 2,383 3,207 3,142 2,089 2.43 15,053 164 3,021 1,128 3,362 3,129 348 3,848 53 27,255 11 ,439 3,076 8,363 2,643 3,458 3,241 2,097 2.38 16,291 182 2,992 1,261 3,980 3,300 396 4,122 58 28,101 12,002 3,133 8,869 2,881 3,681 3,329 2,111 2.34 17,173 198 2,897 1,333 4,449 3,420 435 4,381 60 Change 7,106 4,126 142 3,984 1,520 1,591 774 241 -.32 11,466 89 1,106 942 3,688 2,268 295 3,083 -5 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change 19,899 7,129 2,927 4,202 1,695 2,259 1,851 1,324 2.79 15,543 43 6,609 716 462 1,845 418 5,079 371 20,306 7,396 2,956 4,440 1,801 2,559 1,762 1,274 2.75 16,773 40 6,870 882 556 1,850 213 5,899 463 20,165 7,479 2,850 4,629 1,884 2,769 1,634 1,192 2.70 17,574 44 6,671 988 625 1,796 216 6,688 546 20,203 7,598 2,745 4,853 1,990 2,841 1,620 1,147 2.66 17,461 53 6,079 1,019 691 1,822 229 6,990 578 20,199 7,709 2,638 5,071 2,087 2,892 1,612 1,118 2.62 16,994 58 5,568 1,059 735 1,734 231 7,001 608 20,272 7,848 2,600 5,248 2,184 2,956 1,614 1,094 2.58 16,400 63 4,997 1,076 748 1,637 232 7,008 639 20,384 7,995 2,601 5,394 2,272 3,023 1,623 1,077 2.55 15,900 66 4,503 1,067 748 1,561 230 7,075 650 485 866 -326 1,192 577 764 -228 -247 -.24 357 23 -2,106 351 286 -284 -188 1,996 279 �WESTLAND Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration WOODHAVEN Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration WYANDOTTE Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 84,724 33,102 10,996 22,106 6,681 9,800 9,520 7,101 2.56 24,650 396 2,024 582 611 9,688 1,164 9,743 2015 87,411 35,233 10,600 24,633 7,193 11,on 9,755 7,208 2.48 26,853 407 2,380 822 801 10,015 1,233 10,713 2020 482 91,209 38,564 9,617 28,947 8,217 13,038 10,059 7,250 2.37 30,019 430 2,820 852 1,186 9,767 1,607 12,830 527 91,586 39,230 9,129 30,101 8,511 13,583 9,983 7,153 2.33 30,375 446 2,830 868 1,355 9,362 1,768 13,217 529 91,371 39,678 8,858 30,820 8,761 14,046 9,878 6,993 2.30 30,314 457 2,77J 866 1,461 8,847 1,896 13,476 534 91,524 40,238 8,796 31,442 9,039 14,472 9,836 6,891 2.27 30,282 465 2,673 850 1,530 8,440 1,976 13,820 442 89,119 36,931 10,101 26,830 7,669 12,185 9,859 7,218 2.41 28,680 417 2,620 942 982 9,761 1,437 12,002 519 528 86 Percent 8.0 21.6 -20.0 42.2 35.3 47.7 3.3 -3.0 -11.1 22.8 17.4 32.1 46.0 150.4 -12.9 69.8 41.8 19.5 Change 209 1,055 -730 1,785 831 137 249 -162 -.58 3,344 58 -62 191 194 1,064 152 1,594 153 Percent 1.8 26.6 -38.6 86.4 158.9 19.6 20.0 -10.8 -19.6 47.3 105.5 -2.4 35.4 223.0 56.1 61.8 112.8 73.2 Change -975 481 -408 889 465 1,211 -608 -587 -.17 -3,195 18 -1,942 -109 -501 -383 29 -256 -51 Percent -3.2 3.9 -9.9 10.8 12.9 30.6 -20.9 -31.9 -6.8 -24.1 16.4 -69.1 -21.4 -84.3 -14.8 4.6 -4.4 -20.0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 11,635 3,960 1,893 2,067 523 699 1,243 1,495 2.94 7,072 55 2,626 540 87 1,896 246 1,413 209 12,334 4,311 1,886 2,425 663 695 1,294 1,659 2.86 8,045 78 2,799 429 124 2,106 243 2,022 244 12,483 4,532 1,764 2,768 830 685 1,320 1,697 2.75 8,663 94 2,833 492 173 2,249 279 2,271 272 12,350 4,680 1,559 3,121 953 735 1,372 1,620 2.64 9,423 98 2,877 558 217 2,546 312 2,513 302 12,199 1,371 3,450 1,084 777 1,428 1,532 2.53 9,956 106 2,863 625 252 2,756 348 2,680 326 12,034 4,931 1,249 3,682 1,218 812 1,468 1,433 2.44 10,261 111 2,731 689 271 2,880 379 2,850 350 11,844 5,015 1,163 3,852 1,354 836 1,492 1,333 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 30,938 12,314 4,107 8,207 3,602 3,955 2,915 1,842 2.51 13,268 110 2,812 510 594 2,588 634 5,765 255 31,100 12,470 4,173 8,297 3,707 4,438 2,693 1,632 2.49 11,610 115 1,852 505 218 2,572 591 5,510 247 30,717 12,482 4,095 8,387 3,782 4,788 2,481 1,431 2.46 10,734 116 1,246 489 151 2,469 612 5,407 244 30,336 12,480 3,911 8,569 3,856 4,877 2,397 1,350 2.43 10,560 115 1,085 453 136 2,467 626 5,446 232 29,970 12,646 3,699 8,947 3,988 5,065 2,316 1,277 2.37 10,154 125 964 422 104 2,290 660 5,375 214 29,963 12,795 3,699 9,096 4,067 5,166 2,307 1,255 2.34 10,073 128 870 401 93 2,205 663 5,509 204 4,821 30,062 12,523 3,754 8,769 3,913 4,960 2,342 1,308 2,40 10,399 120 1,078 440 120 2,398 647 5,375 221 Change 6,800 7,136 -2,200 9,336 2,358 4,672 316 -210 -.28 5,632 69 649 268 919 -1,248 812 2.36 10,416 113 2,564 731 281 2,960 398 3,007 362 4,on 99 j �. WAYNE COUNTY (EX DET) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 1,083,708 Total Population Total Households 406,434 With Children 143,367 Without Children 263,067 Income Quartile 1 85,687 Income Quartile 2 104,678 Income Quartile 3 109,610 Income Quartile 4 106,459 2.67 Persons Per Household Total Employment 563,703 5,257 Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing 137,991 TCU 36,539 Wholesale Trade 28,705 Retail Trade 124,078 FIRE 33,466 Services 186,073 Pub Administration 11,594 1,101,664 420,803 141,726 279,077 91,547 113,120 111,224 104,912 2.62 595,521 5,741 138,349 35,509 32,263 129,023 35,679 206,907 12,050 1,102,957 430,104 136,387 293,717 96,514 119,295 111,498 102,797 2.56 630,759 5,997 136,431 37,811 35,361 129,816 40,032 232,646 12,665 1,104,716 438,710 128,829 309,881 101,427 123,529 112,414 101,340 2.52 657,675 6,229 133,910 39,865 39,084 134,517 42,750 248,308 13,012 1,107,957 446,921 123,300 323,621 106,128 127,421 113,071 100,301 2.48 668,028 6,443 130,630 41,359 42,166 135,707 45,083 253,409 13,231 1,114,546 455,915 121,908 334,007 110,893 131,313 113,942 99,767 2.44 668,453 6,623 123,791 42,228 43,619 134,193 47,056 257,415 13,528 1,124,059 465,470 122,854 342,616 115,613 134,978 115,085 99,794 2.41 667,129 6,762 116,119 42,276 44,346 132,706 48,167 263,240 13,513 40,351 59,036 -20,513 79,549 29,926 30,300 5,475 -6,665 -.25 103,426 1,505 -21,872 5,737 15,641 8,628 14,701 77,167 1,919 3.7 14.5 -14.3 30.2 34.9 28.9 5.0 -6.3 -9.4 18.3 28.6 -15.9 15.7 54.5 7.0 43.9 41.5 16.6 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent Total Population 2,111,687 Total Households 780,432 With Children 293,699 Without Children 486,733 Income Quartile 1 260,027 Income Quartile 2 200,721 Income Quartile 3 173,190 Income Quartile 4 146,494 Persons Per Household 2.71 Total Employment 976,193 Ag, Min, Nat Res 7,464 Manufacturing 201,362 TCU 67,863 Wholesale Trade 49,082 Retail Trade 173,582 FIRE 66,227 Services 371,038 Pub Administration 39,575 2,093,955 781,280 292,652 488,628 272,029 202,366 167,887 138,998 2.68 979,237 7,983 194,050 62,454 50,814 174,421 63,200 389,372 36,943 1,961,353 788,362 245,051 543,311 295,470 208,814 158,750 125,328 2.49 1,004,481 9,163 157,520 63,701 58,371 169,507 65,104 445,868 35,247 -150,334 7,930 -48,648 56,578 35,443 8,093 -14,440 -21,166 -.22 28,288 1,699 -43,842 -4,162 9,289 -4,075 -1, 123 74,830 -4,328 -7.1 1.0 -16.6 11 .6 13.6 4.0 -8.3 -14.4 -8.1 2.9 22.8 -21.8 -6.1 18.9 -2.3 -1.7 20.2 -10.9 WAYNE COUNTY REGION 2,054,980 779,392 282,341 497,051 279,136 203,668 163,473 133,115 2.64 999,638 8,233 187,026 62,324 53,024 172,476 62,334 419,445 34,776 2,020,668 778,633 266,286 512,347 282,632 204,532 161,562 129,907 2.60 1,015,018 8,482 182,143 62,781 55,747 175,120 61,917 434,122 34,706 1,992,302 779,452 253,216 526,236 286,835 205,257 159,767 127,593 2.56 1,016,234 8,734 177,010 63,538 57,895 174,702 62,972 436,524 34,859 1,973,194 783,130 247,159 535,971 291,513 206,745 158,819 126,053 2.52 1,010,198 8,983 167,812 63,992 58,419 171,930 64,490 439,313 35,259 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent Total Population 4,590,465 Total Households 1,698,819 With Children 620,885 Without Children 1,077,934 Income Quartile 1 424,684 Income Quartile 2 424,722 Income Quartile 3 424,727 Income Quartile 4 424,686 Persons Per Household 2.70 Total Employment 2,350,238 Ag, Min, Nat Res 30,424 Manufacturing 486,644 TCU 124,287 Wholesale Trade 121,200 Retail Trade 441,167 FIRE 173,122 Services 904,892 Pub Administration 68,502 4,735,738 1,773,071 629,212 1,143,859 443,267 443,268 443,268 443,268 2.67 2,477,024 31,953 482,591 117,074 128,295 464,190 183,010 1,001,823 68,088 4,804,389 1,827,384 617,469 1,209,915 456,846 456,846 456,846 456,846 2.63 2,615,187 32,633 468,709 120,105 134,033 477,155 193,443 1,119,990 69,119 4,877,433 1,882,326 594,659 1,287,667 470,575 470,580 470,586 470,585 2.59 2,724,994 33,144 467,057 124,033 143,124 500,358 201,247 1,185,160 70,871 4,962,603 1,941,257 578,201 1,363,056 485,309 485,317 485,315 485,316 2.56 2,776,724 34,110 461,633 126,836 149,071 508,203 210,743 1,213,644 72,484 5,067,093 2,005,414 580,555 1,424,859 501,354 501,357 501,348 501,355 2.53 2,775,235 34,664 439,602 127,883 149,060 502,662 217,679 1,229,673 74,012 5,162,405 2,063,547 591,492 1,472,055 515,879 515,892 515,887 515,889 2.50 2,773,688 35,079 415,321 127,147 147,775 497,383 221 ,077 1,255,608 74,298 571,940 364,728 -29,393 394,121 91,195 91,170 91,160 91,203 -.20 423,450 4,655 -71,323 2,860 26,575 56,216 47,955 350,716 5,796 12.5 21 .5 -4.7 36.6 21.5 21.5 21 .5 21.5 -7.4 18.0 15.3 -14.7 2.3 21.9 12.7 27.7 38.8 8.5 100 �Appendix D Regional Development Forecast, Full Detroit Subcommunity Report AIRPORT Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration BAGLEY Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration BOYNTON Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration ~ 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 18.418 5,771 2,885 2,886 3,525 1,193 734 319 3.19 8,502 19 3,444 1,466 1,038 680 15 1,677 163 2020 Change 15,664 5,055 2,473 2,582 3,315 927 584 229 3.10 9,089 19 3,978 1,227 1,305 649 9 1,762 140 Percent 13,691 4,480 2,182 2,298 3,053 754 486 187 3.06 9,202 22 3,836 1,111 1,472 622 6 2,007 126 12,144 4,039 1,886 2,153 2,764 678 429 168 3.01 9,047 29 3,663 1,051 1,497 600 5 2,080 122 10,875 3,728 1,616 2,112 2,556 632 388 152 2.92 8,865 29 3,550 987 1,542 572 4 2,061 120 9,948 3,505 1,446 2,059 2,415 594 357 139 2.84 8,699 30 3,391 970 1,560 551 4 2,072 121 9,365 3,381 1,346 2,035 2,341 572 338 130 2.77 8,484 31 3,194 970 1,553 534 4 2,079 119 -9,053 -2,390 -1,539 -851 -1,184 -621 -396 -189 -.42 -18 12 -250 -496 515 -146 -11 402 -44 -49.2 -41.4 -53.3 -29.5 -33.6 -52.1 -54.0 -59.2 -13.2 -.2 63.2 -7.3 -33.8 49.6 -21.5 -73.3 24.0 -27.0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 21,045 7,149 2,589 4,560 1,704 1,775 2,048 1,622 2.94 5,670 9 97 30 70 381 174 4,842 67 20,380 7,150 2,281 4,869 1,793 1,736 2,205 1,416 2.85 4,997 9 106 25 85 383 156 4,176 57 19,834 7,174 2,009 5,165 1,879 1,695 2,320 1,280 2.76 4,594 11 110 24 93 377 137 3,792 50 19,411 7,172 1,780 5,392 1,969 1,671 2,303 1,229 2.71 4,169 14 132 21 100 358 121 3,377 46 19,007 7,148 1,606 5,542 2,051 1,653 2,255 1,189 2.66 3,842 15 140 19 102 349 112 3,061 44 18,650 7,130 1,501 5,629 2,122 1,644 2,217 1,147 2.62 3,601 16 141 16 101' 337 106 18,243 7,074 1,430 5,644 2,167 1,629 2,173 1,105 2.58 3,457 17 139 15 99 327 100 2,718 42 -2,802 -75 -1, 159 1,084 463 -146 125 -517 -.36 -2,213 8 42 -15 29 -54 -74 -2, 124 -25 -13.3 -1.0 -44.8 23.8 27.2 -8.2 6.1 -31.9 -12.4 -39.0 88.9 43.3 -50.0 41.4 -14.2 -42.5 -43.9 -37.3 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 8,984 3,666 1,018 2,648 2,172 926 418 150 2.45 856 2 206 155 25 153 33 255 27 8,669 3,656 907 2,749 2,278 857 382 139 2.37 856 1 203 163 25 145 39 257 23 8,420 3,654 836 2,818 2,365 808 353 128 2.30 8,273 3,682 792 2,890 2,450 -1,759 47 -501 548 784 -208 -284 -245 -.51 19 0 171 -6 -2 -21 35 -130 -28 -17.5 1.3 -38.7 23.4 47.1 -21.1 -46.0 -66.9 -18.6 2.3 .0 1,140.0 -3.4 -8.0 -13.5 250.0 -32.6 -60.9 10,032 3,635 1,293 2,342 1,666 985 618 366 2.76 831 0 15 177 25 155 14 399 46 9,437 3,595 1,190 2,405 1,863 998 519 215 2.63 839 0 173 167 22 158 23 257 39 9,274 3,664 1,132 2,532 2,061 981 463 159 2.53 842 1 200 156 23 157 29 245 31 2,841 43 887 196 170 24 139 44 262 21 m 334 121 2.25 850 0 186 171 23 134 49 269 18 101 J �BRIGHTMOOR Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration BROOKS Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration BURBANK Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 102 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 19,042 6,632 3,517 3,115 3,400 1,767 1,017 18,078 6,046 3,704 2,342 3,547 1,449 756 294 2.99 3,911 23 1,737 321 205 325 296 953 51 17,119 5,616 3,703 1,913 3,564 1,251 593 208 3.05 3,958 28 1,831 342 176 261 345 930 45 15,944 5,270 3,434 1,836 3,468 1,102 518 182 3.03 4,063 34 1,962 331 162 219 364 15,405 5,129 3,303 1,826 3,495 990 472 172 3.00 4,134 35 14,928 5,014 3,202 1,812 3,506 903 440 165 2.98 4,187 38 2,148 309 135 154 446 917 40 14,687 -4,355 4,974 -1,658 3,163 1,811 3,529 857 425 163 2.95 4,173 39 2,139 297 125 137 475 922 39 -354 -1,304 129 -910 -592 -22.9 -25.0 -10.1 -41.9 -22 12.3 95.0 60.7 -2.9 -52.3 -68.0 136.3 -16.8 -36.1 448 2.87 3,717 20 1,331 306 262 428 201 1,108 61 2,088 948 319 147 180 403 921 43 41 -285 .08 456 19 808 -9 -137 -291 274 -186 3.8 -51.5 -58.2 -63.6 2.8 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 35,643 12,351 5,943 6,408 5,495 3,445 2,152 1,259 2.89 8,045 78 2,317 381 1,143 853 184 2,927 162 35,234 12,057 6,147 5,910 5,842 3,239 1,862 1,114 2.92 8,013 79 2,785 369 1,117 1,037 173 2,313 140 33,858 11,605 6,004 5,601 5,916 3,060 1,633 996 2.92 7,871 82 2,803 376 1,058 1,155 163 2,108 126 32,776 11,249 5,812 5,437 5,880 2,935 1,530 904 2.91 7,637 89 2,714 364 961 1,191 156 2,040 122 32,174 11,049 5,733 5,316 5,899 2,840 1,464 846 2.91 7,422 93 2,653 346 876 1,253 151 1,929 121 31,624 10,910 5,696 5,214 5,905 2,780 1,422 803 2.90 7,250 98 2,551 334 803 1,308 150 1,883 123 30,730 10,689 5,592 5,097 5,811 2,722 1,388 768 2.87 7,066 103 2,417 319 745 1,345 -13.8 -13.5 -5.9 -20.5 5.8 -21.0 -35.5 -39.0 -.4 -12.2 32.1 4.3 -16.3 1,867 122 -4,913 -1 ,662 -351 -1,311 316 -723 -764 -491 -.01 -979 25 100 -62 -398 492 -36 -1,060 -40 148 -34.8 57.7 -19.6 -36.2 -24.7 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 27,520 9,363 4,405 4,958 3,916 2,542 1,926 979 2.94 4,619 0 58 113 168 749 429 3,070 32 28,480 8,975 5,406 3,569 4,594 2,156 1,563 662 3.17 3,753 0 52 109 167 483 439 2,476 27 27,055 8,668 5,128 3,540 4,567 2,096 1,441 564 3.12 3,394 1 49 108 169 341 413 2,289 24 25,786 8,421 4,837 3,584 4,686 1,922 1,268 545 3.06 3,085 2 57 100 169 259 370 2,105 23 24,575 8,243 4,545 3,698 4,905 1,675 1,117 546 2.98 2,848 1 56 94 168 197 355 1,954 23 23,302 8,000 4,301 3,699 4,957 1,489 1,019 535 2.91 2,675 1 53 22,495 7,861 4,173 3,688 -5,025 -1,502 -232 -1,270 1,062 -1,155 -957 -452 -18.3 -16.0 -5.3 -25.6 27.1 -45.4 88 163 156 344 1,847 23 4,978 1,387 969 527 2.86 2,564 0 50 83 157 132 332 1,788 22 -.08 -2,055 0 -8 -30 -11 -617 -97 -1,282 -10 -49.7 -46.2 -2.6 -44.5 .0 -13.8 -26.5 -6.5 -82.4 -22.6 -41.8 -31.3 �CBD Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Seivices Pub Administration CENTRAL Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Seivices Pub Administration CERVENY Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 6,657 3,497 241 3,256 1,480 981 409 627 1.90 103,056 465 8,155 16,550 1,804 7,625 22,472 30,806 15,179 7,477 3,800 323 3,477 1,216 999 555 1,030 1.97 85,424 462 4,482 12,978 1,357 4,944 17,204 30,100 13,897 2020 7,403 3,758 295 3,463 1,089 1,012 588 1,069 1.97 73,588 398 3,473 10,733 1,084 3,410 12,387 29,831 12,272 7,651 3,794 316 3,478 980 1,007 665 1,142 2.02 69,169 341 3,058 9,741 900 3,381 9,954 29,596 12,198 7,881 3,814 324 3,490 856 981 711 1,266 2.07 66,988 329 2,839 9,587 822 3,307 8,832 29,067 12,205 8,042 3,807 335 3,472 766 956 742 1,343 2.11 65,975 323 2,581 9,589 745 3,354 8,389 28,781 12,213 8,150 3,781 346 3,435 702 933 760 1,386 2.16 65,489 318 2,347 9,688 684 3,378 7,988 28,866 12,220 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 20,790 9,096 2,282 6,814 5,891 1,653 928 624 2 .29 25,324 89 6,761 1,224 1,002 2,024 2,518 10,163 1,543 19,203 8,549 2,072 6,477 5,746 1,396 843 564 2.25 20,605 89 4,658 1,226 561 1,858 1,794 9,398 1,021 17,641 8,121 1,804 6,317 5,628 1,221 766 506 2.17 18,319 87 3,970 1,203 350 1,692 1,276 8,994 747 15,986 7,708 1,423 6,285 5,415 1,152 701 440 2.07 16,607 14,701 7,361 1,152 6,209 5,250 1,068 644 399 2.00 15,492 94 3,389 1,132 179 1,419 868 7,760 651 13,825 7,114 984 6,130 5,138 1,008 ij01 367 1.94 14,667 101 3,124 1,110 136 1,320 810 7,402 664 13,154 6,920 872 6,048 5,049 962 566 343 1.90 14,097 107 2,871 1,084 111 1,247 763 7,222 692 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 21,042 7,181 3,271 3,910 2,531 1,902 1,685 1,063 2.93 1,789 74 116 23 71 264 136 1,071 34 20,351 7,120 3,032 4,088 2,587 1,902 1,645 986 2.86 1,794 73 151 17 72 215 132 1,102 32 19,655 7,069 2,794 4,275 2,642 1,904 1,601 922 2.78 1,788 74 171 12 70 175 134 1,122 30 19,142 7,052 2,642 4,410 2,689 1,911 1,573 879 2.71 1,783 75 182 9 66 146 136 1,141 28 18,627 7,010 2,527 4,483 2,707 1,910 1,548 845 2.66 1,783 75 186 7 62 127 135 1,165 26 21,950 7,219 3,452 3,767 TCU Wholesale Trade 2,169 2,031 1,757 1,262 3.04 1,972 70 71 49 101 Retail Trade FIRE Seivices Pub Administration 460 124 1,051 46 Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing 21,750 7,264 3,430 3,834 2,394 1,972 1,734 1,164 2.99 1,820 74 97 30 77 339 135 1,029 39 88 3,614 1,161 247 1,539 960 8,348 650 Change 1,493 284 105 179 -778 -48 351 759 .25 -37,567 -147 -5,808 -6,862 -1, 120 -4,247 ·14,484 -1,940 -2,959 Percent 22.4 8.1 43.6 5.5 -52.6 -4.9 85.8 121.1 13.2 -36.5 -31.6 -71.2 -41.5 -62.1 -55.7 -64.5 -6.3 -19.5 Change -7,636 -2,176 -1,410 -766 -842 -691 -362 -281 -.38 -11,227 18 -3,890 -140 -891 -777 -1,755 -2,941 -851 Percent -36.7 -23.9 -61.8 -11.2 -14.3 -41.8 -39.0 -45.0 -16.8 -44.3 20.2 -57.5 -11.4 -88.9 -38.4 -69.7 -28.9 -55.2 Change -3,323 -209 -925 716 538 -121 -209 -417 -.38 -189 5 115 -42 -39 -333 11 114 -20 Percent -15.1 -2.9 -26.8 19.0 24.8 -6.0 -11.9 -33.0 -12.6 -9.6 7.1 162.0 -85.7 -38.6 -72.4 8.9 10.8 -43.5 103 tt r• J �CHADSEY Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration CHENE Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration CLARK PARK Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 104 1990 22,230 8,112 3,276 4,836 4,141 2,247 1,141 583 2.74 5,147 56 1,183 352 268 1,215 38 1,926 109 1995 21,570 7,750 3,468 4,282 4,338 2,112 874 426 2.78 4,568 55 1,087 383 192 917 50 1,791 93 2000 20,672 7,421 3,478 3,943 4,406 1,990 700 325 2.79 4,151 57 927 385 152 723 59 1,767 81 2005 20,172 7,139 3,498 3,641 4,376 1,815 646 302 2.83 3,756 60 763 359 132 587 66 1,714 75 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 20,190 6,991 3,661 3,330 4,438 1,673 603 277 2.89 3,448 65 639 341 116 478 76 1,661 72 20,126 6,881 3,792 3,089 4,482 1,568 570 261 2.92 3,220 69 537 325 102 401 86 1,629 71 19,773 6,738 3,834 2,904 4,456 1,489 545 248 2.93 3,059 72 460 306 91 351 93 1,617 69 -2,457 -1,374 558 -1,932 315 -758 -596 -335 .19 -2,088 16 -723 -46 -177 -864 55 -309 -40 -11.1 -16.9 17.0 -40.0 7.6 -33.7 -52.2 -57.5 7.1 -40.6 28.6 -61.1 -13.1 -66.0 -71.1 144.7 -16.0 -36.7 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 15,202 5,331 2,093 3,238 3,700 1,085 385 161 2.85 14,684 73 7,188 1,075 862 1,047 82 2,880 1,477 12,834 4,527 1,823 2,704 3,265 896 266 100 2.83 14,957 68 7,819 985 774 882 77 3,022 1,330 11,399 4,078 1,599 2,479 2,980 801 220 77 2.80 14,249 68 7,238 926 722 768 73 3,249 1,205 10,031 3,678 1,292 2,386 2,655 716 221 86 2.73 13,619 72 6,724 901 650 691 71 3,355 1,155 8,873 3,387 1,012 2,375 2,444 651 214 78 2.62 13,136 75 6,437 872 575 608 68 3,364 1,137 8,061 3,182 833 2,349 2,296 605 207 74 2.53 12,785 80 6,091 877 515 552 66 3,440 1,164 7,505 3,045 719 2,326 2,198 575 202 70 2.46 12,429 83 5,703 894 469 511 64 3,533 1,172 -7,697 -2,286 -1,374 -912 -1,502 -510 -183 -91 -.39 -2,255 10 -1,485 -181 -393 -536 -18 653 -305 -50.6 -42.9 -65.6 -28.2 -40.6 -47.0 -47.5 -56.5 -13.6 -15.4 13.7 -20.7 -16.8 -45.6 -51.2 -22.0 22.7 -20.6 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 17,673 6,101 2,419 3,682 3,419 1,516 767 399 2.90 11,936 0 3,053 857 653 1,777 197 3,375 2,024 16,572 5,790 2,327 3,463 3,452 1,410 627 301 2.86 8,639 0 768 850 563 1,895 160 2,663 1,740 15,435 5,511 2,143 3,368 3,409 1,325 534 243 2.80 8,341 1 432 805 514 1,909 127 3,027 1,526 14,631 5,342 1,941 3,401 3,325 1,273 515 229 2.74 8,224 1 425 754 520 1,851 107 3,046 1,520 13,842 5,220 1,717 3,503 3,238 1,255 507 220 2.65 8,080 1 397 708 517 1,806 100 3,028 1,523 13,198 5,132 1,557 3,575 3,179 1,243 12,639 5,048 1,433 3,615 3,123 1,229 490 206 2.50 7,878 1 334 630 -5,034 -1,053 -986 -67 -296 -287 -277 -193 -.39 -4,058 1 -2,719 -227 -164 -63 -105 -289 -492 -28.5 -17.3 -40.8 -1 .8 -8.7 -18.9 -36.1 -48.4 -13.6 -34.0 498 212 2.57 7,960 1 364 669 504 1,756 96 3,042 1,528 489 1,714 92 3,086 1,532 nla -89.1 -26.5 -25.1 -3.5 -53.3 -8.6 -24.3 �CODY Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration CONDON Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration CONNER Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 24,545 8,999 4,068 4,931 3,118 2,846 2,052 983 2.73 9,311 47 4,682 90 250 2,199 2020 24,653 8,932 4,383 4,549 3,686 2,703 1,774 769 2.76 9,917 47 5,825 93 338 1,942 69 1,385 24,530 8,890 4,518 4,372 4,139 2,566 1,562 623 2.76 9,663 52 5,818 102 398 1,715 72 1,307 199 24,498 8,820 4,584 4,236 4,445 2,422 1,394 559 2.78 9,488 60 5,808 105 425 1,497 76 1,324 193 24,804 8,828 4,770 4,058 4,783 2,287 1,260 498 2.81 9,342 62 5,907 103 442 1,293 78 1,269 25,054 8,859 4,956 3,903 5,052 2,183 1,165 459 2.83 9,210 65 5,897 102 25,010 8,833 5,059 3,774 5,198 2,104 1,100 431 2.83 8,978 68 5,747 100 458 1,068 85 1,262 190 64 1,724 255 218 188 454 1,161 82 1,258 191 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 11,699 4,327 1,485 2,842 2,637 942 500 248 2.70 4,051 24 1,141 58 411 . 869 8,793 3,353 1,116 2,237 2,106 726 338 183 2.62 5,032 27 1,087 54 482 1,058 36 2,215 73 7,682 3,024 919 2,105 1,897 660 297 170 2.54 5,134 31 1,076 50 471 1,119 34 2,286 67 6,877 2,778 793 1,985 1,743 608 270 157 2.48 5,172 33 1,043 45 449 1,192 31 2,317 62 6,300 2,603 719 5,934 2,486 675 1,811 1,568 546 232 140 2.39 5,163 37 926 39 401 42 1,408 98 9,874 3,768 1,233 2,535 2,346 826 406 190 2.62 4,419 24 1,166 55 458 879 39 1,713 85 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 36,758 10,878 6,421 4,457 5,738 2,582 1,600 958 3.38 2,903 16 63 130 104 853 9 1,490 238 36,266 10,209 7,057 3,152 6,289 2,003 1,224 693 3.55 2,681 18 33 116 24 31,514 9,200 6,058 3,142 6,485 1,464 786 465 3.43 2,676 27 14 98 20 244 18 2,065 190 30,391 8,987 5,852 3,135 6,541 1,313 692 441 3.38 2,618 27 10 91 18 193 21 2,063 195 29,464 8,811 5,704 3,107 6,530 1,218 637 426 3.34 2,575 27 8 85 16 162 23 2,057 197 569 11 1,705 205 34,493 9,815 6,704 3,111 6,248 1,856 1,116 595 3.51 2,743 22 21 110 18 413 13 1,966 180 32,869 9,464 6,350 3,114 6,339 1,683 942 500 3.47 2,728 27 20 105 22 320 15 2,034 185 1,884 1,636 572 248 147 2.42 5,184 35 989 42 424 1,247 29 2,359 59 1,284 27 2,393 56 Change 465 -166 991 -1,157 2,080 -65 Percent 1.9 -1.8 24.4 -23.5 66.7 -26.1 -46.4 -56.2 3.8 -3.6 44.7 22.7 11.1 83.2 -51.4 32.8 -26.8 -25.5 Change -5,765 -1,841 -810 -1,031 -1,069 -396 -268 -108 -.32 1,112 13 -215 -19 -10 415 -15 985 -42 Percent -49.3 -42.5 -54.5 -36.3 -40.5 -42.0 -53.6 -43.5 -11.7 27.5 54.2 -18.8 -32.8 -2.4 47.8 -35.7 70.0 -42.9 Change -7,294 -2,067 -717 -1,350 792 -1,364 -963 -532 -.04 -328 11 -55 -45 -88 -691 14 567 -41 Percent -19.8 -19.0 -11.2 -30.3 13.8 -52.8 -60.2 -55.5 -1.0 -11.3 68.8 -87.3 -34.6 -84.6 -81.0 155.6 38.1 -17.2 -742 -952 -552 .10 -333 21 1,065 10 208 -1,131 21 -462 105 \ If ), )i ;c =1 3( ,e SI ;c .R >ir J �DAVISON Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 19,660 6,850 2,873 3,977 3,730 1,846 876 398 2.87 6,093 36 1,133 219 1,060 776 7 2,516 346 20,671 6,288 2,945 3,343 3,682 1,631 718 257 3.29 5,066 30 893 166 973 577 7 1,703 717 19,573 5,823 2,859 2,964 3,556 1,473 605 189 3.36 4,399 31 705 141 882 455 6 1,341 838 18,863 5,447 2,793 2,654 3,416 1,304 541 186 3.46 3,953 37 664 121 768 374 6 1,143 840 18,637 5,223 2,853 2,370 3,375 1,180 498 170 3.57 3,371 37 569 92 629 289 6 899 850 18,389 5,056 2,898 2,158 3,341 1,090 466 159 3.64 2,969 37 486 74 524 233 6 749 860 17,960 4,888 2,886 2,002 3,269 1,025 442 152 3.67 2,696 37 419 62 450 197 7 658 866 DELRAY/SPRINGWELL Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 28,737 10,477 4,406 6,071 6,065 2,505 1,353 554 2.74 12,580 133 2,647 2,690 1,662 1,340 510 2,827 771 26,686 9,790 4,330 5,460 6,196 2,233 1,022 339 2.73 11,688 101 1,670 2,891 1,512 1,367 537 2,948 662 24,871 9,239 4,099 5,140 6,124 2,033 841 241 2.69 11,793 91 1,215 3,108 1,446 1,365 535 3,435 598 23,339 8,752 3,777 4,975 5,921 1,831 757 243 2.67 11,527 96 1,108 3,059 1,315 1,322 517 3,535 575 22,143 8,419 3,487 4,932 5,764 1,713 712 230 2.63 11,186 100 987 3,036 1,186 1,268 508 3,540 561 21,186 8,179 3,276 4,903 5,641 1,633 684 221 2.59 10,880 105 874 3,003 1,069 1,217 506 3,544 562 20,234 7,934 3,081 4,853 5,491 1,569 661 213 2.55 10,600 108 779 2,923 979 1,176 499 3,585 551 DENBY Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 22,349 8,315 3,292 5,023 2,403 2,764 1,959 1,189 2.69 2,561 66 189 14 199 602 196 1,282 13 23,627 8,279 3,949 4,330 2,660 2,863 1,765 991 2.85 2,103 71 241 20 180 356 194 1,030 24,545 8,252 4,443 3,809 2,905 2,937 1,581 829 2.97 1,903 71 266 25 169 236 181 944 11 25,624 8,208 4,913 3,295 3,249 2,811 1,423 725 3.12 1,830 70 314 27 161 172 165 911 10 25,598 8,184 4,881 3,303 3,302 2,812 1,369 701 3.13 1,777 71 347 31 154 137 158 869 10 25,361 8,136 4,845 3,291 3,323 2,801 1,325 687 3.12 1,734 72 365 34 144 113 154 843 9 25,207 8,132 4,843 3,289 3,345 2,797 1,307 683 3.10 1,700 73 369 35 136 98 149 831 9 106 11 Change -1,700 -1,962 13 -1,975 -461 -821 -434 -246 .80 -3,397 1 -714 -157 -610 -579 0 -1,858 520 Percent -8.6 -28.6 .5 -49.7 -12.4 -44.5 -49.5 -61 .8 28.0 -55.8 2.8 -63.0 -71 .7 -57.5 -74.6 .0 -73.8 150.3 Change -8,503 -2,543 -1,325 -1,218 -574 -936 -692 -341 -.19 -1,980 -25 -1,868 233 -683 -164 -11 758 -220 Percent -29.6 -24.3 -30.1, -20.1 -9.5 -37.4 -51 .1 -61.6 -7.0 -15.7 -18.8 -70.6 8.7 -41 .1 -12.2 -2.2 26.8 -28.5 Change 2,858 -183 1,551 -1,734 942 33 -652 -506 .41 -861 7 180 21 -63 -504 -47 -451 -4 Percent 12.8 -2.2 47.1 -34.5 39.2 1.2 -33.3 -42.6 15.3 -33.6 10.6 95.2 150.0 -31.7 -83.7 -24.0 -35.2 -30.8 �1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 29,470 11,839 4,084 7,755 6,830 2,710 1,487 812 2.49 3,432 39 161 84 35 319 169 2,559 66 27,381 11,218 3,713 7,505 6,833 2,432 1,286 667 2.44 4,942 39 142 78 4 422 153 4,049 55 25,537 10,645 3,393 7,252 6,747 2,194 1,127 5n 2.40 4,050 41 131 23,811 10,131 2,978 7,153 6,535 2,050 1,027 519 2.35 4,163 47 148 73 6 542 126 3,178 43 22,291 9,716 2,610 7,106 6,369 1,920 949 478 2.29 4,224 50 144 66 5 593 117 3,209 40 21,133 9,416 2,384 7,032 6,265 1,825 884 442 2.24 4,270 53 136 61 5 629 110 3,238 38 20,324 9,234 2,246 6,988 6,223 1,760 836 415 2.20 4,324 56 128 56 4 655 104 3,285 36 EAST RIVERSIDE Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 10,443 3,616 1,576 2,040 2,013 766 473 364 2.89 2,015 36 511 116 68 314 91 858 21 10,037 3,585 1,483 2,102 2,113 642 474 356 2.80 1,366 36 241 174 37 259 77 524 18 10,585 3,822 1,484 2,338 2,173 611 559 479 2.77 1,083 38 133 181 30 228 66 391 16 10,858 3,874 1,525 2,349 2,180 615 586 493 2.80 958 41 102 175 31 203 58 333 15 11,226 3,961 1,576 2,385 2,195 635 616 515 2.83 910 45 87 180 30 190 55 309 14 11,517 4,038 1,629 2,409 2,205 656 641 536 2.85 871 48 74 183 28 179 53 293 13 11,588 4,057 1,651 2,406 2,184 668 655 550 2.86 844 52 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 35,470 11,642 6,115 5,527 3,431 3,325 2,837 2,049 3.05 5,833 0 104 37 243 2,129 420 2,796 104 35,557 11,515 6,419 5,096 3,790 3,169 2,718 1,838 3.09 5,499 0 73 37 314 2,258 373 2,340 104 34,734 11,250 6,394 4,856 3,991 3,030 2,585 1,644 3.09 5,314 1 60 41 360 2,264 329 2,157 102 34,278 11,057 6,398 4,659 4,189 2,935 2,459 1,474 3.10 5,066 2 67 42 378 2,141 294 2,037 105 34,412 10,969 6,782 4,187 4,761 2,769 2,215 1,224 3.14 4,689 1 58 43 404 1,978 253 1,831 121 34,160 10,890 6,892 3,998 4,879 2,711 2,148 1,152 3.14 4,575 0 53 43 405 1,915 239 1,795 125 DURFEE EVERGREEN Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration n 5 502 138 3,110 46 34,343 10,989 6,581 4,408 4,509 2,841 2,314 1,325 3.13 4,850 1 62 43 397 2,058 269 1,908 112 es 181 27 170 51 285 13 Change -9,146 -2,605 -1,838 -767 -607 -950 -651 -397 ·.29 892 17 -33 -28 -31 336 -65 726 -30 Percent -31.0 -22.0 -45.0 -9.9 -8.9 -35.1 -43.8 -48.9 -11.6 26.0 43.6 -20.5 -33.3 -88.6 105.3 -38.5 28.4 -45.5 Change 1,145 441 75 366 171 -98 182 186 -.03 -1, 171 16 -446 65 -41 -144 -40 -573 -8 Percent 11.0 12.2 4.8 17.9 8.5 -12.8 38.5 51.1 -1.1 -58.1 44.4 -87.3 56.0 -60.3 -45.9 -44.0 -66.8 -38.1 Change -1,310 -752 Percent -3.7 -6.5 12.7 -27.7 42.2 -18.5 -24.3 -43.8 3.0 ·21.6 .0 -49.0 16.2 66.7 -10.1 -43.1 -35.8 20.2 m -1,529 1,448 -614 -689 -897 .09 -1,258 0 -51 6 162 -214 -181 -1,001 21 107 1 r: ic 1t I~ el s :o Cc F ,e pE ss c, 2.R Dit �FINNEY Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration GRANDMONT Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration GRANT Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 108 1990 31,196 11,390 4,508 6,882 3,563 3,368 2,658 1,801 2.74 11,300 213 191 220 45 2,569 310 7,752 0 1995 31,968 11,207 5,161 6,046 3,787 3,362 2,502 1,556 2.85 12,873 269 239 163 225 2,391 288 9,298 0 2000 32,332 11,070 5,579 5,491 3,998 3,348 2,356 1,368 2.92 14,195 274 253 136 381 2,223 260 10,668 0 2005 2010 2015 2020 32,652 10,931 5,880 5,051 4,182 3,287 2,227 1,235 2.99 14,399 261 277 125 489 2,001 234 11,012 0 33,313 10,842 6,345 4,497 4,491 3,163 2,077 1,111 3.07 14,389 270 268 109 562 1,760 211 11,209 0 33,625 10,745 6,718 4,027 4,726 3,046 1,954 1,019 3.13 14,349 279 252 97 610 1,563 195 11,353 0 33,752 10,683 6,990 3,693 4,869 2,976 1,878 960 3.16 14,384 285 234 87 641 1,426 182 11,529 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 24,445 7,693 4,111 3,582 2,836 2,033 1,508 1,316 3.18 3,181 0 394 15 154 922 69 1,597 30 23,779 7,550 4,053 3,497 3,065 1,911 1,343 1,231 3.15 3,406 0 332 14 250 833 78 1,873 26 22,559 7,291 3,823 3,468 3,152 1,796 1,209 1,134 3.09 3,648 1 285 14 320 747 82 2,175 24 21,489 7,094 3,529 3,565 3,144 1,767 1,167 1,016 3.03 3,704 1 294 14 356 660 84 2,272 23 20,553 6,954 3,256 3,698 3,151 1,736 1,139 928 2.96 3,720 1 279 14 393 581 86 2,344 22 19,813 6,863 3,072 3,791 3,156 1,718 1,118 871 2.89 3,719 1 257 14 415 517 88 2,406 21 19,088 6,760 2,921 3,839 3,131 1,701 1,100 828 2.82 3,721 1 236 14 426 473 88 2,462 21 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 12,427 4,342 1,889 2,453 1,561 1,341 877 563 2.86 6,886 8 2,233 83 1,050 1,937 155 1,365 55 12,913 4,292 2,227 2,065 1,785 1,255 741 511 3.01 6,146 4 1,668 81 746 1,917 186 1,497 47 13,330 4,296 2,475 1,821 1,992 1,193 649 462 3.10 5,598 5 1,234 82 552 1,820 199 1,663 43 13,248 4,283 2,445 1,838 2,035 1,188 623 437 3.09 5,142 6 1,075 79 423 1,638 198 1,682 41 13,110 4,275 2,396 1,879 2,109 1,159 583 424 3.07 4,758 6 936 74 320 1,500 205 1,677 40 12,884 4,251 2,346 1,905 2,159 1,122 553 417 3.03 4,454 7 812 70 252 1,384 213 1,676 40 12,702 4,239 2,317 1,922 2,193 1,096 537 413 3.00 4,209 7 710 65 209 1,294 216 1,669 39 Change 2,556 -707 2,482 -3,189 1,306 -392 -780 -841 .42 3,084 72 43 -133 596 -1, 143 -128 3,777 0 Percent 8.2 -6.2 55.1 -46.3 36.7 -11.6 -29.3 -46.7 15.4 27.3 33.8 22.5 -60.5 1,324.4 -44.5 -41.3 Change -5,357 -933 -1,190 257 295 -332 -408 -488 -.35 540 1 -158 -1 272 -449 19 865 -9 Percent -21.9 -12.1 -28.9 7.2 10.4 -16.3 -27.1 -37.1 -11.1 17.0 n/a -40.1 -6.7 176.6 -48.7 27.5 54.2 -30.0 Change 275 -103 428 -531 632 -245 -340 -150 .13 -2,677 -1 -1,523 -18 -841 -643 61 304 -16 Percent 2.2 -2.4 22.7 -21.6 40.5 -18.3 -38.8 -26.6 4.7 -38.9 -12.5 -68.2 -21.7 -80.1 -33.2 39.4 22.3 -29.1 48.7 .0 �GREENFIELD Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration HARMONY VILLAGE Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration INDIAN VILLAGE Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 28,801 9,696 4,661 28,161 9,582 4,666 4,916 27,228 9,423 4,521 4,902 26,289 9,276 4,253 5,023 6,575 177 3,856 2,496 2,092 979 2.89 8,179 1 93 65 96 629 131 7,032 132 3,977 2,469 1,956 874 2.83 8,056 1 113 48 105 617 123 6,923 126 24,705 9,125 3,830 5,295 4,189 2,448 1,732 756 2.71 7,816 1 112 25 98 590 111 23,948 9,041 3,689 5,352 4,217 2,432 1,672 720 2.65 7,808 1 107 20 94 576 106 6,787 117 -4,853 -655 -972 317 3,587 2,593 2,226 1,176 2.94 7,939 0 95 99 87 613 142 6,753 150 25,420 9,175 3,996 5,179 4,097 2,454 1,819 805 2.77 7,918 1 115 33 103 607 116 6,821 122 8 -169 18 1 -45 212 -60 -16.9 -6.8 -20.9 6.3 32.3 -9.5 -29.6 -50.3 -10.8 -.4 n/a 8.1 -89.4 23.7 .2 -29.8 3.2 -33.9 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 27,062 10,408 2,852 7,556 5,172 3,246 1,268 722 2.60 5,113 35 419 428 266 1,069 90 2,532 274 25,609 10,244 2,413 7,831 5,121 3,233 1,210 680 2.50 4,982 38 390 416 226 1,062 84 2,492 274 24,622 10,174 2,134 8,040 5,125 3,231 1,169 649 2.42 4,885 39 361 400 197 1,053 79 2,487 269 -10,571 -1,367 -3,087 1,720 113 -123 -784 -573 -.63 -1,562 16 -311 -15 -505 95 -72 -647 -123 -30.0 -11.8 -59.1 27.2 2.3 -3.7 -40.1 -46.9 -20.6 -24.2 69.6 -46.3 -3.6 -71 .9 9.9 -47.7 -20.6 -31.4 2020 Change Percent 5,327 3,171 342 2,829 1,552 621 629 369 1.68 2,526 0 38 15 20 81 82 2,285 5 -112 -72 54 -126 275 -181 51 -217 .00 167 0 -9 -36 -9 -166 -140 530 -3 -2.1 -2.2 18.8 -4.3 21.5 -22.6 8.8 -37.0 .2 7.1 .0 -19.1 -70.6 -31 .0 -67.2 -63.1 30.2 -37.5 5,035 3,187 2,687 2,374 1,448 2 .97 7,842 0 99 189 76 575 151 6,759 120 31,011 10,938 4,186 6,752 5,381 3,300 1,413 958 151 3,134 392 33,132 11,250 4,737 6,513 5,275 3,334 1,642 999 2.95 5,770 23 527 430 506 1,055 127 2,769 333 2.84 5,475 26 433 452 390 1,094 110 2,672 298 28,998 10,645 3,519 7,126 5,287 3,256 1,334 768 2.72 5,293 33 441 440 320 1,066 99 2,613 281 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 5,439 3,243 288 2,955 1,277 802 578 586 1.68 2,359 0 47 51 29 247 222 1,755 8 5,453 3,235 317 2,918 1,324 734 648 529 1.69 2,502 0 47 43 25 182 190 2,008 7 5,496 3,258 335 2,923 1,390 686 698 5,519 3,250 342 2,908 1,446 669 689 446 1.70 2,594 2 48 28 25 116 128 2,242 5 5,459 3,224 336 2,888 1,491 650 668 5,405 3,205 338 2,867 1,530 636 649 390 1.69 2,526 1 41 18 22 89 93 2,257 5 35,193 11,541 5,221 6,320 5,012 3,354 1,953 1,222 3.05 6447 23 672 415 702 844 484 1.69 2,641 1 45 36 25 143 157 2,228 6 415 1.69 2,555 1 45 22 24 101 107 2,250 5 1,030 -255 -702 -728 -.32 -34 109 �JEFFRIES Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 9,183 4,305 1,153 3,152 3,043 721 401 140 2.13 6,466 0 545 488 332 706 241 4,058 96 8,405 3,953 1,039 2,914 2,757 637 450 109 2.13 5,768 0 482 406 331 589 237 3,641 82 8,136 3,815 957 2,858 2,642 577 503 93 2.13 5,358 1 506 358 305 501 182 3,431 74 7,720 3,642 812 2,830 2,485 567 485 105 2.12 5,086 2 562 340 277 451 147 3,238 69 7,385 3,497 698 2,799 2,364 553 476 104 2.11 4,847 1 604 325 252 407 122 3,069 67 7,118 3,392 625 2,767 2,277 6,879 3,306 574 2,732 2,208 536 460 102 2.08 4,544 0 617 297 209 347 96 2,914 64 KETTERING/BUTZEL Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 31,261 10,933 3,858 7,075 6,735 2,398 1,241 559 2.86 11,019 94 1,761 225 911 935 203 6,424 466 27,676 10,048 3,258 6,790 6,528 2,096 1,044 380 2.75 10,070 83 1,250 17 839 1,005 173 6,304 399 24,953 9,441 2,717 6,724 6,366 1,880 905 290 2.64 9,675 80 917 2 783 1,037 149 6,356 351 23,389 8,870 2,471 6,399 6,057 1,710 816 287 2.64 9,241 81 817 21,651 8,409 2,125 6,284 5,835 1,571 740 263 2.57 8,863 82 722 0 635 1,010 121 5,943 350 20,412 8,080 1,928 6,152 5,686 1,470 683 241 2.53 8,575 19,610 7,893 1,813 6,080 5,619 1,402 644 228 2.48 8,408 84 560 0 522 975 105 5,812 350 LAFAYETTE Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 9,966 5,872 984 4,888 2,616 1,349 1,051 856 1.70 5,746 20 639 70 1,267 952 392 2,127 279 10,786 6,338 1,210 5,128 3,167 1,354 1,004 813 1.70 6,217 16 297 59 1,404 1,305 1,153 1,903 80 11,109 6,570 1,258 5,312 3,526 1,327 937 780 1.69 6,835 28 158 55 1,504 1,558 1,628 1,800 104 11,346 6,771 1,257 5,514 3,744 1,376 926 725 1.68 6,837 35 120 53 1,499 1,635 1,669 1,708 118 11,260 6,756 1,233 5,523 3,828 1,371 882 675 1.67 6,824 39 85 49 1,477 1,732 1,729 1,571 142 11,137 6,744 1,217 5,527 3,900 1,370 844 630 1.65 6,821 43 63 10,925 6,688 1,192 5,496 3,927 1,359 810 592 1.63 6,791 46 50 43 1,371 1,838 1,822 1,433 188 110 704 1,019 134 6,135 350 544 468 103 2.10 4,668 1 620 312 228 372 107 2,962 66 83 632 0 571 992 113 5,834 350 46 1,426 1,797 1,794 1,483 169 Change -2,304 -999 -579 -420 -835 -185 59 -.05 -1,922 0 72 -191 -123 -359 -145 -1,144 -32 Percent -25.1 -23.2 -50.2 -13.3 -27.4 -25.7 14.7 -27.1 -2.5 -29.7 .0 13.2 -39.1 -37.0 -50.8 -60.2 -28.2 -33.3 Change -11,651 -3,040 -2,045 -995 -1,116 -996 -597 -331 -.37 -2,611 -10 -1,201 -225 -389 40 -98 -612 -116 Percent -37.3 -27.8 -53.0 -14.1 -16.6 -41.5 -48.1 -59.2 -13.1 -23.7 -10.6 -68.2 -100.0 -42.7 4.3 -48.3 -9.5 -24.9 Change 959 816 208 608 1,311 10 -241 -264 -.06 1,045 26 -589 -27 104 886 1,430 -694 -91 Percent 9.6 13.9 21.1 12.4 50.1 .7 -22.9 -30.8 -3.8 18.2 130.0 -92.2 -38.6 8.2 93.1 364.8 -32.6 -32.6 -38 �MACK Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration MACKENZIE Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration McNICHOLS Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 12,829 4,657 1,897 2,760 3,300 739 469 149 2.75 3,200 41 230 172 87 646 33 1,877 114 11,695 4,338 1,680 2,658 3,093 675 436 134 2.70 3,337 44 247 168 83 679 37 1,965 114 11,020 4,172 1,560 2,612 2,993 637 416 126 2.64 3,429 46 253 162 79 702 39 2,035 111 2010 2015 2020 26,938 12,071 2,715 9,356 7,646 2,406 1,427 592 2.23 5,679 1 496 380 206 543 165 3,574 314 22,603 7,653 3,676 3,9TT 5,048 1,565 718 322 2.95 1,821 32 75 132 66 338 20 1,021 137 19,022 6,582 3,091 3,491 4,589 1,199 563 231 2.89 2,195 32 117 165 75 459 24 1,194 129 16,573 5,744 2,679 3,065 4,052 942 564 186 2.89 2,795 34 151 178 83 547 27 1,654 121 14,499 5,108 2,262 2,846 3,599 829 512 168 2.84 3,027 39 201 175 90 598 30 1,778 116 1990 1995 2000 2005 41,997 14,190 6,490 7,700 6,415 3,822 2,536 1,417 2.96 8,100 0 1,254 540 739 1,108 72 3,951 436 39,042 13,663 6,006 7,657 6,953 3,350 2,260 1,100 2.86 6,730 0 869 484 489 940 91 3,487 370 36,102 13,183 5,386 7,797 7,283 2,977 2,036 887 2.74 6,182 1 658 473 367 817 105 3,435 326 33,207 12,734 4,569 8,165 7,338 2,790 1,822 784 2.61 6,030 2 638 451 308 717 117 3,485 312 30,352 12,381 3,685 8,696 7,397 2,627 1,654 703 2.45 5,873 1 595 426 266 645 135 3,493 312 28,215 12,133 3,090 9,043 7,489 2,491 1,517 636 2.33 5,755 1 544 404 231 586 152 3,521 316 1995 2005 2010 2015 2020 1990 2000 12,7TT 4,719 1,909 2,810 2,374 1,255 670 420 2.71 4,850 0 1,123 323 587 503 0 2,244 70 11,848 4,423 1,806 2,617 2,321 1,200 562 340 2.68 4,435 0 914 297 531 324 0 2,308 61 10,902 4,140 1,638 2,502 2,238 1,132 482 288 2.63 4,169 1 724 273 474 228 0 2,415 54 10,092 3,906 1,431 2,475 2,121 1,066 456 263 2.58 3,944 2 669 236 413 172 0 2,402 50 9,401 3,732 1,232 2,500 2,023 1,023 438 248 2.52 3,753 1 613 205 360 129 0 2,397 48 8,879 3,607 1,097 2,510 1,952 993 425 237 2.46 3,604 1 552 182 314 101 0 2,408 46 8,456 3,505 1,000 2,505 1,895 970 413 227 2.41 3,506 0 498 163 280 85 0 2,436 44 Change -11,583 -3,481 -2, 116 -1,365 -2,055 -928 -302 -196 -.31 1,608 14 180 30 13 364 19 1,014 -26 Percent -51.2 -45.5 -57.6 -34.3 -40.7 -59.3 -42.1 -60.9 -10.6 88.3 43.8 240.0 22.7 19.7 107.7 95.0 99.3 -19.0 Change -15,059 -2, 119 -3,775 1,656 1,231 -1,416 -1, 109 -825 -.73 -2,421 1 -758 -160 -533 -565 93 -377 -122 Percent -35.9 -14.9 -58.2 21.5 19.2 -37.0 -43.7 -58.2 -24.6 -29.9 .0 -60.4 -29.6 -72.1 -51.0 129.2 -9.5 -28.0 Change -4,321 -1,214 -909 -305 -479 -285 -257 -193 -.30 -1,344 0 -625 -160 -307 -418 0 192 -26 Percent -33.8 -25.7 -47.6 -10.9 -20.2 -22.7 -38.4 -46.0 -10.9 -27.7 .0 -55.7 -49.5 -52.3 -83.1 .0 8.6 -37.1 111 r ) �MT. OLIVET Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 29,650 10,462 4,496 5,966 3,937 3,289 2,159 1,077 2.83 4,856 185 1,094 364 209 880 207 1,761 156 1995 31,471 10,378 5,616 4,762 4,742 3,157 1,723 756 3.03 4,914 221 967 326 304 696 212 2,054 134 2000 32,655 10,287 6,444 3,843 5,503 2,898 1,356 530 3.17 5,039 222 833 309 371 573 207 2,406 118 2005 32,126 10,202 6,295 3,907 5,671 2,835 1,227 469 3.15 5,090 204 837 283 404 487 198 2,564 113 2010 31,728 10,323 6,131 4,192 6,165 2,603 1,094 461 3.07 5,073 200 810 254 435 408 193 2,664 109 2015 31,300 10,411 6,020 4,391 6,522 2,419 1,018 452 3.01 5,041 198 761 230 449 351 191 2,753 108 2020 30,966 10,478 5,964 4,514 6,750 2,305 Change en -1,182 446 2.96 5,001 197 708 210 454 312 186 2,829 105 -631 .12 145 12 -386 -154 245 -568 -21 1,068 -51 .2 32.7 -24.3 71.5 -29.9 -54.7 -58.6 4.3 3.0 6.5 -35.3 -42.3 117.2 -64.5 -10.1 60.6 -32.7 NOLAN Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 23,841 8,158 3,593 4,565 4,021 2,242 1,233 662 2.92 2,451 13 356 86 133 640 67 1,123 33 1995 22,475 7,760 3,516 4,244 4,233 2,019 988 520 2.90 2,544 13 360 74 167 720 75 1,107 28 2000 21,005 7,395 3,307 4,088 4,304 1,839 827 425 2.84 2,651 16 348 70 186 761 79 1,166 25 2005 19,604 7,076 2,996 4,080 4,224 1,709 762 381 2.77 2,747 20 386 65 195 754 81 1,222 24 2010 18,317 6,845 2,674 4,171 4,160 1,614 726 345 2.68 2,810 20 404 59 201 765 85 1,253 23 2015 17,286 · 6,681 2,445 4,236 4,114 1,548 698 321 2.59 2,860 20 407 55 201 2020 16,388 6,535 2,265 4,270 4,059 1,497 674 305 2.51 Change Percent 2,898 -7,453 -1,623 -1,328 -295 38 -745 -559 -357 -.41 447 89 1,295 23 21 399 51 199 n1 91 1,343 23 43 -35 66 131 24 220 -10 -31.3 -19.9 -37.0 -6.5 .9 -33.2 -45.3 -53.9 -14.2 18.2 61.5 12.1 -40.7 49.6 20.5 35.8 19.6 -30.3 PALMER PARK Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 12,237 5,009 1,503 3,506 855 1,342 1,030 1,782 2.44 2,040 1 99 124 10 399 287 884 236 1995 12,170 5,005 1,480 3,525 817 1,312 1,023 1,853 2.43 1,972 0 104 140 3 335 278 911 201 2000 12,100 5,006 1,433 3,573 798 1,286 996 1,926 2.42 1,998 1 108 163 4 292 258 996 176 2005 11,975 5,008 1,316 3,692 785 1,244 1,043 1,936 2.39 2,031 1 133 166 5 258 236 1,068 164 2010 11,906 5,003 1,233 3,770 770 1,203 1,051 1,979 2.38 2,053 1 141 170 4 229 225 1,124 159 2015 11,830 4,992 1,195 3,797 758 1,174 1,061 1,999 2.37 2,073 1 142 171 4 205 218 1,175 157 2020 11,659 4,942 1,173 3,769 744 1,144 1,063 1,991 2.36 2,089 1 139 168 4 189 210 1,226 152 Change Percent -578 -67 -330 263 -111 -198 33 209 -.08 49 0 40 44 -6 -210 -77 342 -84 -4.7 -1.3 -22.0 7.5 -13.0 -14.8 3.2 11.7 -3.4 2.4 .0 40.4 35.5 -60.0 -52.6 -26.8 38.7 -35.6 112 no 1,316 16 1,468 -1,452 2,813 -984 8 Percent 4.4 �PEMBROKE Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration PERSHING Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration REDFORD Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 21,870 8,123 2,789 5,334 2,278 2,323 2,014 1,508 2.69 2,756 0 141 99 162 435 171 1,573 175 2020 Change Percent 21,096 8,113 2,472 5,641 2,427 2,351 1,966 1,369 2.60 2,773 0 153 92 156 538 182 1,530 122 20,377 8,103 2,173 5,930 2,544 2,374 1,908 1,277 2.51 2,865 1 160 91 153 609 181 1,578 92 19,699 8,065 1,866 6,199 2,609 2,414 1,839 1,203 2.44 2,931 2 194 86 153 637 175 1,605 79 19,134 8,018 1,642 6,376 2,664 2,449 1,761 1,144 2.39 2,969 1 205 79 149 678 174 1,614 69 18,638 7,983 1,498 6,485 2,718 2,482 1,697 1,086 2.33 3,001 1 208 73 142 705 175 1,634 63 18,144 7,922 1,399 6,523 2,752 2,494 1,641 1,035 2.29 3,030 0 2)5 -3,726 -201 -1,390 1,189 474 171 -373 -473 -.40 274 0 64 -31 -26 289 2 -17.0 -2.5 -49.8 22.3 20.8 7.4 -18.5 -31.4 -14.9 9.9 .0 45.4 -31.3 -16.0 66.4 1.2 5.9 -66.9 68 136 724 173 1,666 58 93 -117 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 22,476 7,814 3,233 4,581 2,976 2,215 1,652 971 2.88 5,318 0 2,966 110 145 627 37 1,373 60 22,079 7,693 3,309 4,384 3,266 2,135 1,444 848 2.87 5,062 0 2,384 89 166 539 19 1,814 51 21,421 7,540 3,256 4,284 3,460 2,051 1,283 746 2.84 4,899 1 1,838 81 179 471 12 2,272 45 20,763 7,396 3,103 4,293 3,528 2,003 1,192 673 2.81 4,477 2 1,323 73 185 415 9 2,427 43 20,227 7,298 2,970 4,328 3,586 1,962 1,129 621 2.77 4,103 1 948 61 179 354 8 2,512 40 19,775 7,238 2,886 4,352 3,630 1,937 1,087 584 2.73 3,785 1 694 51 160 302 8 2,525 38 19,214 7,137 2,797 4,340 3,621 1,908 1,052 556 2.69 3,529 0 534 44 153 264 -3,262 -677 -436 -241 645 -307 -600 -415 -.18 -1,789 0 -2,432 -66 8 -363 -30 1,119 -25 -14.5 -8.7 -13.5 -5.3 21.7 -13.9 -36.3 -42.7 -6.4 -33.6 .0 -82.0 -60.0 5.5 -57.9 -81.1 81.5 -41.7 7 2,492 35 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 23,443 9,526 3,228 6,298 2,884 2,980 2,479 1,183 2.46 5,094 152 315 99 187 1,005 248 2,773 315 23,789 9,504 3,501 6,003 2,983 3,130 2,470 921 2.50 4,349 152 239 111 207 879 215 2,273 273 23,986 9,468 3,701 5,767 3,046 3,256 2,425 741 2.53 3,957 147 197 124 220 755 187 2,070 257 24,139 9,407 3,788 5,619 3,084 3,241 2,337 745 2.57 3,739 141 209 130 24,315 9,360 3,896 5,464 3,100 3,238 2,295 727 2,60 3,543 141 203 136 232 584 158 1,839 250 24,448 9,349 4,020 5,329 3,114 3,249 2,269 717 2.62 3,398 143 191 139 229 524 151 1,766 255 24,301 9,273 4,096 5,177 3,085 3,242 2,238 708 2.62 3,300 144 179 140 225 483 144 1,730 255 858 -253 868 -1, 121 201 262 -241 -475 .16 -1,794 -8 -136 41 38 -522 -104 -1,043 -60 3.7 -2.7 26.9 -17.8 7.0 8.8 -9.7 -40.2 6.5 -35.2 -5.3 -43.2 41.4 20.3 ~51.9 -41.9 -37.6 -19.0 228 661 170 1,952 248 113 �2005 24,801 10,745 3,173 7,572 7,280 2,320 799 346 2.31 11,829 2 186 415 375 1,103 625 8,856 267 2010 23,484 10,4TT 2,794 7,683 7,188 2,204 755 330 2.24 11,848 1 169 405 371 1,162 619 8,857 264 2015 22,514 10,293 2,565 7,728 7,145 2,117 718 313 2.19 11,842 1 151 392 357 1,195 617 8,859 270 2020 21,842 10,206 2,416 7,790 7,154 2,060 692 300 2.14 11,905 0 136 376 344 1,217 609 8,951 272 Change Percent -7,144 -1,477 -1,627 150 -37 -689 -509 -242 -.34 3,344 0 -179 41 76 713 -69 2,857 -95 -24.6 -12.6 -40.2 2.0 -.5 -25.1 -42.4 -44.6 -13.7 39.1 .0 -56.8 12.2 719 7,933 313 2000 26,172 11,051 3,581 7,470 7,413 2,456 831 351 2.37 11,658 1 180 418 366 982 691 8,747 273 141 .5 -10.2 46.9 -25.9 1995 20,445 6,547 3,572 2,975 928 1,350 1,967 2,302 3.12 2,475 38 128 5 9 535 248 1,416 96 2000 20,328 6,450 3,632 2,818 895 1,348 1,947 2,260 3.15 2,567 42 126 4 9 453 248 1,602 83 2005 20,182 6,398 3,583 2,815 864 1,351 1,956 2,227 3.15 2,578 2010 19,984 6,339 3,533 2,806 2015 19,950 6,341 3,570 2,n1 827 1,324 2,012 2,178 3.15 2,548 57 146 2 8 288 232 1,745 70 2020 19,837 6,325 3,614 2,711 803 1,314 2,036 2,172 3.14 2,539 60 140 2 7 258 228 1,778 66 Change Percent -148 -220 267 -487 -144 -51 511 -48 -.7 -3.4 8.0 -15.2 -15.2 -3.7 4.0 -4.5 2.7 2.1 57.9 11 .1 -71.4 -87.3 -60.2 -.9 40.3 -42.1 1995 24,774 9,560 3,591 5,969 3,345 3,279 1,909 1,027 2.59 2,082 6 72 59 105 641 123 1,076 0 2000 24,683 9,557 3,705 5,852 3,640 3,355 1,702 860 2.58 1,913 7 64 59 107 519 138 1,019 0 2005 24,496 9,509 3,663 5,846 3,798 3,321 1,603 787 2.58 Percent ROSA PARKS Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 28,986 11,683 4,043 7,640 7,191 2,749 1,201 542 2.48 8,561 0 315 335 268 504 678 6,094 367 1995 27,374 11 ,338 3,792 7,546 7,363 2,592 978 405 2.41 10,679 0 226 388 330 ROSEDALE PARK Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 19,985 6,545 3,347 3,198 947 1,365 1,958 2,275 3.05 2,486 ROUGE Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 24,731 9,582 3,352 6,230 3,002 3,149 2,181 1,250 2.58 114 38 126 7 55 649 230 1,267 114 2,491 7 87 62 112 832 97 1,294 0 no 48 146 4 11 389 236 1,667 n 1,841 9 72 56 111 435 147 1,011 0 844 1,332 1,978 2,185 3.15 2,566 52 149 3 9 332 234 1,714 73 2010 24,371 9,4n 3,647 5,830 3,923 3,287 1,530 737 2.57 1,773 10 69 54 111 369 164 996 0 78 -103 .08 53 22 14 -5 -48 -391 -2 2015 2020 Change 24,248 23,898 9,477 3,665 5,812 4,022 3,271 1,482 702 2.56 1,720 10 65 51 108 319 180 9,405 3,652 5,753 -833 -1n 300 -477 1,047 91 -737 987 988 0 0 4,049 3,240 1,444 2.54 1,689 -578 -.04 -802 11 60 4 -27 49 -13 105 285 191 -7 -547 94 -306 0 672 28.4 -3.4 -1.8 8.9 -7.7 34.9 2.9 -33.8 -46.2 -1.5 -32.2 57.1 -31.0 -21.0 -6.3 -65.7 96.9 -23.6 .0 �ST.JEAN Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration STATE FAIR Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration TIREMAN Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 23,265 8,276 3,234 5,042 5,267 1,847 843 319 2.81 5,955 0 1,574 283 96 438 124 3,111 329 21,335 7,674 2,914 4,760 5,136 1,617 685 236 2.78 8,184 0 4,724 280 127 531 145 2,090 287 19,624 7,139 2,644 4,495 4,931 1,427 588 193 2.75 8,949 1 5,805 273 148 601 156 1,709 256 18,062 6,685 2,298 4,387 4,636 1,316 543 190 2.70 8,704 1 5,704 251 158 637 160 1,554 239 16,674 6,332 1,971 4,361 4,420 1,226 508 178 2.63 8,505 1 5,735 224 155 656 164 1,345 225 15,683 6,080 1,TT6 4,304 4,275 1,161 478 166 2.58 8,333 1 5,671 207 152 6TT 170 1,232 223 15,062 5,946 1,662 4,284 4,212 1,119 458 157 2.53 8,078 1 5,490 192 148 691 174 1,165 217 -8,203 -2,330 -1,572 -758 -1,055 -728 -385 -162 -.28 2,123 1 3,916 -91 52 253 50 -1,946 -112 -35.3 -28.2 -48.6 -15.0 -20.0 -39.4 -45.7 -50.8 -9.9 35.7 n/a 248.8 -32.2 54.2 57.8 40.3 -62.6 -34.0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 11,812 3,855 1,935 1,920 2,533 741 320 261 3.06 3,156 0 625 49 313 781 44 1,306 38 10,132 3,231 1,786 1,445 2,403 461 190 1TT 3.14 2,811 0 489 0 222 658 66 1,344 32 8,844 2,820 1,598 1,222 2,223 321 134 142 3.14 2,603 1 386 0 169 561 78 1,380 28 7,965 2,502 1,444 1,058 1,997 273 122 110 3.18 2,473 2 365 0 139 477 84 1,381 25 7,547 2,311 1,389 922 1,866 239 109 97 3.27 2,363 1 338 0 116 408 94 1,383 23 7,185 2,169 1,343 826 1,766 215 101 87 3.31 2,281 1 307 0 98 357 104 1,392 22 6,787 2,040 1,283 757 1,667 198 94 81 3.33 2,226 0 278 0 86 321 110 1,410 21 -5,025 -1,815 -652 -1,163 -866 -42.5 -47.1 -33.7 -60.6 -34.2 -73.3 -70.6 -69.0 8.6 -29.5 .0 -55.5 -100.0 -72.5 -58.9 150.0 8.0 -44.7 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Change Percent 26,325 9,711 3,731 5,980 5,899 2,169 1,189 454 2.71 5,461 46 1,422 641 691 538 63 1,812 248 24,081 9,040 3,485 5,555 5,905 1,934 933 268 2.66 4,446 46 568 528 486 710 56 1,861 22,224 8,462 3,237 5,225 5,735 1,755 20,650 7,968 2,917 5,051 5,441 1,623 705 199 2.59 4,331 55 402 404 295 901 50 2,072 152 18,186 7,337 2,363 4,974 5,026 1,499 633 179 2.48 4,220 62 318 299 194 1,042 46 2,107 152 17,400 7,159 2,219 4,940 4,921 1,458 608 172 2.43 4,184 64 282 264 165 1,081 -8,925 -2,552 -1,512 -1,040 -978 -711 -581 -282 -.28 -1,2TT 18 -1,140 -3TT -526 543 -19 318 -94 -33.9 -26.3 -40.5 -17.4 -16.6 -32.8 -48.9 -62.1 -10.3 -23.4 39.1 -80.2 -58.8 -76.1 100.9 -30.2 191 n8 194 2.63 4,368 50 428 468 368 842 52 2,001 159 19,244 7,601 2,581 5,020 5,193 1,553 666 189 2.53 4,271 59 360 344 237 984 48 2,089 150 44 2,130 154 -543 -226 -180 .26 -930 0 -347 -49 -227 -460 66 104 -17 17.5 -37.9 115 Ill I �1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 17,002 9,890 1,062 8,828 7,451 1,392 701 346 1.72 39,743 95 211 164 142 3,094 407 34,944 686 17,630 10,363 1,059 9,304 7,730 1,354 824 455 1.70 40,785 88 70 151 112 3,241 343 36,177 603 19,453 11,311 1,198 10,113 8,093 1,590 1,007 621 1.72 40,667 83 66 134 100 3,249 289 36,146 600 19,596 11,250 1,215 10,035 7,762 1,703 1,090 695 1.74 40,399 85 52 114 86 3,299 271 35,884 608 19,694 11,217 1,244 9,973 7,507 1,802 1,156 752 1.76 40,221 87 42 100 74 3,286 258 35,753 621 19,662 11,146 1,265 9,881 7,290 1,869 1,197 790 1.76 40,462 88 35 89 65 3,268 246 36,051 620 UNIVERSITY Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 16,692 9,576 1,'047 8,529 7,224 1,466 603 283 1.74 40,475 99 631 182 209 2,738 468 35,367 781 WINTER-HALTER Total Population Total Households With Children Without Children Income Quartile 1 Income Quartile 2 Income Quartile 3 Income Quartile 4 Persons Per Household Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res Manufacturing TCU Wholesale Trade Retail Trade FIRE Services Pub Administration 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 22,045 8,901 3,338 5,563 5,188 1,965 1,134 614 2.48 3,091 0 283 114 401 493 98 1,540 162 20,452 8,479 3,103 5,376 5,385 1,700 926 468 2.41 3,335 0 213 131 354 640 111 1,740 146 19,159 8,112 2,872 5,240 5,452 1,485 789 386 2.36 3,599 1 174 147 317 741 115 1,971 133 17,900 7,766 2,541 5,225 5,332 1,379 715 340 2.30 3,679 2 179 147 283 776 114 2,052 126 16,743 7,494 2,210 5,284 5,231 1,292 659 312 2.23 3,710 1 164 145 248 827 115 2,088 122 15,405 7,296 1,841 5,455 5,333 1,137 559 267 2.11 3,732 1 148 143 218 860 117 2,124 121 15,345 7,207 1,881 5,326 5,177 1,181 580 269 2.13 3,748 0 134 138 196 882 117 2,163 118 1990 DETROIT 1,027,979 Total Population 373,998 Total Households With Children 150,332 Without Children 223,666 Income Quartile 1 174,340 96,043 Income Quartile 2 63,580 Income Quartile 3 40,035 Income Quartile 4 2.75 Persons Per Household 412,490 Total Employment Ag, Min, Nat Res 2,207 63,371 Manufacturing 31,324 TCU Wholesale Trade 20,377 Retail Trade 49,504 32,761 FIRE Services 184,965 Pub Administration 27,981 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 992,291 360,477 150,926 209,551 180,482 89,246 56,663 34,086 2.75 383,716 2,242 55,701 26,945 18,551 45,398 27,521 182,465 24,893 952,023 349,288 145,954 203,334 182,622 84,373 51,975 30,318 2.73 368,879 2,236 50,595 24,513 17,663 42,660 22,302 186,799 22,111 915,952 339,923 137,457 202,466 181,205 81,003 49,148 28,567 2.69 357,343 2,253 48,233 22,916 16,663 40,603 19,167 185,814 21,694 884,345 332,531 129,916 202,615 180,707 77,836 46,696 27,292 2.66 348,206 2,291 46,380 22,179 15,729 38,995 17,889 183,115 21,628 858,648 327,215 125,251 201,964 180,620 75,432 44,877 26,286 2.62 341,745 2,360 44,021 21,764 14,800 37,737 17,434 181,898 21,731 837,294 322,892 122,197 200,695 179,857 73,836 43,665 25,534 2.59 337,352 2,401 41,401 21,425 14,025 36,801 16,937 182,628 21,734 116 Change 2,970 1,570 218 1,352 66 403 594 507 .02 -13 -11 -596 -93 -144 530 -222 684 -161 Percent 17.8 16.4 20.8 15.9 .9 27.5 98.5 179.2 1.2 .0 -11.1 -94.5 -51.1 -68.9 19.4 -47.4 1.9 -20.6 Change -6,700 -1,694 -1,457 -237 -11 -784 -554 -345 -.35 657 0 -149 24 -205 389 19 623 -44 Percent -30.4 -19.0 -43.6 -4.3 -.2 -39.9 -48.9 -56.2 -14.0 21.3 .0 -52.7 21.1 -51.1 78.9 19.4 40.5 -27.2 Change -190,685 -51,106 -28,135 -22,971 5,517 -22,207 -19,915 -14,501 -.16 -75, 138 194 -21,970 -9,899 -6,352 -12,703 -15,824 -2,337 -6,247 Percent -18.5 -13.7 -18.7 -10.3 3.2 -23.1 -31.3 -36.2 -5.7 -18.2 8.8 -34.7 -31.6 -31.2 -25.7 -48.3 -1.3 -22.3 ~ �ANITA ASHFORD Chairperson Councilmember City of Port Huron DOUGLAS WOOLLEY First Vice Chairperson Supervisor Pittsfield Township GERALDINE HOOD Vice Chairperson Supervisor West Bloomfield Township DIANA KOLAKOWSKI Vice Chairperson Commissioner Macomb County Board of Commissioners DANTE J. LANZETTA, JR. Vice Chairperson Commissioner City of Birmingham MARJORIE THOMAS Vice Chairperson President, /SD of St. Clair County Board of Education JOHN FUNK Immediate Past Chairperson Commissioner Monroe County JOHN M. AMBERGER Executive Director 1111___ � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Wyckoff Planning and Zoning Collection Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Planning & Zoning Center (Lansing, Mich.) (Organization) Wyckoff, Mark A. Description An account of the resource Municipal master plans and zoning ordinances from across the state of Michigan, spanning from the 1960s to the early 2020s. The bulk of the collection was compiled by urban planner Mark Wyckoff over the course of his career as the founder and principal planner of the Planning and Zoning Center in Lansing, Michigan. Some additions have been made to the collection by municipalities since it was transferred to Grand Valley State University. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Michigan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1960/2023 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Subject The topic of the resource Michigan Comprehensive plan publications Master plan reports Zoning--Michigan Zoning--Maps Maps Land use--planning Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-240 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Detroit_Regional-Development-Forecast_1996 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Southeast Michigan Council of Governments Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1996-04 Title A name given to the resource 2020 Regional Development Forecast: Population, Households and Employment for Cities, Villages, Townships and Detroit Subcommunities Description An account of the resource The 2020 Regional Development Forecast: Population, Households and Employment for Cities, Villages, Townships and Detroit Subcommunities report was prepared in April 1996 by the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments. Subject The topic of the resource population research Detroit, Michigan Wayne County (Mich.) Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/13f41f56a05e70a8e52dc900beb24318.pdf 3e333cef0bf1c5dd7ea438c11d0f9f85 PDF Text Text BASIC A C JI TY OJF 0 AK. ROYAIL PLAN USE LAND 9 MIICJH!JIGAN / PLAN C I TY CHARLES SHEET 0 100' 300' 600' 900' TECHNICIAN J . P. M c E W A N , P L A N N I N G CONSULTANT PLANNING W. BA R R, 1955 COMMISSION SHEETS 4 0 F 1200' 9 PLATE , • N - ONE FAMILY ~§®I [ZIT] TWO FAMILY ~ ~ MULTIPLE ■ ■ ---.J FAMILY SHOPPING D D HEAVY COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL HEAVY ROAD---- INDUSTRIAL H U R ON • ■ • • • ■ • • • ■ ■ •■• • COMMERCIAL MILE NEIGHBORHOOD • LIGHT ■ •• ■ • ••••• AVE. ADMINISTRATIVE •••••••••••••• PROFESSIONAL DONALD AVE. AVE. BAUM"-N _J NORMANDY MILLARD AVE :11111'½44< - AVE. : 0 a: ROAD 0 AVE. 0 0:: ......... . ...... . ........ ........ . . .. . . . . LEXINGTON ---~---~= :l-~-- t,J =~ '"~44-1 o:i,;,,;.¼4 I- ..J ..J ll) t,J r,;r,;7,7,=77?]'7,'771"7,17,7;,;:,:;;:7Y7'.P7,".Tv'.V:,'7Z'17777:'77:771., 0.. <l u 1•-~THIRTEEN "/ / / "/// V/// C//// "; /; /; t,J > FAIRVIEW " t,J t,J > > " " '/ "/. "/ / / /, "/; / "/ "/ t,J > " '" t,J . > > //_ // // "/. / " /. / AVE ~~ POPLAR I- 0: u z z z '"0 0 " X A V E. ::, '" 0 DEVIL LEN t- " '" I- --' --' " " 0: . "--' ., '" z 0 t- <I) u --' t,J ;o z z 0 (.) AVE. LINDEN AVE. AVE. ELL EN GIRARD nn; WEB RD. \ AVE. 5 T E R RD. II I AVE. II inn r �LAND A OF <CH'IPY I w. CHARLES BARR, I9 5 5 C O M M I S S I O .N PLAN CITY USE PLANNING CONSULTANT SHEET 0 100' goo' so o' 300' TECHNICIAN J. P. M c E W A N , P L A N N I N G 1200' 3 0 F SHEETS 4 PLATE 9 - ---- - - ~ - - I - - - --~ __JI \ ' '--------__JI L _ -- -::: --- ~- r - - - - - - - - -- -- -- ~ - AV E - ' c~ - - - \ - ~ ~ .I - - - - -- --- ~ - -_ '- ' :tH1 r.l• - C DR. ' -, ' \ \\ \, ' ' ), \\ 1~v~ \, \, ' l ! \ II' ................... .. ........ .............. ..... . . ...... . .. . .. .. .. ........ .. ................ ..·:...... ·:.":. ........ . .. ..... ......... ..... .... . ...... ....... . . . . . . . ::. . . ·:. . . ·:. .. ·····::. ·:: ............ . ...... ::.... :: .... ' "' c:.wcw:o'.::::::::;:; ;::::;\:'.:'. , ..... .. .·..... : ·. . . . ..... • ONE FAMILY TWO FAMILY MULTIPLE SHOPPING ADMINISTRATIVE HEAVY LIGHT D HEAVY . FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD LIGHT ==--FOURTH , PROFESSIONAL -~ - COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL T E II \ �A PLAN USE LAND BASIC • OF C1ITY OAK • MIJICHIG AN ROY AIL • PLAN C I TY CHARLES W. , 8 ARR I9 5 5 COMMISSION CONSULTANT PLANNING J. P. Mc EWAN ' SHE E T soo' 300° 12 900' TECHNICIAN PLANNING 2 0 F 4 SHEETS oo' PLATE 9 N • r > "-M~"-'"'K'""-1 N • 0 " LANGLEY w w z w > w ...J ~t---l-tir--1 C, t---l-tif---1 f---~~ U'-~W \-------Bo ·.·.'I•:•··>> ,>- > j:):=::t:::::: """ CT w,o---;+--1 >t---;+--1 o,o---<+---< o,O---l-+,f---1 0 H----l U--~z U--~"' 1-'----l::, '' >•::::::::\:: w(\/\ > .... · w :• w "-"'-",",."'"'-"J " r:-:- .._,"' .... -: .: 0 '"'"~"'"'"""7cc+l <1 "" 0 iS;· 0 i.:..:.:..:. 1 0 U A Y R C uJ I >1--!---S <11--l---S I I ~, z--~ ........ . >o a °'t--!t--0 ...J O ..J B L \/ D I- oc t---+t-----< wt--+--< " t--+---, o...__-1--_~w w w w z Jt--tt--S f---SQC 0 J;l----1---~~ "- "' 4 w T < M >- " 0 w > "'> --- ;, ...J ---- "' " 0 " 0 3 <r O "' 0 er 0 O "' 0 ,- 3' o: 1-->----S DlllllHII UlflflUII ul ,__.__, \ I I \ m1tn1111 UDITIITIIIOITTIIIIT!tlfll I G' -:- "'> '-' " z·t--+---t_, R 0 A D 17 "'> J >- 0 0 zl--+--SJI-----/ LE 1' R O A 0 "w IIIHIIIIH IDHIUHl l!IUIHIII U!UIUUl 1111111111! E N ~ "'o--+---l;c z 1----1----l w uJ t--+----,0:1---l---S<l o0--+--1 ...J ...__ _,__...,a,f---l---0" .___, ... F 0 ~, 01 a: ,0 0: "' QC :, f---~J ._____JII'-----' ~~II'---_ __,I I :1 0 uJ • I I- "" r--S"' f---0> '--~ I ,__.___,> ,__.___,., 1---!----l"' <( w w > > " " I R O A D R O. 0: 0 0 "' .,> G H A M ""' C "' "' wNAKOTA \ w >- " " "' Q \ J R L N ..J C ] z 0 " "' 0 a: "' "'J w ::; ' (.) 0 0 FULTON z " 0 ~ w uJ ~ C "w ~ w ' ~ ~ TL_ " J " 0: a, MASSOIT 0 J \G-,_ \ 0 3 w -f- \ "' "'a \ w '' - z \ 1' J J C 3 J " "' " " 0 ...J ' .,. 0 C 0 C QC \ w J uJ z \ R 0. "'0 \ \ ., \ },. --0 0: "'> TE " 0 0: z 0 Q 0 > <( <t 0 0 C H E S TER 0: "' C H E S z AMHERST 0 . ,- "" "' D 5TARR 0 RI NG uJ 0 0: ER . L z "'"' J :, z >- 0 0 w > "' ,- 0 3 <( "'a, YORBA I ,- J wz ■ w • • ■ • • • • • • •••••• 0: ■ •• 0 • """ •• ... • • a:: • •• ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ :■:■ ••·•• ··-·).·.•.■.•.· ■ ·1· ■ ■ .. ·.r.-...·:r..... .,....·. ...·.·.~····-"•"•" ..-···-~-· ·········•.... . . ~ . ····· ···········~-·-·· • • f ••.· ,•.·,r.•.· • ·-·-·,····· • • ••••• •••••• ••••• .·.•·· • • •••••• ■ • ■ •••• ■ • • ■ ■ • • ~-. ■ -·■• • • • • ■ • ■ :,; CT. • •••• ••••• ■ • ■ ••••• • • ■ • ~ ■ • • ■ ■ ■ • • • • • • •■• ••• o ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ I ■■■ ■ I ■■■ . .,. ·········· "' "'-' l-". • • • ■ ■ • .,.•• ••• • • ■ •• ••■•• • • ••• • ■ ...... ■ • • • • • ■ • ••• • ■1"····· -·■• •.-....... . •••·-~.·-········ ... ...·.,..... ····· ····· .....r.·.·. 0 t •• 3 • • • ■ •• •■ •••• • ■ • • • ■ ■ • ■ • ■ •••• , • • • • • • • • ■• ■ •.• ■ • • •••••••••• ••••• ••••• • ·.•· • ■ •• ■ • • ■ ■ ■ • • -. ■•■•■ •• • • • • ■" • • ·-·■• T H ••••••• • ■ •• ■ • R T E E N ■ ••• ■ ••••• ■ • M ■ ■ • • -. ■ 0 0: a, "z z "'0 0 " "'u w mHm ~.,~"'BID L E ~D MI L E THIRTEE"N ■ • D ~ ~ ~ ~ BL VD. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ••••• • • • • • ■ • • • • ■• ■ ■ ■• ■ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • • • • • • ■• ■ ■ ■ w > " a, "' "'C " "'> 0 0 " 0 "' z"' > 0 ., w > <1 0 <r " S T. E ······························· ···················································································· s 0 N lililililllililililililili\\Il!l)lllllllll!lll!lll!l!ll\\\lll\\\\i\\\\\ili\\\il\\\\il!l!l!l)l)l!l!l!lll)lllll!l!l!: AV E >- :-:■:■:■:-:■:■:■:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:■:-:■:■:■:-:-:-:-:■:■:=·=:=·=·=·=·=·=·=·=•:■:■:■:■:■:■:■:■:-:-:-:-:-:■:■:■:■:■:■:■ <ll ···········································-·-·-·-•-·-························································ •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••W t L L l A M "•"••••••••••••·••••••••••••••••••••·••:•••• Cl -:■:■:-:■:■:-:-:■:-:■:■:■:-:-:■:-:■:■:■:■:■:-:-:-:-:■:■·=···=·=·=·=•:•:•:-:■:■:■:■:■:■:■:■:■:-:-:-:■:■:■:■:■:■:■:■: .. ••• ■• ::; ...J ••••••••••••••••••••••• .::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: E A U M O .-N. :■:■:■:■:■:■:■:■:■:■:■:•:•:•:•:••••••••■ B I <1 :,: -::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::■:-:-:■:■:-:-:-:-:-:-::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::•:-:■:■:■:■:■:■:■:■:■: ■ > a: ~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:~=~=~=~:;: : : : : : : : : ~=~=~=~=~=~:;:~:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:~:;:;:;:;:~;~; • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •••••••••••••••••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • uJ T ■:■ :■:■:■:■: ■:■:•••••••·•·••••••·••••• ST. " '.i!i!ili!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!iili!!!i!i!i!i!iiiiii!ii!iii!i!i!i!i!i!i!iii!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!!i!i!i!iiiii!i!i!i!i!i!i! R T uJ ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • • ■ • • • • •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • • • • ••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••• ••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • • • • • ■ ••••• ■ ••••• - • • • • • • • • • ~. ■••• •■ ■ •• •• ••■•• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •• •••••■• • A L,•• •• •• •• •• ····• •••••••••••• • • • • • ■• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •••••••• • • • • H O S P I T • • •••••••••••••••·••·•• • • • • • • • ::•:-::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::=:=:=:=:=:=:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ./ ■ AV E ■ ■ ■ R O A D GLEN ■ z .-:■:■:■:-:■:■:■:■:■:■:■:■:■:•···························=•:•:•:■:■:■:■:■:■:■:■:■:■:■:■:■·•······················· w ::.·.·:.·.·. .•:-:-:■:■:■:■:•:•:•:-:■:■:■:-::::::::::::::::::::::::::::•:•:•:•:•:•:-:■:-:■:■:■:■:■:■:-:::::::::::::::::::::::::: z w " . .:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 0 0: <r ., ""' QC <r " > w 0: 0 ·::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .J :-::::::::::::: ::::::. Q ~:-:::::::-:-:-:■:■:■:■:■:■:■:-:-::::::::::::::::::::::::•:-:■:■:■:■:■:■:•:•:•:•:■:■:■:=:::::::::::::::::::::::::: 0 0 -:~: : : :~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~==:: : : : : : : : : : : :~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~:;: : : : : : : : : : : : : "w :::::::::::::■:■:■:■:■:■:-:-:-::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::■:■:-:::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::~:~:;:~=~=~=~=~=~=~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ■ ••••••••• • • • • ...J 0. • • • • • • •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • • • • • •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::=::::::::::::::::::::::: • • • • • ■ • • • • • • • • • ■ ■ • • • • • ■ ■ • • ■ • • • • • • • ■ ■ ■ <1 .-:-:■:■:•·······················=·=·=•:■:■:■:■:■:■:■ ■ ■ ::; ■• ■ II II II II II II II II .......... . ...... ... ········· ••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ••••• ' ■ • ••••• ■ ■•••• ••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••• II \ uJ WEB S TE R - II 1n R D. I 1nnnnnnn nn nn nn I\\ r ROAD II II II 1 �.,.' /' / J L/~~~I -ar,r-1•t--jr7~[~iN-r--il--l 0 . " 1 11r·r11··r - -• ; I r--- ,~g M A I N S T. ";u) 02ITI fillill8 [[ ' I.1 l~f~1~1~l f3'11il\f:~I ~ r z ' I iI 1~[[[]] TROY 1?=;~="""'•-··• ffif,1,n,1 ffrl~)il~l 0z ,T. !ffiIBlilll ,+qi<J rITfillIB = ~~ ==- =- ,i - ~ """"""o lS7l ~ Hgt~ B:]fl~nn t::::J t::_:j "i:.=j 0111 =• LJ [ .. ' )( 1·>:-;.;""1 -:-::,:-:1 I ' I STREET I ""'"' ' ' ' '"'"' K,,",_,',,'tf' ' [ .... ' :':' ; Rs! I,:,:>:, " -:,:,:;: H ~.::::::::;' ::,:,::. l ST. '""'"'I""·'·' ~-:_::1. ::::•::: . .. . . . . II: ---1 -· r :µ~~-:.:-:-: 111:1,,•' .,, . . ,,,,,,. iLJ~~ ~ -~~~)i-f:(~~~;~ n""""'f1""""'8 :1 ns _-=:;-:=-..c· >s ~ '-------/ L LJ i;:r.L;~Q;~~0-w,·,~1J1-rr,•r.-,"'l'-"'"'l',..'=r,-.1- - 111 11--1• E I II (') :'':~P+I I I :/tIT11l11111 i KN""''"'"' )> ::0 ,-.IN.Q.1,,-J.,,N A-AV&&...C..-...t-- ,,01 ~ I .,, 7,. m ., .✓ 0 N ~ ~ K A Y S -~--~mm~ " rn 0 0 S CJ) : it::,;..::;: . : :;,::~:;: : :r:/:-f: m t~:~~ ~~'t-:f-.'ij ~ - ,_ - ~ ~ =,~~rasB;J~:™~ I ""'~~~~ ~ ~ ~ AL£ ~ CT\.101\l{I:;;] )> z z z mil~ '=18lr~ G) . . . . . . ______ UGH @r&~ ,-~~ t l i l l rnrr 1.·:--·.~ () 0 z REr.lBRANOT ~ [ [ CJ) C r ~ )> z ~~"'"'"'"'"'1 ]· ]. A" .- :111 - :=1 J J J J J W I L. S 0. R O A D I-;~ -- Q_Q _R .fJ:!_t;__S_ TE R _ , EDGE ""'~""'"""'""'""'"""''"'""~ '= ~. • ~= z ,_ ; - - . '~'Cc'~- • r - ·C --==ROAD - ~ ·==--~~ ~<- ™~~ -lJITTITTll~:': l!lllllllilllll ~ ,--•mm1wa · 1 ·1 Jl!ll!!- . . ~ r r II". •► 0 , ™ ~ A V E ~ ~~ ~ ~ . iSSs:lSS8l ~ '""" 1iJilil - ,,,,.,.~ ~ ~ ~a~ ~~ ~~ -:::i. - - -~--~, , i ~ d ~ crr@]l J ~-~ ..=---~ ., I .,,..- ~ 1 • 11111111111111 IIIIIIIU~IIIIIIIIII IJ_JJ 1; "' CHEST~R1 ·nmn, " [[]TI} KEN WO _Q_D_ ( :IJJl I I I• ' ,, ~ r "' 7) r )> CJ) r I )> C1 C1 z z z -l .I> ~ ,, <D HIGHWAY ~~ [i]l[luullmulil!iilllltil~! ,~- k½<'.\_,C ·-"' _ _j WJ ~ ~ a ~ § ~ ~' ~ l=1 ~ l::=t ~ ~ rri I I z - () (.C) -l (f) )> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W.l ~ C1 G) - ~ 0 ~ (f) rn rn . .' (') . 1T1lf1·· ~ . p 'Cl 0 .I> SUPER ~ ~ 7) •4 p ~ z z <0'{'P•N1'1N~ z ~ AV £ - 0 )> 1'11 ' - rn < • ,. .; 8lf!l:!IB:I (/) s: ... "' ,- WORTH ~ ·,,,m.R" ~-~ @?@l ™® c..c..L.L.LLL===:J llllllllllllllllll[IIIIIIIIIII/ ~ :E " "r m A VE to -(/) 7) ' 1lll)---- 1 N ~-E --~ - ~ • ~ r i _lillID!illn:~--11D ... ,,~-~-~~-~- £DI! IED A V £ c;nr>O::-!MnATW ,,..._,..,.,._, 11 AV E ~ c.. =~==~ ~ 0 0 ~ t:==l ~ -~ ~~ ~ EDISON 4 \ = ~:""'""'"'"'". ~~ -~~ ]· I ~~ ~~ '-'-"-' rn ~ " ... ~- N z r ~~'' X AND E R l \ ' , j ~ e )> 7) ~~ ~ "-'<'."1..'\t,'1',t,'t~b'IL~l?X''l· AV £ ~- r 0 AVE ' CD ::0 ::0 N 0 -< -0 )> A '{~ ~ ' " 0 0 ~ ~ ~ , ., , . ,,.. I . :- .:41<· . : ·&.-:i]:;: : ~= ' r 0 0 0 ['i . 0 (Jl (Jl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . ' � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Wyckoff Planning and Zoning Collection Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Planning & Zoning Center (Lansing, Mich.) (Organization) Wyckoff, Mark A. Description An account of the resource Municipal master plans and zoning ordinances from across the state of Michigan, spanning from the 1960s to the early 2020s. The bulk of the collection was compiled by urban planner Mark Wyckoff over the course of his career as the founder and principal planner of the Planning and Zoning Center in Lansing, Michigan. Some additions have been made to the collection by municipalities since it was transferred to Grand Valley State University. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Michigan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1960/2023 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Subject The topic of the resource Michigan Comprehensive plan publications Master plan reports Zoning--Michigan Zoning--Maps Maps Land use--planning Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-240 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Royal-Oak_Basic-Land-Use-Plan_1955 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Charles W. Barr, Planning Consultant Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1955 Title A name given to the resource A Basic Land Use Plan Description An account of the resource A Basic Land Use Plan for the City of Royal Oak was prepared by Charles W. Barr with assistance from J.P. McEwan in 1955. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource J.P. McEwan, Planning Technician (consultant) Subject The topic of the resource Land use--planning Royal Oak (Mich.) Oakland County (Mich.) Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/11cd74b8490469ef19da5e2578dab31c.pdf 1df268ab2122b30a8f3a3130d1a13343 PDF Text Text )> 0 r- 0 en m l] r- 0 0 "z I )> M--.m.m0;~y )> en en m en en 0~ FIIIdI.--g;s 31: m z -f ,, 0 31: )> (.;. 0 l] r- 0 0 )> F en en C: m en ,,m,, )> 0 ::I z C) -+------- .£.sses III-e.:.~ oI i.Ia.,jor I..-oca.,I Iss-...es 4 ffec~•II.~ i.Ie~ro:poI•~a.,II. I>e~ro•~ 1993 The Community Needs Assessment Partnership �~ tRpM THE DBRA~Y OF e1annmg & Zoning Center, Inc, This is a summary of the needs assessment completed by the Community Needs Assessment Partnership. For a copy of the full report please write to: R. Ropkel United Way for Southeastern Michigan, 1212 Griswold, Detroit, Ml 48226. Or call (31 3)226-9270. 2 -- -- - -- �,,4--u .£..ssessIII.eII.~ o I ~0;jo:r Loc°'I. Iss-...es A:ffec~1...-.g; ~e~ro:.> De-tro:I.~ I.1..~°'.-. Table of Contents Letter from the Chair Executive Summary Community Profile Identified Problems and Ne ds Volunteer Committees �COMMUNITY NEEDS a u • 11 ASSESSMENT PARTNERSHIP PARTNERSHIP ORGANIZATIONS Citizens Research Council of Michigan City of Detroit Mayor's Office Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan Detroit Economic Growth Corporation As health and human service needs in metropolitan Detroit grow faster than funding sources for programs, it is important to be responsive and make the best possible use of existing resources. With this objective in mind, a group of 19 prominent organizations formed the Community Needs Assessment Partnership (CNAP) last year to cooperatively identify and rate community needs. Detroit Renaissance Inc. Greater Detroit Area Health Council Greater Detroit Chamber of Commerce Hudson -Webber Foundation Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Detroit W. K. Kellogg Foundation McGregor Fund Metro Health Foundation Michigan Department of Social ServicesWayne County New Detroit Inc. SEMCOG, The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments The result of their collaborative efforts is this comprehensive community needs assessment report, which provides a closer look at the problems and needed services in Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties. The findings are based on both factual data and community perceptions of the most pressing local problems. We are pleased to present this report and hope it serves as an effective tool for service providers, funding sources and the community at large. The information provided should be useful for creating programs and developing collaborative efforts and funding requests. Only part the total data collected is presented in this report. The remainder, much of which could be useful for planning purposes, is available, together with technical advice on its use and interpretation. Inquiries should be directed to Ron Ropke at United Way for Southeastern Michigan, 313-226-9270. This is the first time such a comprehensive community needs assessment report has been compiled from a community-wide spectrum of research and resources. We hope our collaborative efforts reduce redundant endeavors and lead to other joint efforts in working together to solve the problems of our community. United Community Services of Metropolitan Detroit United Way for Southeastern Michigan United Way of Oakland County Wayne State University- Center for Urban Studies CHAIR 11~,;~ Sincerely, Edgar A. Scribner Chair Edgar A. Scribner 1212 • GRIS WOLD C C DETROIT, Ml 48226 �---- - - - - - �The Study In early 1992, a coalition of 19 area organizations formed the Community Needs Assessment Partnership to identify and measure problems in the tri-county area. The partnership was created to share information and resources to complete this major analysis of metropolitan Detroit's health and human service needs. Community Profile The focus of the community needs assessment was the Detroit metropolitan area, consisting of Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties. Many of the problems facing the area's residents are closely linked to demographic and economic patterns which developed over many years. Information from a number of demographic, health, and economic sources available to the Partnership was compiled for analysis. Several issues were identified, including: • A fairly stable population over the past 30 years • Population shifts from Detroit and older suburbs to the outer fringe • Relocation of industry and commerce away from the center city • Persistent residential segregation by race • Localized high rates of joblessness, poverty, and crime • Fewer manufacturing jobs Methodology Telephone Survey The needs assessment used the major findings from a representative telephone survey of 1,534 adults aged 18 or older who live in Wayne, Oakland or Macomb County. Analysis was made of the tri-county population by geographic area, age and race. The sample for this survey was obtained in the same proportions as the population defined by 1990 census data. Community Forums Five community forums were held to serve as a catalyst for gathering direct information, while giving the community a chance to participate in the needs assessment process. Unlike the telephone survey, the responses were not expected to be representative of metropolitan Detroit residents. The forums were intended as a spontaneous, indepth complement to the more structured telephone survey. Four public meetings were held in the City of Detroit and in Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties. A session for policymakers was conducted as well. Agency Executive Survey Agency executives also identified community problems. The survey was conducted to consider the unique perspective of human service professionals. The rating of these problems was completed by the Data Committee and data experts, and approved by the Partnership. The results of each research tool was ranked based on perceptions and statistical data. Key findings The result of the research was a list of community problems classified by their perceived severity. Twenty-six problems, appearing below, were ranked as either critical, severe or serious problems. Key Community Problems Faced By Residents Of Wayne, Oakland and Macomb Counties Problem Ratings Critical Problem Areas: • • • • Lack of Jobs Alcoholism/Drug Abuse Crime Lack of Affordable Medical Care Severe Problem Areas: • • • • • • • AIDS Educational Disadvantages/Inadequate Education Family and Individual Stress Family Violence Hunger/Homelessness Racial or Ethnic Discrimination Teenage Pregnancy 5 �Executive Summary continued Serious Problem Areas: • Children/Teens with Behavior Problem • Children/Teens with No Place to live • Housing in Need of Major Repairs • Illiteracy • Lack of Affordable Legal Services • Lack of After School Care • Lack of Opportunity to Affect Community • Lack of Safe/ Affordable Housing • Not Knowing Where to Get Help • Not Taking Care of One's Own Health and Safety • Poor Bus Service • Shortage of Day Care • Shortage of Recreation • Unable to Get Help for Disabled • Unable to Get Help for Elderly Regardless of where survey respondents live, their race or gender, a lack of jobs clearly stood out as the number one problem facing the tri-county community. Alcoholism and drug abuse consistently ranked in the top third of all surveys and second overall. Crime is a concern of tri-county residents, regardless of residence, age, race or gender. Although it is perceived as a critical issue overall, Oakland County respondents ranked it sixth, while Detroit residents rated it as the second most critical problem. The lack of affordable medical care ranked fourth overall. Conclusion ·A Closer Look· provides an overview of the area's shortcomings and shortfalls in meeting community needs. Service providers, funding sources and the community at large can use this information to establish programs, solve problems, and develop collaborative efforts and funding requests. In the future, the Partnership plans to conduct a smaller version of this needs assessment every two years, followed by another comprehensive study every four years. The Partnership believes that the continual flow of information on the most pressing needs will be invaluable to the community and will reduce the need for redundant efforts. With this first community needs assessment, as well as those to be completed in future years, this community is now positioned to work cooperatively to solve its problems. Partnership members are : Citizen's Research Council of Michigan; City of Detroit Mayor's Office; Community Foun· dation for Southeastern Michigan; Detroit Economic Growth Corporation: Detroit Renaissance Inc.; Greater Detroit Area Health Council; Greater Detroit Chamber of Commerce: Hudson-Webber Foundation; Jewish Federation of Metropoli· tan Detroit; W.K. Kellogg Foundation; McGregor Fund; Metro Health Foundation; Michigan Department of Social Services· Wayne County; New Detroit Inc.; Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG); United Community Services of Metropolitan Detroit; United Way for Southea~ern Michigan; United Way of Oakland County, and Wayne State University Center for Urban Studies. ��of Southeastern Michigan The City of Detroit was once the population and employment center of the region. Beginning in the 1950s, however, expanding urban development gradually dispersed the population, resulting in today's fairly even distribution between the central city and surrounding counties. Because of outmigration, the area's total population has remained fairly stable over the past decade at between 3.9 and 4 million persons. A racially and ethnically diverse region overall, the Detroit metropolitan area's population is nonetheless highly segregated . African Americans comprise 76 percent of the City of Detroit's population, while 92 percent of those living in the suburbs are white. Hispanics comprise about 2 percent of the tri-county population, as do Asians, the fastest growing racial/ethnic group. The •baby boom of the 1946-1964 years is the principal factor influencing the age distribution of the area, at least for the white population. Persons born during this period are now in their middle years. The large number of women in this group has resulted in a rise in the number of births which peaked in 1990. The population over 75 is also growing, and will continue to do so. H As the population aged and redistributed itself, major changes were also occurring in the employment picture of the tri-county area. Manufacturing jobs moved from the City of Detroit, some to other states, others to newer facilities in Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb counties. Blue collar jobs declined, while white collar jobs increased, particularly in retail and wholesale trade, and services. Jobs today are more likely to require high school education or advanced training, and are more likely to exist in small firms. Unfortunately, despite rising average levels of educational attainment, many people in the tri-county area lack the necessary skills to effectively compete for high skill jobs, even in the best of times. These structurally unemployed persons are part of the reason the average unemployment rate since 1970 has been 9.1 percent for the Detroit area, compared to a national rate of 6. 7 percent. Problems closely associated with joblessness are family and individual stress, substance abuse, criminal behavior, and lack of adequate health care. Cost and accessibility are the two main health care problems facing the nation, including Detroit. Uninsured persons, as many as two-thirds of whom are employed, often delay needed treatment, thus compromising their health. The added costs of emergency and other health services resulting from this lack of preventive medicine also puts stress on the health care delivery system, and thus affects everyone, not just the poor. In sum, Detroit and its suburbs in Southeastern Michigan have developed into communities with different needs and different resources. The aging central city, along with industrial centers such as Pontiac, have lost many of the factories on which local incomes depended. The suburbs gained in jobs and population, while the older urban centers were left with a disproportionate share of social and economic problems. Against this backdrop, the Community Needs Assessment Partnership was formed to search for a common understanding. 7 a �Id~II.~1-~1-~d P r obI~m.s Ea,II.d N~~ds �P:robl.e:r.n.111 Problem Ratings Critical Problem Area: • Lack of Jobs • Alcoholism/Drug Abuse • Crime • Lack of Affordable Medical Care Severe Problem Area: • AIDS • Educational Disadvantages/Inadequate Education • Family and Individual Stress • Family Violence • Hunger/Homelessness • Racial or Ethnic Discrimination • Teenage Pregnancy Serious Problem Area: • Children/Teens with Behavior Problem • Children/Teens with No Place to Live • Housing in Need of Major Repairs • Illiteracy • Lack of Affordable Legal Services • Lack of After School Care • Lack of Opportunity to Affect Community • Lack of Safe/ Affordable Housing • Not Knowing Where to Get Help • Not Taking Care of One's Own Health and Safety • Poor Bus Service • Shortage of Day Care • Shortage of Recreation • Unable to Get Help for Disabled • Unable to Get Help for Elderly 8 �P::robl.eIII.s ~°'t :Ln..g:: U r iti..c8'I. Lack of jobs for people/ Someone u nemployed There is a high level of agreement over the critical nature of this problem. The lack of jobs is cited as the problem with the highest ranking in the majority of surveys. Social problems such as crime, alcohol/drug abuse, unaffordable health care, stress, hunger and homelessness and illiteracy, etc., in many instances can be directly linked to the lack of jobs. Unemployment has impacted the tri-county area through plant closings and labor and location shifts. Employment levels have been impacted by the lack of skilled workers needed to function in this technically focused society. Alcoholism or drug abuse/ an alcohol o r drug problem This problem was consistently ranked in the top third in all surveys and second overall. Substance abuse is closely linked with crime, child abuse and neglect, domestic violence, homelessness, AIDS, high risk pregnancy, malnutrition, family and neighborhood disintegration, fetal alcohol syndrome, and crack and cocaineaddicted babies. At the same time, substance abuse complicates the delivery of many human services. Crime Crime is a critical problem in the community. Survey results show that the impact of crime is viewed somewhat uniformly and that tri-county residents, regardless of age, ethnicity or gender perceive criminal activity as a critical issue. Lack of affordable medical care/ Not being able to get medical care or medicine The results of the various surveys demonstrate high level of agreement on the critical nature of this problem. Health care cost continue to rise. In the early 1990s more than one-third of all Americans have no health insurance or inadequate health insurance. Rnancial constraints often mean that those without insurance are prematurely discharged from in-patient settings or are denied hospital services totally. ~°'t:Ln..g;: ~eve r e AIDS In the_ telephone s~rvey, Oakland and Macomb responses ranked this problem area 1~ the to~ third of the ~~mmunity problems, while Wayne County ranked it in the middle third and Detroit 1n the lower third. AIDS was ranked third overall by 9 �Problems continued participants in the community forums. However, it was ranked in the middle third of the problems surveyed by participants in the Detroit forum. Although AIDS and Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) can be prevented, the incidence of these problems is increasing. The fastest rate of increase is among adolescents and women. The financial strain to our nation of treating primary and secondary diseases related to AIDS and STDs is rapidly growing. Educational disadvantages/Inadequate education Education or school related issues ranked third among the additional problems mentioned in response to the open-ended questions during the telephone surveys. In a list combining additional problems with those originally presented to forum participants, lack of quality education ranked 12th, just below illiteracy. Agency executive respondents ranked education among the top third of unmet community needs. The significance of educational quality to the area's economic and social condition is recognized by community leaders and the public at large. The high dropout rates for inner city youth add to the problem of chronic joblessness, and economic opportunity is severely restricted by low educational performances. Family and individual stress/ Mental illness or emotional problems/Having a lot of anxiety or depression There is a high degree of agreement over anxiety, stress and depression as the number one household problem in the telephone survey. Mental illness and emotional problems are ranked lower as a community problem. Family or individual stress is related to a number of issues, including family instability, poverty, separation of family members, unemployment, substance abuse, teen pregnancy, divorce, family violence, economic conditions, financial insecurity, mental illness, delinquency and caring for people with disabilities. Family Violence, such as abuse of children or adults/violence in the household Based on the survey results, the group most likely to perceive family violence as a problem in their community (though not necessarily in their own homes) are white women, 30-59 years of age. Family violence is known by many terms "domestic violence, spouse abuse, child neglect or abuse, and the abuse of elderly parents." Many other problems have a direct relation to such abuse including alcohol/drug abuse, crime, and unemployment, which were ranked as the top three problem areas. Social research has demonstrated that "abusers" have frequently been abused them.selves. Hunger or Homelessness/Not having enough money for basic needs, such as rent, food or clothing The surveys suggest there is less consensus over the relative importance of "Hunger or Homelessness" as a community problem than there is over "not having enough money for basic needs ... " as a household problem. Many services have been affected by the economy, changes in the Department of Social Services policies, cuts in state and federal spending and the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill. �Problems continued Racial or Ethnic Discrimination .. tt appears that discrimination is perceived differently in different communities and by different populations. The specific rankings by geogr~phy, age, and gender show a wide range of importance being attached to this problem area by different groups. Teenage Pregnancy The telephone survey and community forums differ on the relative importance of teenage pregnancy as a problem area. The telephone survey ranke~ teenage pregnancy in the upper third of the problem areas and the community forums . ranked it in the bottom third. Teen pregnancy may be related to and/or result 1n problems such as substance abuse, educational disadvantages, abuse and neglect, children in crisis, family and individual stress, inadequate housing and economic stresses. I&~"tiilp;: 8e:ri.o-...s Children or teenagers wHh behavior or emotional problems Respondents ranked this problem in the lower third of the household survey problems. "Children or teenagers with behavior or emotional problems" was only asked on the household problem survey. In this part of the survey, respondents were read the problem statement and asked "Is it a problem for your household?" Because of the nature of this question, respondents may have been unwilling to admit to, or label their youth as having behavior or emotional problems. Children or teens with no place to live. This problem statement ranked in the lower third of all problem areas. The problem area addresses the fact that in many cases children are unable to live with their parents and runaway or become state wards and are placed in foster care or are awaiting adoption. Living in housing that needs major repairs Telephone survey respondents and agency executives ranked this problem in the upper third of household problems. Community forum participants ranked it in the lower third. Not all geographic areas or populations are uniformly affected by this problem. The relative age of the housing, owner occupancy vs. renter occupancy and available income for needed repairs all impact on this problem area. Illiteracy/Someone being unable to read, write or speak English well enough to get along This problem area ranked in the lower third of the problems names in the telephone surveys. Community forums ranked this problem area in the middle third of the probl~ms su~eyed, and frequently cited the "lack of quality education" as a problem 1mpact1ng on the community. Agency executives also consider the 11 �Problems continued need for educa tion to be a serious problem. Illiteracy and/or lack of quality education are key factors in many community problems including "lack of jobs." Lack of affordable legal services/Not being able to get legal help In the telephone survey, the lack of affordable legal services and not being able to get legal help ranked in the middle third of the problems surveyed . Detroit and Macomb counties ranked these problems higher than Wayne or Oakland counties. It ranked in the bottom third of the problems surveyed by community forum participants and by agency executives. Individuals unable to pay for a private attorney often lack the capacity to protect themselves from exploitation and are often unable to effectively act in physical abuse and other family situations. Lack of after-school care/Not being able to find or afford after-school care The telephone and agency executive surveys ranked this problem area in the middle third of the problems surveyed. The community forums ranked it in the lower third . The lack of opportunities for children and youth may lead to delinquency, substance abuse, early child bearing, chronic unemployment, poverty and mental illness. Lack of opportunity for people to affect what happens in the community In the telephone surveys Wayne, Oakland and Macomb County responses ranked this problem in the middle third of the problems affecting the community. Detroit respondents rank this problem area in the upper third of the problems surveyed. It was ranked in the middle third of the problems surveyed in the community forums, however, Detroit forum participants ranked this problem area last. Agency executives ranked planning and coordination services in the middle third of the problems areas surveyed . The ability to affect what happens in the community relates to a variety of issues including housing, recreation, crime and neighborhood development. Lack of clean, safe, affordable housing/Not enough room in your house for all the people who live there Not all geographic areas are uniformly affected by the lack of clean, safe, affordable housing. Factors such as the relative age and condition of existing housing, the respondent's occupational status, income and number of dependents are also likely to influence the results. Telephone survey respondents ranked this area much lower than community forum participants and agency executives. Not knowing where to get help when you need it There appears to be a high degree of agreement among telephone survey r~ spondents in ranking "not knowing where to go to get help" in the upper third of a �Problems continued the household problems surveyed. The lower ranking of this problem area among community forum participants and agency e~ecuti~es may stem from a larger degree of familiarity on their part with the service delivery system . People not taking proper care of their own health or safety There is a lack of consensus among various respondents on the relative importance of this problem area. Michigan ranks first in death rates for several chronic d iseases. Three conditions-heart disease, cancer and stroke can be linked to preventable risk factors. Health promotion, prevention and education activities, and the proper care of one's health can help reduce premature death from preventable causes. Poor bus service Poor bus service was ranked as the number three community problem overall by respondents over 60 years of age. Community forum participants and agency executives ranked this problem area in the top third of the problems surveyed. The lack of transportation can be a barrier to securing needed services. Shortage of day care for young children/ Not being able to find or afford child care This problem area ranked in the middle third overall. The cost and the inability to access quality day care for children can be deterrents to employment and force some families to choose welfare over work. Families where parents are employed in low to moderate income jobs find that day care costs consume a relatively high percentage of their income. Shortage of recreational facillties or programs/ Not being able to find recreational activities for a household member Telephone survey respondents ranked this problem in the bottom third of the community survey, but in the middle third of household problems. Both problem statements ranked in the top third in the City of Detroit. Forum participants ranked this problem in the bottom third overall, but community forum participants in Wayne and Macomb counties ranked this problem in the middle third. More than half of the agency executives rated this problem as somewhat serious to very serious. The fact that residents of Detroit ranked this problem higher than others may stem from budget cuts, related recreation center closings and the high number of persons under 18 who live in Detroit and have need for these types of activities. The lack of sufficient or appropriate recreational opportunities for youth may result in delinquency, substance abuse, sexual experimentation and vandalism. Inadequate socialization and recreation opportunities may lead to social tsolation of the elderly, disabled, minorities and populations with special needs. Not being able to get services or other help for someone with a disabillty or serious illness Telephone survey respondents ranked this problem in the middle third of the household problems surveyed, as did community forum participants. Respite and/or 13 �Problems continued adult day care for persons with physical disabilities were ranked as somewhat serious problems by slightly less than two-thirds of the agency executives. Accessibility to and availability of affordable resources are key issues. Lack of door-todoor transportation and insufficient funding for services to persons with disabilities may result in further disability. The future impact of the "Americans with Disabilities Act" on persons with disabilities is yet to be determined. Not being able to get services or other help for an elder1y person Telephone survey respondents ranked this problem in the middle third of the household problems. The rating of the problem increased as the age of the respondents increased, with the problem ranking first with respondents age t1J and over. It was rated in the middle third of the problems surveyed in community forums, except in Macomb County where it was ranked in the bottom third. Agency executives did not agree on the rating of the problem area, with about one-third rating it as not very serious and another third rating it as somewhat serious. Acquiring services for the elderly impacts both elderly persons and their caregivers, who are often their adult children. As the number of persons over age 65 continues to increase, the demand for in-home services as alternatives to institutionalization are likely to increase. 14 As of February 1993 0 �wwws �With Special Thanks to Volunteer Leadership We gratefully acknowledge the time and energy involved in making this report possible. During the past year, the volunteers listed below have spent countless hours on the community needs assessment project. Community Needs Assessment Partnership Myron L. Liner, Ed.D. Vice President - Agency Relations United Way for Southeastern Michigan* Michael Martinez Director of Planning United Way of Oakland County* fdgar A. Scribner, Chairman President Metropolitan Detroit AFL-CIO Council Mariam C. Noland President Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan* ~amuel Chambers Jr. Director Michigan Department of Social Services - Wayne County W. Calvin Patterson Ill Executive Director McGregor Fund td Fleishmann Detroit Renaissance Inc. Robert L. Queller Vice President-Executive Director Citizens Research Council of Michigan Robert Guerrini Vice President, Business Services Greater Detroit Chamber of Commerce Paul Hubbard President New Detroit Inc.* Gilbert Hudson President Hudson Webber Foundation* Gerald K. Smith Associate Program Director W.K. Kellogg Foundation* Robert W. Spencer President The Detroit Economic Growth Corporation Paul Tait Deputy Executive Director Southeast Michigan Council of Governments Dr. James B. Kenney Pre~dent and CEO Greater Detrort• Area Health Council Glenn F. Kossick fxecutive Director Metro Health Foundation* Dr.lorry ledebur Duector ~enter for Urban Studies avne State University a Dr. James E. Weathers Executive Assistant to the Mayor City of Detroit Geneva Jones Williams President and CEO United Community Services of Metropolitan Detroit Larry Ziff er Director of Planning Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Detroit* *Financial contributors 15 �Volunteer Committees continued Community Needs Assessment Partnership Data Committee Paul Good, co-chair Research Director Citizens Research Council of Michigan Dr. Mary Sengstock, co-chair Professor of Sociology Wayne State University Paul Ballew Economist Economic Research Division Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago Paul Moore Director of Operations Analysis Michigan Department of Social Services - Wayne County Neva Naham Program Director Survey and Evaluation Services Center for Urban Studies Wayne State University Mark Neithercut Director Michigan Metro Information Center Wayne State University Patricia C. Becker Senior Research Associate Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Detroit Dr. Juliette Okoti-Eboh Chief, Social Planning and Development Assistant Planning Department City of Detroit Abel Feinstein Economist Michigan Employment Security Commission Gary Petroni Director of Research Greater Detroit Area Health Council Lindson Feun, Ph.D. Consultant - Research and Evaluation Oakland Schools James B. Rogers Manager of Data Center Southeast Michigan Council of Governments Andrew Gatewood Director of Research United Community Services of Metropolitan Detroit Ron Ropke Director of Data Services and Community Needs Assessment Partnership United Way for Southeastern Michigan Phyllis Johnson Associate Program Director W.K. Kellogg Foundation Vincent Kountz U.S. Bureau of the Census CAPP Winston Lang Director Human Rights Department City of Detroit Michael Martinez Director of Planning United Way of Oakland County 16 Wade Shull Economist Michigan Employment Security Commission Jack Steiner Research Director Greater Detroit Chamber of Commerce Steve Van Der Ploeg Manager Economic Analysis Michigan Bell Telephone co. Horacio Vargas Jr. Assistant to the President New Detroit Inc. �Volunteer Committees continued community Needs Assessment Partnership communications Committee Jomes August, co-chair President ~tone, August, Baker Communications Companies Geneva Jones Williams, co-chair President and CEO United Community Services of Metropolitan Detroit unda Clark ~upervisor, Public Access ~arden Cablevision Joe Cobb Regional Vice President Chilton Publishing Charlotte Dubin Communications Director Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Detroit Renee Farris Director, Community and Technical Assistance iew Detroit Inc. Michelle Hicks Agency Relations Associate United Way for Southeastern Michigan Jan Hubbard Marketing Communications Director nited Way of Oakland County Daphne Hughes News Manager WDIV, Channel 4 Gail A. Kaess Senior Research Analyst Wayne County Glenn F. Kossick Executive Director Metro Health Foundation Melissa Motschall Director, Communications Center for Urban Studies Wayne State University Georgella Muirhead Director of the Department of Public Information City of Detroit Tom Pride Associate Vice President-Communications Health Alliance Plan Alvina Ramsey Deputy Director of Community Funding and Technical Assistance New Detroit Inc. Donn Shelton Director of Communications Southeast Michigan Council of Governments Mary Solomon Smyka Assistant Director-Communications United Way for Southeastern Michigan Horacio Vargas, Jr. Assistant to the President New Detroit Inc. Patricia Williams-Taitt Communications Director Detroit COMPACT 17 �Volunteer Committees continued Community Needs Assessment Partnership Steering Committee Members Edgar A. Scribner, Chair President Metropolitan Detroit AFL-CIO Council W. Calvin Patterson Ill Executive Director McGregor Fund Paul Hubbard President New Detroit Inc. Dr. James E. Weathers Executive Assistant to the Mayor Glenn K. Kossick Executive Director Metropolitan Health Foundation Michael Martinez Director of Planning United Way of Oakland County 18 Geneva Jones Williams President and CEO United Community Services of Metropolitan Detroit Larry Ziffer Director of Planning Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Detroit �Special thanks to the following individuals who wrote or played other major roles in preparing this report: Survey Summaries & Methodology Undo Remington Community Profile Patricia Becker Abel Feinstein Gary Petroni Paul Good Mary C. Sengstock Graphic Design/Layout Rebecca Turner Editing Mary Solomon Smyka Elaine Mccree Michelle Hicks Ron Repke Typing Cathy Jackson Gwen McNeal Joyce Sampson 19 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Wyckoff Planning and Zoning Collection Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Planning & Zoning Center (Lansing, Mich.) (Organization) Wyckoff, Mark A. Description An account of the resource Municipal master plans and zoning ordinances from across the state of Michigan, spanning from the 1960s to the early 2020s. The bulk of the collection was compiled by urban planner Mark Wyckoff over the course of his career as the founder and principal planner of the Planning and Zoning Center in Lansing, Michigan. Some additions have been made to the collection by municipalities since it was transferred to Grand Valley State University. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Michigan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1960/2023 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Subject The topic of the resource Michigan Comprehensive plan publications Master plan reports Zoning--Michigan Zoning--Maps Maps Land use--planning Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-240 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Detroit_Findings-Summary_1993 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Community Needs Assessment Partnership Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1993 Title A name given to the resource A Closer Look: Summary of Findings Description An account of the resource A Closer Look, A Summary of Findings: An Assessment of Major Local Issues Affecting Metropolitan Detroit was prepared in 1993 by the Community Needs Assessment Partnership. Subject The topic of the resource Sociology report Detroit, Michigan Wayne County (Mich.) Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/10ff970ef871f15b45ce9a517eacb871.pdf 358564d2073f9759d9813c07967d5ae2 PDF Text Text )> 0 0 s: a -,::, comprehensive plan :x, ~ , -~ , m J: en -,::, r )> .,,z 0 :x, "r )> t ~ I )> ~, 81 ~, r . ...< s: - 0 J: - G) .__,,,_... ~ z - ii - L . r 0 C: nr· · ,® : II -- I jl A,._ /'. - - KALAMAZOO COUNTY, MICBIGA 1970 - 1990 �., ., TITLE: A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR KALAMAZOO COUNTY, MICHIGAN, 1970-1990 AUTHOR: Schellie Associates, Inc., A Division of Clyde E. Williams & Associates, Inc. SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan DATE: June, 1970 PLANNING AGENCY: Kalamazoo Metropolitan County Planning Commission SOURCE OF COPIES: Kalamazoo Metropolitan County Planning Commission HUD PROJECT NUMBER: Michigan P-124 NUMBER OF PAGES: 28 ABSTRACT: This report summarizes in brief form, the major findings of 10 more detailed Technical Reports. General patterns of growth are presented with summaries of future population and economic development. The elements of the Comprehensive Plan are considered as they will effect future use of land in providing for projected growth. A graphic presentation of the Comprehensive Plan is also included in the text . �• • • • • • • • • • • • •IJ CONTENTS. • • 3-4 5-6 Kalamazoo County. . . .. The History of Kalamazoo County The General Future. Future Population . . The Future Economy • . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . The Comprehensive Plan . . • . . • . • • • . . Future Residential Areas. • ••.• Future Commercial Areas • . • . . • . . • • Future Industrial Areas . . . • . • . • • • Future Agricultural Areas . . • . • Future "Open Space" • • . . • . . . Future Transportation . . . . . • • Future Schools. • • • . • • . . •. Future Parks. . . . . • • . •••. Future Libraries. . • • . • Future Municipal Buildings. . ..... Future Fire Stations. . .•••.• Future Utiliti e s Sy stems. . . . . . . . The preparation of this report was financially aided through a Federal grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development under the Urban Planning Assistance Program authorized by Section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954 as amended. 7 8-9 10 11 14 15 16 17 18 19-20 21 22 22 23 24 24 Future Land Use Controls. . • . . . . . . 25 But "Planning" Isn't "Doing" • . . . . . 26 Metropolitan Planning Commission Members and Committees • • • • • • • . • . • • • • • . • 28 -1- �I THIS SUMMARY REPORT highlights major phases of a Comprehensive Plan for the future development of Kalamazoo County, Michigan, undertaken in October, 1964, by the Kalamazoo Metropolitan County Planning Commission. More detailed studies--resulting from systematic research, analysis and planning in the past six years--are contained in ten earlier Technical Reports: 8. The Community Facilities Plan for Kalamazoo County, Michigan, May 1970. 9. The Transportation Plan for Kalamazoo County, Michigan, May 1970. 10. Plan Implementation Report for Kalamazoo County, Michigan, May 1970. In submitting this Summary Report to the Commission, we wish to express our gratitude to the many Commission committees and individual citizens whose excellent assistance was invaluable in the preparation of the County's Comprehensive Plan. 1. The Population of Kalamazoo County, Michigan, January 1965. 2. The Economy of Kalamazoo County, Michigan, April 1965. 3. The Community Facilities of Kalamazoo County, Michigan, August 1965. 4. The Physical Resources of Kalamazoo County, Michigan, November 1965. Schellie Associates, Inc. A Division of Clyde E. Williams & Associates, Inc. Indianapolis, Indiana 5. The Existing Land Use of Kalamazoo County, Michigan, December 1965. June, 1970 6. The Organization for Planning for Kalamazoo County, Michigan, December 1965. 7. The Land Use Plan for Kalamazoo County, Michigan, May 1970. -2- • •I I I I I I I I I I I I �• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I I I 1 - ! I I l I I I RICHL!o: I AUGUSTA _____ --i1 PARCHMENT 1_______ J__ _ • ._ ~ I I I ' l_______ r I I • I I I 1 f :,~::t- ----1 CLIMA)( : ..,__......._.......__. t--------~ I I ~ALAMAZOO ---~A~~~r~G_____ .____ 1,scHOOLCRAF~ _____, _ I I I __.._ ___ _ Kalamazoo County is favorably located midway between Detroit and Chicago, at an axis of two major expressways, Interstate 94 and U.S. Route 131 • With few exceptions, the entire County lies within a highly-habitable zone of 700 to 1,000 feet above sea level. Most of the County is in gently rolling to quite level landforms, which, with proper drainage and utility installations is developable for a wide range of uses. The recent events of glaciation have provided the area with an unusually large number of surface water bodies --lakes and ponds--many streams--and the Kalamazoo River. Water is readily transmitted vertically from subsurface aquifers accounting for the favorability of ground water resources throughout the County. -3- �KALAMAZOO cou · TY is situated in the southwestern portion of Michigan in a region accounting for nine percent of the State's population which is increasing at a rate of growth 10 percent higher than the State average growth. Cities The County, renowned for its educational facilities, its industrial prominance and atmosphere for living, is leading the region in growth, educational achievements and commerce. Villages Five hundred and seventy-six square miles of land area contained in fifteen townships, 4 cities and 5 villages have evolved and prospered from a county of 44,310 in 1900 to an urbanizing area of 169,712 in 1960. The County's population is ninth highest with Kalamazoo City the ninth largest incorporated area in the State. There will be more said about the County's population later on in this report. Townships Galesburg Kalamazoo Augusta Climax Alamo Brady Charleston Climax Comstock Parchment Portage Richland Schoolcraft Vicksburg Cooper Kalamazoo Oshtemo Pavilion Prairie Ronde Richland Ross Schoolcraft Texas Wakeshma -4- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I �• • • • • • •., • • • • • • The County of Kalamazoo, an Indian name usually translated as bubbling or boiling water, was organized by an act of the Territorial Legislature and approved by the Governor on July 30, 1830. The Town of Bronson was officially designated as the County Seat on May 1, 1831. Five years later the name of the town was changed to Kalamazoo, because the men who had obtained a predominating influence in the community were at odds with Titus Bronson, the founder of the village • The earliest white residents within the borders of the County were fur traders who established posts on the Kalamazoo River before the War of 1812, if indeed not before the Revolution. The first white settlement was made on Prairie Ronde in 1828 . THE HISTORY OF KALAMAZOO COUNTY The increase of the County's population since Michigan became a state in 1837 has been continuous, although not uniform. During the period prior to the Civil War, it was rapid, reaching its height in the six-year span between 1854 and .1860, when the population jumped almost eight thousand. This increase was not exceeded for fifty years until the period of 1904 to 1910 when more than ten thousand were added. Since 1910 when the population was 60,427 the increase has been so fast that the Federal Census of 1960 showed the County's population to have been 169,712 - a strong contrast to 6,367 counted in the State Census of 1837 . -5- �• • • • • • • The development of varied industries attracted settlers. At first probably more than ninety per cent of the people were engaged in farming. The manufacture of paper penetrated into Kalamazoo Valley in the decade after the Civil War and is now the leading industry of the county. In 1886 the Upjohn Drug Company, now one of the leading pharmaceutical firms in the country, was started. Later the Checker Motor Corporation, producers of Checker taxicabs and the Fuller Transmission Company, manufacturers of heavy duty transmissions were established here, and more recently the Fisher Body Division of General Motors. These are but a few of the prominent firms here now. These diversified industries attract workers and are the chief reason for the rapid increase in population since 1910. With the growth of population there was a corresponding increase in social and cultural interests. Educational facilities have always been a source of pride to the residents. By 1859 a high school was started in the City of Kalamazoo. At present there are four institutions of higher learning, Kalamazoo College, the oldest in Michigan, West- . ern Michigan University, Nazareth College, and Kalamazoo Valley Community College. The County has many public, private, and semiprivate organizations to stimulate the cultural and social growth of the citizens. Although it is impossible to note them all here, some should be mentioned. The Civic Theater, the Carver Center, the Kalamazoo Symphony Orchestra, and the Kalamazoo Nature Study Center. What the future of the County will be remains to be seen. If the past is any criterion, the citizens will take advantage of the opportunities to develop the industrial, cultural, and social potential of the community. Progress will continue with appropriate leadership from the local governing bodies, and the help of the public at large. -6- �r r r r r r Soaring to 350 million, U.S. population is estimated to grow as much in the next 40 years as in the past 350 years! J JI And it will be urban growth, on wings of technological progress and economic shifts. In the 1950-1960 decade, 221 U.S. metropolitan areas, with urban cores of 50,000 or more, accounted for 85% of total U.S. growth (while farm population was dropping from nearly 30 million in 1930 to only 21 million in 1960). THE GENERAL FUTURE In order to provide the bulk of employment, housing, and health and recreation facilities for most of the surging population, the growing urban centers obviously must undergo vast, physical change. So alert urban and suburban areas are taking a careful look at their future, planning for it, and executing their plans as promptly as possible. And Kalamazoo County should remain an alert urban area. -7- �SCALE FOR: UNITED STATES= 1,722.0 TIMES GRAPHIC SCALE MICHIGAN:; !54.6 TIMES GRAPHIC SCALE KALAMAZOO REGION= 7.0 TIMES GRAPHIC SCALE 32000 0 300,000 ' 318,6o/ I - 2 80,000 2r2,oo~ V 260,000 240,000 2 20,000 FUTURE - SCHELLIE PROJECTION/ US:THO) NUMBER 2 - 209,3!57. POPUL A - 169,712 160,000 120,000 100,000 ~.,~ i.--.::-/2 I-"- - 20,000 0 ----~--- --- --- /4___: ~., L--::":: ~..,::.....---- ,,,. .,,,..,. ~ , / / ~ / .,,,.- _,,. ., I, ~ -·"" ,,.,.., MICHIGAN .,. .,• -✓--- /, I/ [7 / ~ .,/ 80,000 44,000 • / KALAMAZOO COUNTY 140,000 40,000 ,,,, -,,,,,. 233,8~ / - 60,000 V 288,42~ _/~ __,.,$ ...- _.,,.. / .,,,,,_ ~ ~ UNITED STATES ~ KALAMAZOO REGION 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 19!50 1960 1970 1975 1980 1985 -8- 1990 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I �r r r r r r ~ , , 1970 - 1990 POPULATION PROJECTIONS By 1990 (a projection year "consistent" with the normal advance-planning period of 20 years), Kalamazoo County population should approach 318,600 persons--up 88% from 1960, growing somewhat slower than the 1950 to 1960 decade but faster that the u.s.--if current forecasts materialize. In almost every decade, the County has grown faster than the Nation, the Great Lakes States, the State, or adjoining counties. Its overall rate of population growth is superior to these areas. The rural population will continue to decline and may represent less than 1% of the County population by 1990 while the exurban population (non-farm persons living in the countryside) will continue to increase but at a slower rate of growth than between 1950 and 1960 giving way to the needs and demands of the people for public utilities furnished by the urban centers. The City of Kalamazoo may reach 155,000 persons by 1990, followed by Portage with an estimated population of 36,700 by 1990. All incorporated cities and villages are expected to increase in population during the planning period. 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 2,607 2,617 2,787 1,476 11,913 8,165 27,607 4,974 3,524 859 2,823 4,165 2,432 3,230 1,533 2,776 2,787 2,968 1,572 12,686 8,695 29,399 5,296 3,752 914 3,006 4,435 2,590 3,439 1,632 3,131 3,142 3,347 1,773 14,304 9,804 33,146 5,972 4,231 1,031 3,390 5,001 2,920 3,878 1,840 3,269 3,281 3,494 1,851 14,935 10,236 34,611 6,235 4,417 1,077 3,539 5,222 3,049 4,049 1,922 3,559 3,572 3,804 2,015 16,262 11,146 37,680 6,788 4,809 1,172 3,853 5,685 3,320 4,408 2,092 1,930 89,423 2,142 27,626 2,055 106,098 2,281 29,417 2,317 128,000 2,572 33,167 2,419 138,072 2,685 34,632 2,633 155,000 2,924 36,706 1,330 802 699 1,649 3,044 1,416 854 745 1,756 3,241 1,597 963 840 1,980 3,655 1,667 1,006 877 2,067 3,816 1,815 1,095 954 2,251 4,155 209,357 233,810 272,001 288,428 318,696 Town shies Alamo Brady Charleston Climax Comstock Cooper Kalamazoo Oshtemo Pavilion Prairie Ronde Richland Ross Schoolcraft Texas Wakeshma Cities Galesburg Kalamazoo Parchment Portage Villag:es Augusta Climax Richland Schoolcraft Vicksburg TOTAL I -9- �The County's reputation for responsibility in providing the public facilities and service needed by private enterprise coupled with responsible management rank it ahead of many competitors. With employment in 1990 expected to reach 136,100 compared to 62,700 in 1960, an increase of 73,400 new jobs will result in a tremendous number of job opportunities. THE FUTURE ECONOMY Already occupying a favorable location with adequate access to mid-west markets, Kalamazoo County from all indications will continue to advance economically through 1990. The County's physical, social and cultural environments are attractive to economic activities making it a good place to live and a good place to work. The chemical, printing and publishing, and electrical and electronic equipment industries hold strong potential for establishment in the area. Kalamazoo County will expand manufacturing employment more rapidly than the nation or Great Lakes Region. Manufacturing will continue to be the mainstay of the local economy, adding 18,900 workers by 1990 with 21,200 new jobs in the service industry, 16,500 in wholesale and retail trade, 10,900 jobs in governmental employment and 5,600 new jobs in the transportation, construction and finance fields. Educational programs and facilities are needed at several levels to train and retrain the labor force, provide continuing education for professional and technical personnel, and perform research and development services. Economic growth strongly influences population growth--the two need to be related and projected together to provide a source basis for planning. -10- I I I I I I I �,1 l- ,~ ' 'f -J -- ---J J r H E C O M PREH EN S I V E PLA ... �I I I I o THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN It should enrich the life and advance the opportunities of the individual citizen. 0 It should embody the County's unique physical setting and community character. 0 It should portray the fact that the County is a community of communities. 0 0 It should help the County direct to its advantage those inevitable changes which will increasingly result from outside economic and technological forces. It should regard the County's land as a precious asset and urge its efficient use for urban expansion and conservation of the balance for future needs. I I o It should encourage widely varied living environments, social and cultural institutions, employment and educational opportunities, and recreation facilities. o It should determine, for earliest possible reservation, the transportation corridors which will increasingly shape the community, influence its land uses, and delimit its neighborhoods. I o It should urge redesign and reinforcement of the urban center. I o It should balance conservation and rehabilitation of existing development with application of the best of today's knowledge to new development. I is based upon these principles and objectives: 0 It should provide for needed services at minimum cost: transportation, utility, recreational, protective and other services for residences, business and industry. The Plan is an instrument of public policy intended to set forth public goals and interests in the development of land and in the building of communities, especially as they apply to the exercis~ of regulations and to the expenditures of public funds. It is, therefore, an affirmation t~at such regulations are to be exercised objectively and such funds invested judiciously. -12- I I I I I I �I I I I I I I I II •II • • • • INSIDE THE BACK COVER OF THIS REPORT is the 1990 Land Use Plan for Kalamazoo County which portrays those aspects of the planning program which (with their inter-relationship) are capable of graphic presentation. Adapted from the reports listed on page 2, these aspects include: o Land Use Plan o Transportation Plan o Community Facilities Plan THIS PLAN PROJECTS AN URBAN AREA OF THE FUTURE •.. residential locations ... commercial and industrial areas ... transportation ... schools, parks, recreation and other community facilities designed to serve the people and their property ... and open space to conserve both the natural resources and to meet the inner needs of man himself. THE REGION'S URBAN LIFE can be well organized ..• its established objectives can be achieved ... its individual identities can be retained •.. and the confusions and frustrations commonly associated with larger urban concentrations can be avoided. LAND USE STATISTICS (1965) About 4%, or 15,000 acres of land, is used for residential purpose. Approximately .33%, or 1,153 acres of land, is being used for commercial activities. Less than 1%, or about 3,400 acres of land, is being used for manufacturing and other industrial uses. About 2.2%, or 8,000 acres of land, is used for public and semi-public purposes, excluding Fort Custer land. A total of approximately 10% of the County land area is being used for urban purposes including streets. An estimated 90% of the total land area of Kalamazoo County is currently occupied by farms, wood lands, vacant tracts, marshes and bodies of water, including Fort Custer land. It is estimated that approximately 16,000 additional acres, or 25 square miles of land, will be needed to accommodate the forecasted population to 1990. The balance of the County, or about 85% of the land area, will remain in a rural or vacant land use category through 1990 . -13- �I I FUTURE RESIDE The Plan provides for: AREAS o Over 30,000 acres of residential lands by 1990. o 40,000 new housing units anticipated by 1990. o Radiating outward from the existing nucleus of development for the Cities of Kalamazoo and Portage nearly 27,000 acres of lands designated for urban uses. Cities Villages Galesburg Kalamazoo Parchment Portage Augusta Climax Richland Schoolcraft Vicksburg Townships (Portions) Brady Comstock Cooper Oshtemo Pavilion Richland Texas 1 Singltt Family Use~ o Somewhat limited by certain topographic conditions, i.e., marshes, lowlands and steep slopes, the non-urban land areas will continue to be primarily agricultural with limited rural residential type of new development. Approximately 3,000 acres of land in the Rural Area will be devoted to "large lot" residential uses by 1990. Details may be found in the Technical Reports. -14- �'-II II II FUTURE COMMERCIAL The 1965 Land Use Survey tabulated over 1,153 acres of commercial land in Kalamazoo County or 6.1 acres of commercial use for each 1,000 population. Commercially oriented, Kalamazoo County can anticipate a continuing growth in these lands which is projected to be 1,944 acres by 1990. This increase of 79i acres is a 69% gain over the 1965 tabulations. AREAS Re~ional Shopping Centers providing services of a community center plus general merchandise, and with a large department store serving up to a 20-mile radius and a population of 150,000 persons or more. The Plan provides for: o 1,944 acres of commercial land by 1990. o six new commercial districts by 1990. o expansion of existing shopping areas to meet 1990 growth needs. Commercial needs should be met by: Neighborhood Shopping Centers functioning to serve local needs for sale of convenience and personal goods with up to a one-mi.l e service area and accommodating about 4,000 persons. Community Sho~ping Centers providing services similar to neighborhood centers, plus a wide range of speciality shops and services with a service area up to 4 miles and accommodating 35,000 people. II II , II -Ill -15--------- ------ �FUTURE 0 0 INDUSTRIAL An amount in excess of 3,440 acres of industrial land use was reported in the 1965 Land Use Survey. This figure represents 18.1 acres of industrial land for each 1,000 persons in Kalamazoo County. Future estimates for the County project a total of 5,040 acres of industrial lands by 199Q. This 1,600 acre increase represents a gain of 47% in industrial growth during the planning period. On a county-wide basis, all but 40 acres is indicated in the urban and urbanizing area of Kalamazoo County. 0 Almost all of the existing industrial areas, particularly in the Cities of Kalamazoo and Portage, are retained in the 1990 development plan. 0 With most industrial lands existing within the Urban Area boundary, particularly in the cities of Kalamazoo and Portage, new industrial development areas are planned to fill in the areas of space of vacant industrial lands with the addition of 3 new industrial park areas. AREAS o Areas planned for new industrial development are contiguous to the existing industrial land. These areas form a contiguous corridor of industrial uses, providing a consolidation of the previous areas committed to industrial activities. o The Plan encourages development on large level sites convenient to major transportation routes and adequately served by major utilities, water, sewer, gas and electric. o It provides for broad, attractively landscaped sites, with on-site parking _and room to expand, and no more than 10 to 20 minutes from employees' homes by private car. -16- • • • • • • • •I �FUTURE AGRICULTURAL AREAS Beyond those generous areas specifically designated for urban expansion, especially where urban services can be provided most economically, the plan should protect the vital role of agriculture in the economy, and provide a reserve for further orderly urban growth. This would still permit rurally harmonious large-tract development--3 acres or more per family. This is vital if the County is to avoid the tragically haphazard kind of urban intrusion into the countryside which has occurred around many cities since World War II. Such "Sprawl" is harmful to agriculture and urban development alike. / Non-farm homes along rural roads, folllowed by scattered subdivisions, happily add to a rural tax base until demands of urban growth exceed the reserve capacity of capital improvements designed for rural use. Roads become clogged, schools too small, rural services inadequate for urban needs. Then public expenditures soar, the farmer is taxed for services he doesn't need, the presence of urban uses inflates land values--but, because growth was scattered, more land has been "opened" to urban use than can be consumed. Taxes may drive the farmer to subdivide, but subdivision pressure exceeds market capacity. -17- �FUTURE 0 0 "OPEN SPACE" Tomorrow's population will have more time for leisure and be more dependent upon public recreation areas. From children's playlots to large hunting grounds, golf courses and ski slopes, specialized "play" areas are now an almost universally recognized human necessity--which "backyards" alone do not meet. Private provision for light, air, view, and recreation is neglected in the wake of urbanization. The need for urban space is growing even faster than population. Open space provides emotional satisfaction and aesthetic pleasures which make people happier, healthier and more productive, and communities more attractive to desirable residents, business and industry. It enhances property value and helps neighborhoods to live long and useful lives. 0 Open space also is instructional; it preserves convenient examples of natural phenomena and features of historic or physical importance which might otherwise be destroyed or made inaccessible to the public. 0 It also has conservation value. Swamps, for instance, can make only poor residential, agricultural or industrial areas, but excellent recreation preserves. 0 Open space also makes good boundaries and buffers, efficiently separating residential areas from industry, commerce or dissimilar neighborhoods. 0 The areas expected to be utilized b~ 1990, shown on the 1990 Land Use Plan inside the back cover of this report are treated in detail in the Technical Reports on Land Use, and Community Facilities. -18- • • • • • • • • • • • • �I I I I I I I I I • ••• •• • ••• •• •••·"=•-=•=•-:--•r,nm-rr,.. ,___________ FUTURE T OUGHFARE TRANSPORTATION ...J ~ "'....w ~ o All street and highway improvements throughout the County should conform to a uniform code of design and traffic control standards consistent with the Transportation Plan and federal requirements. (See Plan inside back cover) ' • : : : : i ~' ' I : i ~ .PRIVATE Statewide Arterials - to provide the highest level of traffic mobility available, located in ; : ; I j ~ widely spaced corridors of concentrated travel desire--high capacity and speed design--minimal ingress and egress--continuity of routing for regional or inter-regional travel movement. 11 These facilities should serve the longest trip In the Kalamazoo area the need for the movement desire serving major sections of metropolitan of people and goods will continue at accelerated areas with the highest degree of service. rates. Regional Arterials - to connect and augment the o The urban highway systems should circle, Statewide Arterials; to connect and serve major rather than penetrate the Central Business population centers and economic activity centers Districts of the cities. not served by Statewide Arterial Highways. ! ++-!-+1--+- ~ I ROAD o Highway and street network must provide direct access to all major traffic generators. o All routes should be designed to meet the needs of the existing and future land uses of the County. Local Arterials - to provide service of moderate length of travel at a somewhat lower level of travel service. They provide service between smaller cities, placing more emphasis on land access, and connect these areas with the higher arterial systems. -19- �PROPOSED THOROUGHFARE PLA COLLECTORS Principal Collectors - Rural--provide service between minor population and economic centers, with high level of service to adjacent properties. Principal Collectors - Urban--functlon as streets to serve substantial traffic volumes providing service to commercial, industrial and residential areas. Secondary Collectors - Rural--primary function of providing traffic service between local roads and streets and higher classified routes. Ease of access is a major consideration in the design of these streets. Secondary Collectors - Urban--a limited service area street designed to provide a high degree of property access and discouraging through traffic. T SYSTEM The heart of the system is a loop of expressways encircling the central portion of Kalamazoo and an expressway connecting Kalamazoo with the Portage area. The loop as proposed achieves several goals and does so in an economical manner. It connects all major routes through the City making quick access possible to any part of the City. It permits through traffic to bypass the City; and it will serve to create future development of land which is not presently attractive for development. Most of the proposed new rural highways in the County are relatively short segments which serve one of two purposes--improvement alignments of existing roads or completion of gaps in existing roads, thereby forming continuous routes across the County. In addition, some sections of the proposed routes provide a by-pass of urban areas for faster and safer travel or serve as connectors between the County and State routes and the urban areas. -20- • • • • • • • • • • • • • ' �I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I FUTURE SCHOOLS URBAN AREA In Kalamazoo County, most of the elementary schools include grades kindergarten through sixth. This trend was continued in planning for future elementary school facilities. Junior-senior high schools needs are planned to accommodate grades 7 through 12 which provides flexibility for different combinations of groupings of grades in the middle or high school system. 0 40 new elementary schools are anticipated in the Urban Area by 1990. 0 10 elementary schools are planned for the Rural Areas of the County by 1990. 0 11 additional junior-senior high schools are planned for the urban area. 0 Remodeling and facility additions will be required in a number instances to meet the 1990 rural area high school needs. 0 It is recommended that new elementary schools be planned by applying the school-park concept. 0 Elementary schools in urban and urbanizing areas should be located to serve a neighborhood and high schools located to serve a community. Whenever possible, school buildings should be made available to function as community-recreation-social centers. -~C,t/OOL, - P..4fi<l4 PL.4HNIN6;-....:... -21- �9 .Ui~0 1 ! ~,-,-±:( ;ri •.. .,:~ , . 4 ....~Dlo.l!t,,,,,:.l~~~:.U~ ~' -·.1',. FUTURE . . PARKS 0 An estimated 200 acres of land for 38 neighborhood park is proposed for the urban area. 0 12 parks are proposed for the cities of Galesburg, Kalamazoo, Parchment and Portage. 0 Township parks are proposed for each township in the County. 0 Neighborhood parks are proposed in all incorporated villages in the county. 0 Major parks, totaling approximately 1,300 acres, are proposed to serve the needs of the population on a county-wide basis~ FUTURE LIBRARIES The development of a county-wide library system is recommended to serve all citizens of Kalamazoo County. Using the Kalamazoo City Library as the main facility, 8 branch libraries are proposed throughout the county to meet the needs of the townships and villages with 4 branch libraries proposed in Kalamazoo Township. Existing libraries in Schoolcraft, Portage, Augusta and Climax are recommended to be used to supplement the county-wide system on a local basis. -22- ----==---=---==-=---=-- - -- --- II • • • • • • • • • • �I I I I I I FUTURE MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS o Expanded facilities are proposed for the Cities of Kalamazoo, Portage and Parchment. o New facilities are proposed for the City of Galesburg and Villages of Augusta, Climax, Schoolcraft and Vicksburg. o Remodeling and new construction are proposed for many of the Township facilities. A location within or adjacent to the Commercial Centers is preferred for the convenience of employees and visitors. The sites should provide off-street parking. -23- �FUTURE FIRE STATIONS Sites should be located close to a ma7or traffic artery, preferably, near the intersection of two such arteries. Their locations should be central to the service area, and oriented toward areas of greatest danger. o The plan proposes that the city and village units provide cooperative services to the surrounding rural areas. o Four facilities are planned to be replaced in the City of Kalamazoo with five new fire stations planned. Four stations are proposed for the City of Portage. Replacement of the older station in Galesburg is planned. o Ten new facilities are planned in the urbanizing area of the County. FUTURE POLICE STATIONS New police stations should be located on a 1/2 to 1 acre site with adequate off-street parking, and centrally located near the intersections of two arterial streets. o New facilities are proposed for the Cities of Parchment, Portage and Galesburg and the Villages of Vicksburg, Richland and Schoolcraft. Expansion of the City of Kalamazoo police station is recommended. o Continued police protection by the Kalamazoo County Sheriff's Department is expected in the balance of the County. FUTURE UTILITY SYSTEMS Sanitary sewer systems, water supply and distribution systems and storm drainage systems which are adequate to meet the needs of existing development are proposed to be provided for Kalamazoo County. While no specific water mains or trunk sewers are designated, it is proposed that these systems be limited to the proposed Urban and Urbanizing Area of the County, which includes all cities and villages. It is further recommended that no urban form of development be permitted in non-urban areas where municipal water and sewer facilities are lacking and not planned within the foreseeable future. -24- • • • • • • ' ' ' ' �I I o Zoning and subdivision regulations should be patterned after the model ordinances containing the primary land-use controls for the present and the future (as provided in the Implementation Report--because each municipality is a part of a generally homogeneous community. o The adoption of a comprehensive plan by the cities or village will make it possible, through the "State of Michigan Mapped Improvements Act" to certify and adopt plats for the reservation of lands for public facilities as proposed in the Community Facilities and Transportation Plans. The use of this act will assure the needs of the municipalities at a lower cost and provide assurance of needed public facilities to private developers. I I I I I I FUTURE LAND USE CONTROLS o By using Capital Budgeting, the anticipated expenditures are reviewed before the requirement is confronted, projects are reviewed annually on a merit system, the duplicating of projects is avoided, the staging of projects in a logical sequence is possible, and it provides a defense against unwarranted projects of special interest groups. The foregoing objectives can be accomplished by the coordinated use of sound new zoning, subdivision and other ordinances adopted by each of the units of government. -25- �• • •II BUT "PLANNING" The first step has been taken. Six years of concentrated efforts have produced a sound and financially feasible Comprehensive Plan for the future of Kalamazoo County. We have planned to make it a satisfying metropolitan community. Now we must put the plan to work. Virtually everything now depends upon affirmative action by the Municipalities. Now awaiting their official action are the Land Use Plan, the Model Zoning and Subdivision Regulations, the Traffic and Thoroughfare Plan, and the Community Facilities Plan. With the help of these basic tools and such "holding devices" as official mapping by the use of the Mapped Improvements Act, sites need by 1990 may be reserved in time and actually acquired under capital improvements programs. The community may then relate planned goals to a year-by-year municipal financial structure in an orderly programming of ability to pay with community growth. ISN'T "DOING" The work of ·the Kalamazoo Metropolitan County Planning Commission must continue to provide the balance between the urgent day-to-day needs and the longer range objectives. It can help with many planning decisions in the municipalities, expand its public education activity as a source of ever increasing information on all facets of county development, conduct in-depth research into still more fields of concern, activate still more programs in behalf of planning goals, and turn some of its efforts toward regional responsibilities. The County has made a good start. It is on its way. It has far to go, and no time to lose. -26- II I II I '11 -l -1 �I I KALAMAZOO METROPOLITAN I I I I I I I I I I I I I COUNTY M. Eugene Malone, Chairman PLANNING COMMISSION Dennis Boyle, Vice Chairman Present Members Former Members Former Members Meredith Clark David Culver Lester Devries William D. Farley Donald R. Hayward William Hendrick James H. Pinkham Fred C. Reynolds Dr. Myron Ross F. Joseph Buckley John E. Daley Harvey Enzian Roger File Shirley Grekin John F. Hall Merritt N. Harper D. Gordon Knapp Arthur H. Lee Lionel L'Esperance Allan B. Milham Lawrence Paulsen Donald R. Phelps Richard Prey Charles C. Ranney George W. Sprau Julius T. Wendzel Daleo. Wheeler Bruce A. Watts, Planning Director COMMITTEES AND SUBCOMMITTEES Land Use L. M. Angell Donald Arnott** Ed Baur** Grover Brussee, Jr. David Burgess Robert Cain Stanley Cramer David Culver* Charles DeKold Michael Fitzgerald Rudolph Germanson Ralph Gilbert Roger Gleason** Claud Good Bernard Griffin Niles Hagelshaw John Hall* Mary Jo Harmon Merritt Harper* Scott Harrison Donald Hayward* Roger Hayward Harold Hice Vern Hinz** Oscar Hunt W. D. Ingersoll** Wayne Jessop* David Jones James Kersten** John Light Wayne Lynn Helen Wagner Gerald Meyers Robert Morris Norm Nelson Stanley Oswalt** Vern Reed William Ripattee** Mrs. J. Robinson Wayne Sackett Lois Schadewald Matt Scholten Bert Secrist Donald Slighly Robert Somers L. M. Stager B. G. Stockwell James Sytsma Ray Vliek Warren Vroman** Julius Wendzel* -27- �COMMITTEES (Continued) Community Facilities Mrs. John Abramson** Jim Armstrong Don Arnott** c. Baker Richard Byce Joe Colby** John Conner Mark Crum** Chester Douglas** William Farley* Glenn Flamm*B Dean Fox** Dick Forward Rick Frazier* Tom Fricke** Mrs. Gladys Garrison Garrett Gernaat** Harry Gildea Robert Gove** Philip Graf** Jack Gray Jack Gridley** John Hall* Lois Harvey Frank Hemphill** Nick Kik** Herbert Larkin** Kirby Mason** Jacob Mein** Clifford Osterman William Middleton Cliff Osterman** Larry Paulsen James Pinkham* Patricia Pratt William Ripatte** Edward N. Ross* Albert Sabo** W. Schneidenback** Gerald Scott David Sharp** Foster Sherwood Robert Snell** Donald Sowle~ George Sprau* Gordon Start** Argyle Stevens Don Swets** William Taylor Mrs. Lowell Titus** Dr. Henry Tyson Leonard VandenBerg R. VanDeusen** James VerMeulen Chris Wenke Lyle King Ronald Knight Herbert Larkin** John Lattin Harry Lisk Allan Milham* Stanley Peck** Fred Sanborn** James Smith** Vern Smittendorf John Strand Donald Swets** William Taylor Donald Thall Transportation Robert Carroll** Meredith Clark* Wilson Doster Doanld Ebinger William Farley* George Gilbert Shirley Grekin* * Planning Commission Member ** Technical Resource Member • • • • • •II 11 •11 •l -28- l �H ~ ;:' ..:::c- HE> 3 Miles Prepared By: SCHELLIE ASSOCIATES 3 :l C0 u N TY J <j It- ( ~ :l - a p L ANNIN . ::13 30 2 ' - ~ ] a::> ) --=-= - m < HJ.St, r.I . HJ. Lt, I I HJ. 9t, < 0 m Ill ✓ ~ ( t HJ.Ill, H.l.t,t, cl � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Wyckoff Planning and Zoning Collection Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Planning & Zoning Center (Lansing, Mich.) (Organization) Wyckoff, Mark A. Description An account of the resource Municipal master plans and zoning ordinances from across the state of Michigan, spanning from the 1960s to the early 2020s. The bulk of the collection was compiled by urban planner Mark Wyckoff over the course of his career as the founder and principal planner of the Planning and Zoning Center in Lansing, Michigan. Some additions have been made to the collection by municipalities since it was transferred to Grand Valley State University. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Michigan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1960/2023 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Subject The topic of the resource Michigan Comprehensive plan publications Master plan reports Zoning--Michigan Zoning--Maps Maps Land use--planning Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-240 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Kalamazoo-County_Comprehensive-Plan_1970 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Schellie Associates, Inc., a division of Clyde E. Williams & Associates, Inc. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1970-06 Title A name given to the resource A Comprehensive Plan for Kalamazoo County, Michigan, 1970-1990 Description An account of the resource A Comprehensive Plan for Kalamazoo County, Michigan, 1970-1990 was prepared by Schellie Associates, Inc., a division of Clyde E. Williams & Associates, Inc. with the assistance of the Kalamazoo Metropolitan County Planning Commission in June 1970. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Kalamazoo Metropolitan County Planning Commission (consultant) Subject The topic of the resource Comprehensive plan publications Kalamazoo County (Mich.) Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/c03526c61dff6e46d26ac65e83841a75.pdf bf36df52636fe5ec3abf7cb827f14407 PDF Text Text �'✓ T A B L E I 0 F C O N T E N T S I PAGE I ARTICLE I ARTICLE II ARTICLE III I I I I I • ··1 • f: ·-;; t SHORT TITLE . . . . . . RULES AND DEFINITIONS. DISTRICTS, INTERPRETATIONS OF BOUNDARIES, AND APPLICATION . . . . Section l. Establishment of Districts Section 2. Rules For Interpretation of District Boundaries . . . . . . . Section 3. Application of Regulations Section 4. Annexation Zoning Procedure ARTICLE IV RESIDENTIAL USE . . . . . . Section l. R-lA Oni-Family Residential District Section 2. R-lB One-Family and Multiple-Family Residential District . . . . Section 3. R-2 Two-Family and Multiple-Family Residential District . . ARTICLE V BUSINESS USE . . . . . Section l . L-B Local Business District Section 2. G-B General Business District . Section 3. H-B Highway Business District ARTICLE VI INDUSTRIAL USE . . . . . Section l. I-Industrial District . . . . ARTICLE VII SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS . . . . . . Section 1. ft"Exceptions, Additions or Modifications Section 2. Transition Requirements . Section 3. Off-Street Parking . . . Sect-ion 4 . Off-Street Loading Section 5. Fences and Screening Section 6. .Signs . . Section 7. Non-Conforming Uses . Section 8. Planned Unit Development ARTICLE VIII ENFORCEMENT . Sect1.on l . Permits and Certificates THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ARTICLE IX Section 1. Creation Section 2. Rules, Powers and Duties Section J. Action of the Board . Section 4 . Authority . Section 5. Appeals for Variations, How Taken Section 6. Special Uses Petitions for Special Use, How Taken Section 7. AMENDMENT, VIOLATION AND PENALTY, ARTICLE X VALIDITY . Section l. Amendment V1.olation and Penalty Section 2. Validity Section J. Repeal of Conflicting Ordinances Sect1.on 4. Adopt 1.on Sect1.on 5. *~~-~~ 1 1 19 19 19 20 20 21 21 25 25 29 29 31 33 35 JS 43 43 46 47 49 49 50 54 55 57 57 59 59 59 59 60 60 62 62 65 65 65 66 GG 66 f>~4Co �I I ! I I I i I I ORDINANCE NO. 224 AN ORDINANCE REGULATING AND RESTRICTING THE SIZE OF BUILDINGS; THE SIZE OF YARDS, COURTS, AND OTHER OPEN SPACES; THE DENSITY OF POPULATION; THE LOCATION AND USE OF BUILDINGS AND LAND FOR TRADE, INDUSTRIAL, RESIDENTIAL, AND OTHER PURPOSES; CREATING DISTRICTS FOR SAID PURPOSES AND ESTABLISHING THE BOUNbARIES THEREOF; PROVIDING FOR CHANGES IN THE REGULATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, AND BOUNDARIES OF SUCH DISTRICTS; ESTABLISHING A BOARD OF APPEALS; IMPOSING PENALTIES FOR ITS VIOLATION, ANO REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES I~ CONFLICT HEREWITH; NOW, THEREFORE: BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF NILES: ARTICLE I - SHORT TITLE This ordinance shall be known, cited, and referred to as "THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF NILES, MICHIGAN". ARTICLE II - RULES AND .DEFINITIONS . In the construction of this ordinance, the rules and definitions cont~ined in this section shall b~ observed and applied, except when the context clearly indicates otherwise: A. i: ~ B . Word~ used in the present tense shall include the future tense; and words used in the singular number shall include the plural number, and the plural the singular. The word "shall" is mandatory, not discretionary. C. The word "may" is permissive. D. The word "lot" shall include the . words "tract" and "parcel"; the word "building" includes ·all other structures of ·every kind regardless of similarity tQ buildings; and the phrase "used for" shall include the phrase "arranged for", "designed for", "intended for", "maintained for", and "occupied for", E. The word "person" includes a corporation, firm partnership, or similar, as well as an individual. F. All measured distances shall be to the nearest integral foot. (If a fraction is one-half foot or less, the· ·1~E~~~~l - foot next below shall be taken). - 1 - �·/ , G. Parenthetical words or state~ents are integral parts of the definitions in which they are located. I H. Any words not defined as follows shall be construed in their general accepted meanings as defined by Webster's Dictionary. I Accessory BuiZding or Use ' I I An accessory building or use is one which: fI a. is subordinate to and serves a principal building or principal use; II b. is subordinate in area, extent, or purpose to the principal building or principal use served; c. contributes to the com~ort, convenience, or necessity of occupants of the principal building or principal use served; d. is located on the same lot as the principal building or principal use served, with the single exception of such accessory off-street parking facilities as are permitted to locate elsewhere than on the same lot with the building or use served. I ! ,,. I I Advertising Device An advertising sign, billboard, or poster panel which directs attention to a business, commodity, service, or entertainment not exclusively related to the premises where such sign is located or to which it is affixed; but does not include those advertising signs, billboards, or poster panels which direct attention to the business on the premises or to a brand name of a product or commodity with which the business is specifically identified and which is sold on the premises. A ZZey public right-of-way which normally affords a secondary means of access to abutting property. A AZteration A change in size, shape, character, occupancy, or use of a building or structure. AZteration, Structural, • Any change in the supporting me mbers of a building such as bearing walls, columns, beams or girders . Animal, Hospital, A building or portion thereo f designed or used for the care, observation, or treatment of domestic animals. - 2 - �/1!,l()f110h/i .. i. :;11 .1: .... ., II A building, or portion thereof, containing fa~ilitics for washing more than two (2) automobiles, using production line methods with a chain conveyor, blower, steam cleaning device, or other mechanical devices. [ I A building or portion thereof or premises used for dispensing, or offering for sale at retail, gasoline when stored only in underground tanks, kerosene, lubricating oil or grease, for operation of automobiles, and where tires, batteries, and similar automobile accessories may be offered for sale on the premises at retail, including minor services and installations customarily incidental thereto; and facilities other than an automobile laundry, for washing cars, only if enclosed in a building. Automobile service stations do not include open sales lots as defined herein. r I I I Automobile Wreckino Yard • An area of land where three or more motor vehicles, or vehicles, machinery, or equipment drawn or operated by attaching to motor vehicles or mechanical unit - not in running or operable condition, or parts thereof, are stored in the open; and any land, building or structure used for wrecking or storing of such motor vehicles, vehicles, machinery, or equipment or parts thereof . 0wnin£) A rooflike mechanism, retractable in operation, and covered with flexible, material, which projects from the wall of a building. Basement . ...,. :· A story partly underground but having more than one-half of its clear height below finished grade. (see grade) Block A tract of land bounded by _ streets, or by a street or streets and any combination of boundar'y 1 ines or public or ins ti tu tionallyowned lands, railroads rights-of-way, rivers and lakes and other lines of demarcation. Board THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEJ\LS, • NILES, MICHIGAN. !3uildir;g A structure built for th e support, enclosure, shelter, or protection of persons, animals, chattels, or movable property of any kind, and which is permanently affixed to the land. - 3 - �1 :1 .. '. ~ :i ,......-.._, /, II A building, or portion thereof, co11taining f~cilitics for washing more than two (2) automobiles, using production line methods with a chain conveyor, blower, steam cleaning device, or other mechanical devices. Il [I I I I .' A building or portion thereof or premises used for dispensing, or offering for sale at retail, gasoline when stored only in underground tanks, kerosene, lubricating oil or grease, for operation of automobiles, and where tires, batteries, and similar automobile accessories may bG offered for sale on the premises at retail, including minor services and installations customarily incidental thereto; and facilities other than an automobile laundry, for washing cars, only if enclosed in a building. Automobile service stations do not include open sales lots as defined herein . Automobile Wreckina Yari An area of land where three or more motor vehicles, or vehicles, machinery, or equipment drawn or operated by attaching to motor vehicles or mechanical unit - not in running or operable condition, or parts thereof, are stored in the open; and any land, building or structure used for wrecking or storing of such motor vehicles, vehicles, machinery, or equipment or parts thereof. Cnin0 A rooflike mechanism, retractable in operation, and covered with flexible, material, which projects from the wall of a building. Basement A story partly underground but having more than one-half of its clear height below finished grade. (see grade) Block A tract of land bounded by streets, or by a street or streets and any combination of boundary lines or public or institutionallyowned lands, railroads rights-of-way, rivers and lakes and other lines of demarcation. Board THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, N l.LI.::S, MlCIIIGAN. !Juildir.g structure built for the support, enclosure, shelter, or protection of persons, animals, chattels, or movable property of any kind, and which is permanently affixed to the land. A '- 3 - �11 •· · b. two-family dwellings; c. single-family or two-family attached and semi-detached dwellings developed initially under single ownership or unified co0tr~l; d. multiple-family dwellings. The cubic content of a building 1.n relation to toe area of the building site. An occupation, employment, or enterprise which occupies time, attention, labor, and materials; or wherein merchandise is exhibited or sold, or where services are offered. CarDo rl An open-sided roofed automobile shelter, formed by extension of the roof from the side of a building. !I I Certificate of Oceupancy A certificate stating that the occupancy and the use of land or a building or structure referred to therein complies with the provisions of this ordinance. Clinic, Medical or Dental A building or portion thereof, the principal use of which is for offices of an organization of physicians or dentists or both. Cl ub I. o r Lo,::.' g e , Pr i v a t e A non-profit association of persons, who are bonafide members paying annual dues, which owns, hires, or leases a building, or portion thereof; the use of such premises being restricted to members and their guests. The affairs and management of such "private cluo or lodge" are conducted by a board of directors, executive commit tee, or sim-. i,lar body chosen by the members. It shall be permissible to serve food on such premises. The sale of alcoholic beverages to members and their guests shall be permitted provided it is secondary and incidental to the promotion of some other common objective of the organization. Commissinn THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF NILES, MICHIGAN. ComDacl Home A portable structure, designed for permanent occupancy, twenty (20) feet or more wide and forty-five (45) feet or more long, with the four (4) outside walls supported by a permanent foundation. - 5 - �- Any building or structure which: I I a. complies with all the regulations of this ordinance or of any amendment hereto governing the zoning district in which such building or structure is located; b. is designed or intended for a conforming use. [ I r I f, I I I I Controlled Access Highway A trafficway, including freeways, expressways, and other arterial streets, in respect to which owners or occupants of abutting property or lands and other persons have no legal right of access to or from the same, except at such points only and in such manner as may be determined by the public authority having jurisdiction over such traffic way. '· Court I 'e I .I I An open unoccupied space bounded on two or more sides by the exterior walls of a building or exterior walls and lot lines. Curb Leve"i., The level of the established curb in front of such building measured at the center of such front. (Where no curb level has been established, the pavement elevation at the street center line similarly measured, or the mean elevation of the finished lot grade immediately adjacent to a building shall be considered the "curb level") . District A geographical area within which certain uniform regulations and requirements or various combinations thereof apply under the provisions of this ordinance. Drive-in Establishment An establishment which offers merchandise, service or entertainment to persons in motor vehicles. Dwelling A permanent building, or portion thereof, designed or used exclusively for residential occupancy, including single-family dwellings, two-family dwellings, and multiple-family dwellings, but not including hotels, mot e ls, or lodging houses. Dwelling (Attached) A dwelling which is joined to another dwelling by party walls. - 6 - �Dwelling lln_i_f:_ II II One or more rooms which are arranged, designed, or used as living quarters for one family only, and having a kitchen. Dwelling, Singl e -Far::il_1, A building containing one dwelling unit only. Dwelling, Two-Family A building containing two dwellings units only. Dwelling, Multipl e - Fam i ly A building containing three or more dwelling units. Efficiency Unit A dwelling unit consisting of one principal room exclusive of bathroom, hallway, closets, or kitchen and dining alcove directly off the principal room. Eleemosynary Institution A building or group of buildings devoted to public service and supported by a not-for-profit organization. Es tab l is hm en t, 8 us in es s A place qf business carrying or operations, the ownership and management of which are separate and distinct from those of any other place of business located on the same lot. Direct access to each "business establishment" shall be separate and distinct access to any other business establishment, and in no case shall there be access to one such establishment from within another such establishment. Family One or more persons each related to the otner or adoption, or a group of not more than four so related, maintaining a common household in family may include not more than two roomers, manent guests - whether or not gratuitous. by blood, marriage, (4) persons not all a dwelling unit. A boarders, or per- Farm An area used for agricultural operations including truck gardening, forestry, tree or plant nursery but exclusive of the production of livestock and poultry. - 7 - �Floor· Area I I I I I I The sum of the gross horizontal areas of the several floors of the building measured from the exterior faces of the exterior walls or from the center line of walls separating two buildings. The "floor area of a building" shall include the basement floor area when more than one-half of the basement height is above the established curb level; elevator shafts, and stairwells at each floor, floor space used for mechanical equipment, (except equipment, open or enclosed, located on the roof), penthouses, attic space having headroom of seven .feet, ten inches (7' 10") or more, interior balconies and mezzanines, enclosed porches, and floor area devoted to accessory uses. The "floor area" of structures devoted to bulk storage of materialsincluding, but not limited to, grain elevators and petroleum storage tanks - shall be determined on the basis of the height of such structure in feet; ten· (10) feet in height shall be deemed to be equal to one floor (if a structure measures more than five (5) feet over such floor equivalent, it shall be construed to have an additional floor). Floor Area of a Building (For determining off-street parking and loading requirements) The sum of the gross horizontal areas of the several floors of the building, or portion thereof, devoted to a specific use; including accessory storage areas located within selling or working space such as counters, racks or closets; and any basement floor area devoted to retailing activities, to the production Dr processing of goods, or to business or professional offices. Frontage (of a block) All of the property fronting on one side of a street. Fr o ntage (of a lot) All the property of such lot fronting on a street, as measured between side lot lines. Garage, Private An accessory building or an accessory portion of the principal building, including a carport, which is intended for or used for storing the private passenger vehicles of the family or families resident upon the premises, and in which no business, service, or industry connected directly or indirectly with the automotive vehicles is carried on, provided that not more than one-half of the space may--·be rented for-- the -private passenger vehicles of persons not resident on the premises, except that all the space in a garage of one or two-car capacity may be so rented. - 8 - �Garage, !'u.l•lic Any building where automotive vehicles are pointed, repaired, rebuilt, reconstructed, or stored for compensation. Garage, Storage A building or premises used for housing only of motor vehicles pursuant to previous arrangements and not by transients; and where no equipment or parts are sold, and vehicles are not rebuilt, serviced, repaired, hired, or sold, except that fuel, grease, or oil may be dispensed within the building to vehicles stored therein. Grade The average level of the '. ~inished surface of the ground adjacent to the exterior walls of the building or structure. ~ ·;¥;,,iie~.Occura ti~·,; . Any occupation or profession carried on by a member of the immediate family residing on the premises, in connection with which: a. there is used no sign or display except as permitted by this ordinance that will indicate from the exterior that the building is being utilized in whole or in part for any purpose other than that of a dwelling; · b. there is no commodity sold upon the premises which is not produced on the premises, c. and no person is employed other than members of the immediate family residing on the premises. (Beauty and barber shops, tea rooms, tourist home, or boarding house shall not be considered home occupations) Motel A building or a group of quildings containing rooms intended or designed to be used or which are used, rented, or leased to be occupied or which are occupied for sleeping purposes and which is open to transient guests, in contradistinction to a boarding or lodging house. Hotel, Apartment A hotel in which at least sixty ( 60) percent of .the hotel accom-_. modations are occupied by permanent guests. �Incompatible lf.<;e I I I I ( I I I i I I A use or service which is incapable of direct,association with certain other uses because it is contradictory, incongruous, or discordant. Junk Yard An open area where waste or scrap materials are bought, sold, exchanged, stored, baled, packed, disassembled, or handled, including but not limited to scrap iron and other metals, paper, rags, rubber tires, and bottles. A "junk yard" includes an auto wrecking yard, but does not include uses established entirely within enclosed buildings, nor does it include an establishment engaged only in the processing of scrap iron or other metals to be sold specifically for the manufacture of steel or metal alloys. Kennel Any premises or portions thereof on which more than four (4) dogs, cats, or other household domestic animals over four (4) months of age are kept, or on which more than two (2) such animals are maintained, boarded, bred, or cared for, in return for remuneration, or are kept for the purpose of sale. Lodging House . I I I A residential building, or portion thereof - other than a motel, apartment hotel, or hotel - containing lodging rooms for accommodation of five (5) or more persons who are not members of the keeper's family and where lodging or meals or both are provided by prearrangement and for definite periods. Lodging Room A room rented as sleeping and living quarters, but without cooking facilities and with or without an individual bathroom. (In a suite of rooms without cooking facilities, each -room which provides sleeping accommodations shall be counted as one (1) "lodging room" for the purposes of this ordinance). Lot Any tract, parcel or other land however designated held under separate ownership but not including farms. Lot of Record A lot which is part of a subdivision, the plat of which has been recorded in the office of the Co unty Recorder, or a parcel of land, the deed to which was rec o rded in the office of said Recorder prior to the adoption of this ordinance. - 10 - �' lot, '/,unir:g A single tract of land located within a singl~ block, which (at the time of filing for a building permit) is designated by its owner or developer as a tract to be used, developed, or built upon as a unit, under single ownership or unified control. (A "zoning lot" may or may not coincide with a "lot of record".) lol, Corner A lot situated at the intersection of two streets, the interior angle of such intersection not exceeding 135 degrees. (The narrowest part of a lot having frontage on a street is the front of the lot.) lot Coverage '· The percentage of the lot area covered by the building area. lot, Reversed Corner A corner lot where the side lot line adjoining a street is substantially a continuation of the front lot line of an adjacent interior lot. ,,,. Lot) Through A lot having a frontage on two non-intersecting streets as distinguished from a corner lot. (Both street lines shall be deemed front lot lines) Lot Area~ ,.;... Gross The area of a horizontal plane bounded by the front, side, and rear lot lines, but not including any area occupied by the waters of a lake, river, or flood plain area. Lot Depth The average distance between the front lot line and the rear lot line of a lot. Lot Width The distance between the side lot lines of a lot measured at the building line. Lot Line, Front That boundary · of a lot which is along an existing or dedicated public street, or where no public street exists, is along a public way; where such public way is not a dedicated street the rightof-way of such public way shall be deemed to be sixty (60) feet, unless otherwise provided. l - 11 - �1 That boundaq, of a l(J~- ·.v'.11 '--· !: is ::-.o s·_ :i1s !:: <1 :1:.. :ror:1, c1r.c 1s, or 1s most nearly, parallel to, the front lo!:: line. L i nc , Lo l .'; i ,: c Any boundary of a lot which 1s ~o!:: a front o r rear lot line . .'-tar :1uec or Ca,;o:. ;, r I I A roof-like structure of c1 ?ermc1nent nature \~·!1ich projects from the wall of a building and may ove~hang into a required yard. A portable structure ten (10) feet or more wide anJ thirty (30) fe~t or more long and desiijned for permanent occupancy as a residence. A lot, parcel, or tract of land d9v~lo~ed wi!::h facilities for accommodating two or :nore mobile homes - j)rovided each .mobile home contains a kitchen, flush toilet, and shower or bath. Such park shall be used only by non-trar.sient dwellers remaining continuously for more than one month, whether or not a charge is made. (It shall not include a sales lo!:: in which automobiles or unoccupied trailers or mobile homes are ?arked for the purpose of inspection or sale) 1•1o t:.. o r Vei-..1:clr:: A passenger vehicle, truck, truck-trailer, ~r semi-trailer propelled or drawn by mechanical power. Nameplate Non-illuminated sign flush with the front of the building indicating the name or address of a building, or the name of an occupant thereof and the practice~~ a permitted occupation therein. A building or structure which: a. does not comply with all of the regulations of this ordinance or of any amendment hereto governing bul k for the zoning district in which such building o r structure is located; b. is designed or intended for a non-conforminy use. - 12 - �A use of land, builc.lings, or structures whichI docs not comply with , all of the regulations of this ord1nuncc or of any amendment hereto governing use for the zoning district in which such use is located. I That which is ca?ablc of causing injury to living organisms by chemical reaction or is capable of causing detrimental effects upon the physical or c=onomic well-being of individuals. I Odorous Matter Matter or material that yields an odor which is offensive in any way. Open Sale:, l.,ct /~~ Land used or occupied for the purpose of buying or selling merchandise stored or displayed out-of-doors. (Such merchandise includes, but is not limited to, passenger cars, trucks, motor scooters, motorcycles, boats, and monuments). ✓.J ~ ,~~O Particulate ~atter Dust, smoke, or any other form of air-borne pollution in the form of minute separate particles. Planned Unit Development I A tract of land developed under single ownership or control, the development of which is unique and of a substantially different character than that of surrounding areas. Property Lines Those bounding a lot. Reservoir Parking Those off-street parking spaces allocated to automobiles awaiting entrance to a particular establish~ent. Rest Home (or nursing home) A private home for the care of children or the aged or infirm, or a place of rest for those suffering bodily disorders. Ringelmann Ch~rt One which is described in the U.S. Bureau of Mines Information Circular 6888, and on which are illustrated graduated shades of gray for use in estimating the light-obscuring capacity of smoke and smoke density. - 13 - �Ii 5 ii"' F I: "' . Ringelmann Hum~er Designation of the area on the Ringelmann Chart that coincides most nearly with ~he visual density of emission or the lightobscuring capacity of the smoke. Setback The minimum horiz : ntal distance between the front line of a building or structure and the front property line. A name, identification, description, display, or illustration which is affixed to, or represented directly or indirectly upon a building, structure, or piece of land and which directs attention to an object, product, place, activity, person, institution, organization, or business. A "sign" shall not include: a. the display of official court or public office notices; b. the flag, emblem, or insignia of a nation, political unit, school, or religious group; nor c. one located completely within an enclosed building, except signs located behind window areas intended to be viewed from outside the building. Sign, Advertising A sign which directs attention to a business, commodity, service, or entertainment not exclusively related to the premises where such sign is located or to which it is affixed. Sign, Business ::. it; : ~ A sign which directs attention to a business or profession or to a commodity, service, or entertainment sold or offered upon the premises where such sign is located or to which it is affixed. Sign, Flashing An illuminated sign on which the artificial light is not maintained stationary or constant in intensity and color at all times when such sign is in use. (A revolving, illuminated sign shall be considered to be a "flashing sign'') . Sign, Gross Area Of The entire area within a single continuous perimeter encl·osing the extreme limits of such sign a nd in no case passing through or between any adjacent elements of same. (Such , perirneter shall not include any structural elements lying outside the limits of such sign and not forming an inte g r a l part of the ~display) - 14 - l , j j j J 1 �Smoke Ur:i: The number obtained when the smoke t.lensity in 1 Ringclmann Number is multiplied by the time of emission in minutes. (For the purpose of this calculation: a. a Rihgelmann density reading shall be made at least once a minute during the period of observation; b. each reading is then multiplied by the time ir. minutes during which it is observed; c. the various products are then added together to sive the total number of smoke units observed during the entire observation period). Sound Level Me ter An instrument standardized by the American Standards Association for measurement of the intensity of sound. Sp e cial Exception A use not classifiable in the customary zoning districts; or a use which may not under circumstances be inharmonious in zoning d±stricts where not normally permitted; or a use requiring special consideration of its probable effect upon property and uses in its vicinity, which nevertheless may be permitted in specific controlled situations in accordance with the terms of this ordinance. Stable, Private A building or structure which is located on a lot on which a dwelling is located, and which is designed, arranged, used, or intended to be used for housing not more than two (2) saddle horses or ponies primarily for the use of occupants of the dwelling, but in no event for hire . _, . Story That portion of a building.included between the surface of any floor and the surface of the floor next above or if there is no floor above, the space betw·e en the floor and the ceiling next above. (A basement having more than one-half the clear floor-toceiling height above grade shal _l be considered a "story". St o ry, Half A space uncier a sloping roof which has the line of intersection of a ~oof decking and wall, not more than three (3) feet above the t op level of the story below. ( In such space, not more than sixty (60) percent of the floor a re a is completed for a principal o r accessory use). - 15 - �-A----- -- - - r •·· • •• --•• ~ _._ - • ... • I Street I I I A partially or fully improved public right-of~way which requires more oi less permanent location on the ground or attached to something having a permanent location on the ground, except public utility communication and electrical transmission lines and equipment and facilities supporting the same and/or incidental thereto. I Structure structure means a combination of materials other than a building to form a construction that is safe and stable and includes among other things stadiums, platforms, radio towers, sheds, storage bins, fences, and display signs. A Structural Alteration A change, other than incidental repairs, which would prolong the life of the supporting members of a building, such as the addition, removal, or alteration of bearing walls, columns, beams, girders, or foundations. Tourist Camp A parcel or tract of land containing facilities for locating three (3) or more trailers or mobile homes, and for use only be transients remaining less than one month, whether or not a charge is made. (Not including an open sales lot in which automobiles or unoccupied trailers are parked for the purposes of inspection or sale). Tourist Home A dwelling in which sleeping rooms are provided or offered to transient guests for compensation. (Not including a hotel, apartment hotel, or motel). Trailer A vehicle, house car, camp car, or any portable or mobile vehicle on wheels, skids, rollers, or blocks, either self-propelled or propelled by any other means, which is used or designed to be used for dwelling, lodging,·· commercial, or agricultural purposes. Use (of property) The purpose or activity for which the land or building thereon is designed, arranged, or intended, or for which it is occupied or maintained. (Includes any manner of performance of activity of operation with respect to the preformance standards of this ordinance). Use, Principal The main use of land or buildings as distinguished from a subordina t e or a cc es so r y use . ( May be e i th e r p e rm i t t e d or spec i a 1 II II II 11 ) - 16 - • �Use Permitted A use which may be lawfully established in a particular district or districts (provided it conforms with all requirements, regulations, and performance standards, if any, of such district). II Use, Special A use (either public or private) which, because of its unique characteristics, cannot be properly classified as a permitted use in any particular district or districts. ! I Variance A minimum departure from the strict application of the specific requirements of this ordinance granted by the Board in accordance with the terms of this ordinance for the purpose of assuring that no property, because of special circumstances applicable to it, shall be deprived of privileges commonly enjoyed by other properti~s in the same vicinity or district. Wholesale Establishment A business establishment engaged in selling to retailers or jobbers rather than consumers. Yard An open space on the same lot with a building or structure, unoccupied and unobstructed from its lowest level to the sky, except as otherwise permitted. (A "yard" extends along a lot line, and to a depth or width specified in the yard requirements for the zoning district in which such lot is located). Yard, Front A yard extending along the full length of the front lot line between the side lot lines. Yard, Rear A yard extending along the full length of the rear lot line between the side lot lines. Yard, Side A yard extending along a side lot line from the front yard to the rear yard. Yard, A Corner Side side yard which adjoins a public street, road or highway. - 17 - �. , Yard i Interior Sid e A side yard ~hich is located immediately adjacent to another lot or to an alley separating such side yard from another lot. I Yard Transitional A yard which must be provided on a lot in a Business District which adjoins a lot in a Residential District, or a yard which must be provided on a lot in a Industrial District which adjoins a lot in either a Residential or Business District. Zoning District or District A section or sections of the territory of THE CITY OF NILES for which the regulations and requirements governing use, lot, and bulk of buildings and prem~ses are uniform. I i - - 18 - �I ARTICLE I I l I DISTRICTS, INTERPRETATIONS OF BOUNDARIES, and APPLICATION I I I. j I ' Section 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF DISTRICTS For the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community, the CITY OF NILES is hereby divided into the following districfs: R-lA Single-Family Residential District R-lB Single-Family Residential District R-2 Two-Family and Multiple-Family Residential District L-B Local Business District G-B General Business District H-B Highway Business District I Industrial District Said districts are bounded and defined as shown on a map entitled "ZONING MAP - CITY OF NILES, MICHIGAN" which, with all explanatory matter thereon, is hereby made a part of this ordinance. Section 2. RULES FOR INTERPRETATION OF DISTRICT BOUNOARIES Where uncertainty exists with respect to the boundaries of any of the aforesaid districts as shown on the zoning map, the following rules shall apply: 1. Where district boundaries are so indicated that they approximately follow lot lines, such lot lines shall be construed to be said boundaries. 2. Where district boun~aries are so mately parallel the street lines lines of highways, such d1str1ct as being parallel thereto and at indicated on the zoning map. If dimension shall be determined by on said zoning map. 3. Where the boundary of a d1str1ct follO\-JS a railroad . r1ghtof-way, such boundary shall be deemed to be located midway between the main tracks of sa1d railroad right-of-way. - 19 - indicated that they approxiof streets, or right-of-way boundaries shall be construed such distance therefrom as no distance is given, such the use of the scale shown �4. Where the boundary of a district follows a stream, said boundary line shall be at the center of the stream. Section 3. APPLICATION OF REGULATIONS Except as herein provided: 1. No building or lan_d shall hereafter be used or occupied and no building or part thereof shall be erected, moved or altered unless in conformity with the regulations herein specified for the district in which it is located. 2. No building shall hereafter be erected or altered: a. to exceed the height; b. to accommodate or house a greater number of families; c. to occupy a greater percentage of lot area; d. to have narrower or smaller rear yards, front yards, side yards or outer courts, than are specified herein for the district in which such building is located. 3. No part of a yard or other open space required about any building for the purpose of complying with the provisions of this ordinance shall be included as a part of a yard or other open space similarly required for another building. 4. Every building hereafter erected shall be located on a lot as herein defined. In UQ_£a§e shall there be _mo_~-~ -- :th~.!l...QD-~ res.i_-:dential buildin~9--~.t: -~.....9.~~es~1?u~~9ings on a __lot. Multiple dwellings or group housing may be considered as one main residential building . Section 4. ANNEXATION ZONING PROCEDURE Land annexed to the- c~ty shall be appropriately zoned coincident with the approval of the annexation. In event the zoning classification has not been determined at the time of the annexation, the zoning district or districts shall be established within 90 days of the date of annexation by ordinance. No construction shall be permitted within the 90 day period. - 20 - �ARTICLE IV - RESIDENTIAL USE R-lA Section 1. A. ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Purpose This district is to consist of single detached dwellings set on large building lots. Non-residential uses would be restricted to those community facilities serving the recreational, religious and educational needs of the residents. B. Uses Permitted The following regulations shall apply in all R-lA Districts: :· l l. One-family dwellings 2. Churches or similar places of worship, parish- house, convent 3. Elementary schools, high schools, and institutions for higher education, not conducted for profit. 4. Public and educational uses 5. Parking area where the area adjoins a business or industrial zone, provided that such transitional use does not extend more than sixty (60) feet from the boundary of such zones. 6. Golf courses and country clubs I :. • 7 . Farms 8 . 9ustomary home occupations provided that there shall be no · external evidence of such occupations, except an announcement or sign not exceeding one square foot in area, flush with the front of the building, provided that no such sign shall be illuminated. 9. 10. Customary accessory uses and buildings including private garages provided such uses do not include any activity commonly conducted for gain. Any accessory building shall be located on the same lot with the principal building. The following special use if the location and number of animals 1 to be housed is first recommended by the Board and approved by the Council: a. Private stables located no closer than 50 feet from the property line. - 21 - �·--- C. -- --·- - -- -Building Height Limit Two and one-half (2-1/2) stories but not exceeding thirtyfive (35) feet. I I D. Required Lot Area and Width Residential lots shall have a minimum width at the building line of one hundred (1001 feet and a minimum area of fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet. I I E. :i. Yards Required Each lot shall have front, side and rear yards, not less than the following depths or widths: 1. 2. Front Yard Depth a. On existing federal or state highways, a distance of sixty (601 feet. b. On other streets, a distance of forty (40) feet. Side Yard Width Not less than ten (101 feet; but the sum of two side yards shall be not less than twenty (20) percent of the width of the lot or twenty (201 feet, whichever is greater provided that the total of the two side yards need not be greater than thirty (30) feet. 3. Rear Yard Depth Twenty (20) percent of lot depth, but such yard need not exceed forty (40) feet. F. Percentage of Lot Coverage All buildings including accessory buildings shall cover not more than twenty-five <25) percent of the area of lot. G. Building Size No one story area of less feet, and no ground floor H. dwelling shall be erected having a ground floor than one thousand two hundred (1,200) square two-story dwelling shall be erected having a area of less than nine hundred (900) square feet. Off-Street Parking Off-street parking requirements shall be in accordance with the provisions 1set forth in Article VI I, Section J of this ordinance. - 22 - �Section 2. A. R-1 I3 ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Purpose This district is to consist of single-family detached dwellings set on medium-sized lots. Non-r e sidential uses in this district would be similar to those permitted in the R-lA District. B. Uses Permitted The following regulations sh a ll apply in all R-18 Districts: C. l. One-family dwellings 2. All uses permitt e d Building Height Limit . Two and one-half five (35) feet. D. in the R-lA District. ( 2-1/ 2) stories but not exceeding thirty- Required Lot Area and Width Residential lots shall have a minimum width at the building line of sixty (60) feet and a minimum area of seven thousand five hundred (7,500) square feet. E. • I Yards Required l. 2. Front Yard Depth a. On existing federal or state highways, a distance of fifty (50) feet. b. On other streets, a distance of thirty (30) feet. Side Yard Width Not less than six (6) feet; but the sum of two side yards shall be not less than twenty (20) percent of the width of the lot or tw~lve (12) feet, whichever is greater, provided that the total of the two side yards need not be greater than eighteen (18) feet. 3. Rear Yard Depth Twenty (201 -~ercent of lot depth, exceed thirty (JO) feet. F. but such yard need not Percentage of Lot Coverag e All buildings including accessor y buildings shall cover not more than thirty (JO) percent of the a rea of lot. - 23 - �G. No one story ·ctwelling shall be erected having a ground floor area of less than nine hundred (900) square feet, and no two story dwelling shall be erected having a ground floor area of less than seven hundred twenty (720) square feet. I I i l I Building Size H. Off-Street Parking Off-street parking requirements shall be in accordance with the provisions set forth in ArticleVII, Section 3 of this ordinance. ·I •, • . '1 ·•,•· ·' \ \ - 24 - �- ...,.:... - • Section 3. A. R-2 :: •'-.· . . - .. . -:.. ........... -. - ---- TWO-FAMILY ANO MULTIPLE-FN~ILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Purpose This district is to consist of single-family, two-family and multiple-family dwellings set in a medium density living environment. In addition to the uses allowed in the previous single-family district, tourist homes, clubs and lodges can be located in the district. If first permitted by the Board, doctor's offices, hospitals, nursing and convalescent homes and mobile home parks are also allowable in R-2 Districts. B. Uses Permitted The following regulations shall apply in all R-2 Districts: r \ 1. All uses permitte,d in the R-18 District 2. Two-family and multiple-family dwellings 3. Tourist homes 4. Clubs and lodges 5. The following special uses if their location is first approved by the Board: a. Hospital or sanitarium for the treatment of human ailments b. Doctor's offices c. Nursing and convalescent homes d. Mobile Home Parks Mobile home parks on a lot not less than five (5) acres in area and each mobile home site not less than 3,000 square feet in area with an average of all sites being not less than forty (40) feet in width, and accessory uses, buildings or structures such as a community center, and buildings for laundry and office facilities provided that they are located, designed and intended to serve primarily residents of the park, such buildings shall not occupy more than ten (10) percent of the total area of the park and present no visible evidence of their commercial nature to areas outside the park. There shall be a park or playground area equal to at least eight (8) percent of the park area. T~e park shall provide front, side an~ rear yards having a depth or width of rioc less than forty (40) feet, and containing no obstruction except trees and shrubs. The minimum distance between the mobile homes shall be twenty (20) feet. Sanitary sewage, storm sewer, and water systems, service drives, I I \ - 25 - �_,_. r~ - ~ ' ::_ off-street parking equal to at least one and one-half (1-1/2) spaces for each mobile home, grading and landscaping, buildings, and other improvements, shall be constructed in accordance with development plans and specifications approved by the Board. No mobile home shall be nearer than seventy-five (75) feet to the right-of-way of a numbered highway nor nearer than fifty (50) feet to a city street. Each mobile home site shall be provided with a stand of either a solid concrete slab or two concrete ribbons of a thickness and size adequate to support maximum anticipated loads. If ribbons are used, the area between them shall be filled with a layer of cxushed rock or similar material. Enclosed storage facilit1es shall be provided and available to all residents. All exterior lights shall be located and shielded to prevent direct illumination outside the park. All refuse containers shall be screened from view. A dense green belt of evergreen trees not less :~han si x (6) feet in height after two (2) growing seasons, shall be located and maintained along all park boundaries. Streets shall be paved with an all weather, hard surface material, being concrete or macadam, and satisfactorily maintained. I \. C. Building Height Limit Two and one-half (2-1/2) stories but not exceeding thirty-five (35) feet for single and two-family dwellings and three (3) stories but not exceeding forty-five (45) feet for multiplefamily dwellings. Subject to the approval of the Board, the height may exceed the forty-five (45) foot limitation by increasing the front and side yard depth one (1) foot for each additional three (3) feet of height. .,,·· l D. Required Lot Area and Width No dwelling shall be established on a lot having a width of less than fifty (50) feet and an area of not less than six thousand (6,000} square feet. Lot area requirements shall be six thousand (6,000) square feet for all one-family dwellings, three thousand (3,000) square feet per family for two-family dwellings and one thousand (1,000) square feet per family for multiplefamily dwellings. E. Yards Required 1. Front Yard Depth A distance of not less than twenty l_ l· l ~;·;; 2. ( 20) feet. Side Yard Width Not less than five (5) feet; but the sum of two side yards shall be not less than twenty (20) percent of the width of the lot or ten (10) feet, whichever is greater, provided that the total of the two side yards need not be greater than twenty (20) feet. - 26 - �3. Rear Yard Depth Twenty (20) percent of lot depth, but such yard need not exceed twenty-five (25) feet. F. Percentage of Lot Coverage Lot coverage by all buildings including accessory buildings shall not exceed thirty (30) percent of the lot area for single and two-family dwellings and forty (40) percent of the lot area for multiple-family dwellings and non-residential structures. G. Building Size No building shall be erected for two-family or multiplefamily purposes having a ground floor area of less than specified by the CITY . OF NILES Uniform Building Code (current addition). H. Required Court Dimensions 1. Outer Courts The width of any outer court shall be not less than twothirds (2/3) the height of any opposing wall forming said court, but not less than thirty (30) feet, and the depth shall not be greater than one and one-half (1-1/2) times the width. f. 2. Inner Courts a. The least dimensions of any inner court shall be not less than two-thirds (2/3) the full height of the walls enclosing such court, but not less than thirty (30) feet. b. An open and unobstructed passageway s~all be provided at the grade level of each inner court, Such passageway shall have a cross section area anu sufficient headroom to permit the passage of fire fighting equipment and shall be continuous from the inner court to a yard or an unobstructed open area between buildings. I. Distance Between Buildings on Same Lot No principal building shall be closer to any other principal building than the average of the heights of said buildings, but not less than twenty (20) feet. J. Off-Street ~arking Off-street parking requirements shall be in accordance with the provisions set forth in Article VII, Section 3 of this ordinance. - 27 - �Michigan Dept. of Treasury Sales, Use & Withholding Div. Treasury Building Lansing, MI 48930 Kalamazoo ll (616) 382-2830 ARTICLE V - BUSINESS USE Section 1. A. L-B LOCAL BUSINESS DISTRICT Purpose This district is to consist of b~sincss and service establishments that provide for the everyday shopping needs of a residential neighborhood. Generally the permitted uses should be compatible with residences in terms of function, bulk, height and yard requirements. B. Uses Permitted The following regulations shall apply in all L-B Districts: I_· 1. All uses permitted in any residential district, provided, however, that no residential use shall occupy the ground floor level except a main or service entrance to the floor above. 2. Stores and shops, such as grocery, fruit and vegetable market, drug and pharmacy, newspaper and tobacco store and similar commercial uses. 3. Advertising signs provided they shall be affixed to or a part of the building, may not extend over any street line nor project above the roof line and shall pertain only to a use conducted within the building. The size shall be limited to three (3) square feet of area for each front foot of building displaying such sign. 4. Banks, offices, restaurants and similar community services. 5. fersonal service shops and studios, such as barber, shoe repair and beauty parlor. 6. Launderettes and dry cleaning establishments using not more than two clothes cleaning units, neither of which shall have a rated capacity of more than forty (40) pounds, using cleaning fluid which is non-explosive and non-flammable. 7. Greenhouse 8. Railway or bus passenger station, telegraph office, express office - 29 - �i . -- -- • 9. Bakery, millinery, dressmaking, tailoring and similar shops, provided that all goods made or processed arc sold at retail on the premises. 10. Commercial parking lots 11. Municipal building and governmental facilities 12. Mortuary 13. The following use if their location is first approved by the Board: a. Service Station In accordance with the most current rules and regulations of the State fire marshall regulating the use, handling, storage and sale of flammable liquids in the State of Michigan. 14. C. Accessory building and accessory uses ~uilding Height Limit No building shall be erected to a height in excess of thirtyfive (35) feet. D. Required Lot Area and Width 1. Front Yard Depth A distance of not less than twenty (20) 2. Side Yard Width No side yard except on each corner side yard abutting the street of a ten (10) feet. Where the district the side yard requirement of the R 3. lot, there shall be a ~idth of not less than abuts an R District, District shall apply. Rear Yard Depth A distance of not less than twenty (20) F. feet. feet. Percentage of Lot Coverage Lot coverage by all buildings shall not exceed fifty percent of the lot area. G. '. \ ::;: (50) Off-Street Parking Off-street pa~king requirements shall be in accordante with the provisions set forth in Article VII , Section 3 of this ordinance. ;·;:: - 30 - �Section 2. A. G-8 CLN[Ri\L i3l.JSIM:ss iJISTRICT Purpose This district is to consis::. of r~ta.il, service, financial and governmental facilities tnat serve the community or regional area. Highway orientec esta!.:>l~si1ments would not be permitted in this district. B. Uses Permitted The following regulations shall'_ a?ply in all G-8 Districts: l. All uses pcr~ittec in 2. Clothing or clothing accessor1 store J. Furniture and .:J.??i'ia.nce stores 4. Motel - Hotel 5. Department stores 6. Commercial recreational uses, including bowling alley, skating rink, night club, tavern and similar uses. 7. Variety store 8. 2 L-B u1s~rict _Public building and facilities I ,I 9. Job and newspaper printing plant 10. Office equipment store 11. Upholstery shop 12. Laundry, employing not more than five cleaning process. 13. Wholesale establishments with accessory storage limited to two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet of floor area per establishment. 14. Theaters 15. Dry cleaning establishment employing not more than five (5) persons in the cleaning process. 16. Any use of similar character where ~uthorized as a special use by the Board. 17. Accessory buildings and accessory uses - 31 - (5) persons in �C. Building Height Limit No building shall be crecteJ to a height 1n excess of one hundred (100) feet. D. Required Lot Area and Width No limitation E. Requirement for: Front, Side and Rear Yards No front or side yards required. less than five (5) feet in depth. F. Rear yard shall not be Percentage of Lot Coverage Lot coverage by all buildings including access o ry buildin g s shall not exceed nine~y (90) percent of the lot area. G. Off-Street Parking Off-street parking requirements shall be in accordance w1tn the provisions set forth in ArticleVII, Section 3, of this ordinance. { ·: - 32 - �Section J. A. Purpose This district 1s to consist c f rct~1: and service establishments that arc (iC;J~ndcnt u~cn highway orientation, i.e. motels, drive-ir. resto.u;:-a;-,t::;, B. Uses Per:..i t teli The follcwing rc9ulatio,,s shall 5. Motels 6. Outdoor theaters 7. Usec car lots 8. Lumber yards 9. Farm machinery sales and repairs .:.n ail li-B uistricts: 10. Dairy and jot:.lins ~~rxs, cessing or e~aporation 11. Outdoor amusement establishments - minature golf courses, golf dri·v·ing ::-a;;.ge::. 2.rc:1er~· ::-a:-:?es anc similar recreation acti7ities. 12. Research and testing laboratories ~ithout danger of fire or explosion 13. Tire retreading, recapping er rebu.:.lding 14. Warehouse and storage buildings 15. Truck terminals and truck and trailer receiving 16. Auto laundry establishments i:7 accordance with the following storage requirements: a. it,•, .. •. d::::::~- - ~~t ~at ::-:eluding milk pro- Automatic auto laundry establishments: A mini~um cf twenty (2C) car storage spaces per wash line on t;)e entrance si ~jo, ,:rnd l)ne (1) car storage space f □ = each l~n~ on th e exit side. :.· \" - 33 - �b. Manual or coin operated auto laundry establishments: A minimum of four (4) car storage spaces for each stall on the entranc0 side, a~d nn e (1) storage space. for each stall on the exit side. C. 17. Drive-in restaurants 18. Any use of similar character when authorized as a special use by the Board. 19. Accessory buildings and accessory uses Building Height Limit No building shall be erected to a height in excess of three (3) stories or forty-five (45) feet. D. Required Lot Area anct ' width No limitation E. Yard Requirements 1. Front Yard Depth A distance of not less than twenty (20) 2. feet. Side Yard Width No side yard except on each corner lot, there shall be a side yard abutting the street of a width of not less than (10) feet. Where the district abuts an R District, the side yard requirements of the R District shall apply. 3. .I Rear Yard Depth A distance of not less than twenty (20) feet. I F. Percentage of Lot Coverage Lot coverage by all buildings including accessory buildings shall not exceed fifty (50) percent of the lot area. G. Off-Street Parking Off-street parking requirements shall be in accordance with the provisions set forth in ArticleVII, Section 3, of this ordinance. l. - 34 - �i I ARTICLE VI - I I Section 1. A. INDUSTRI~L LlSE I-INDUSTRIAL DIST RICT Purpose This district is to consist of industrial activities whose operations are nei-::her o:fensive·~or ir.jurious to the surrounding areas by reason of e~ission or creation of noise, vibrations, smoke, dust, or other particulate ~atter, toxic or noxious materials, odors, fire or ex?lasi~e hazards or glare or , heat. B. Uses Permitted 1. The followi~g uses provid~d where established within one hundred fifty (150) feet of a resicential zo~e boundary line, they s~all be conducted wholly within a building, except for off-street loading facilities. a. Wholesaling and wa=ehousing establishnents b. Creameries and bottling plants c. The manufacture, compouncing, ?recessing, packaging or treatment of sue~ p~ocucts as bakery goods, candy, cosmetics, drugs. phar~aceuticals. toiletries, and food procucts, except meat products, and the rendering or refining of fats aod oils. d. The manufacture, compouncing, assembling or treatment of articles, or merchandise fro ~ the following prepared materials: bone, cellophane, canvas, cloth, cork, feathers, felt fiber, fur, glass, hair, horn, leather, paper, plastics, precious or semi-precious metals or stones, shell textiles, tobacco, wood, yarns, and paint not employing a boiling process. e. The manufacture of pottery or similar ceramic products f. The manufacture or maintenance of electric or neon signs, billboards, commercial advertising structures, light sheet metal products, including heating or ventilating ducts or equipment, cornices, eaves and the like. g. The panufacture of musical instruments, clocks, watches, toys, novelties and rubber or metal stamps ; .I - JS - �2. 3. h. Automo~ilc µaint1n~. upholstering, rebuilding, reconditioning, truck repJiring or over.hauling, tire retreadi.:1q or rcca; :,,J1:1<J, butlt..'ry manufc1cturing and similar. i. Assembly of electrical uppliances, electronic instruments anJ devices, radios c:.tnu phono<Jraphs, including the manufacture of parts and simi.ldr. j. Manufacture of muchinc tools, manufacture of machinery including agricultural, electrical machinery or equipment, office or store machines, equipment or supplies and the like, machin~ shop excluding punch presses over one hundred tons rated capacity and drop hammers k. Foundry casting lightweight non-ferrous ~etal not causing noxious fumes or odor 1. Laboratory, experi~cnt31 and ~cstina m. Animal hospital or ~c.nnels The following uses provided, where thev are within one hundred fifty (150) feet of a residential ~one boundary line , they shall be conducted wholly 1,1ithin a building or within an area enclosed on all sides with a solid wall, compact evergreen screen or uniformly painted board fence, not less than eight (8) feet in height: a. Building material sales yard, including the sale of lumber, rock , sand and gravel as an incidental part of the main business b. Contractor's equipment storage yard or plant or rental of equipment commonly used by contractors c. Draying, freighting, d. Grain, e. Public utility service yard or electrical receiving or transforming station or trucking yard or terminal feed, or fuel yard and storage The following special uses, approved by the Board: if their location is first a. Bleaching or dyeing process b. Boiler works c. Brick, d. Chemical manufacture e. Concrete or cement products manufacture tile, terra cotta or cinder block manufacture - 36 - �--~ - - -• i --- r -- ·•- -- s s l u r . 1,ic f. C,1 g. Glass manufacture h. Feed mi 11 l. Paper or pulp manufacture J. Planing mill k. Sand or gravel - distribution or storage l. Stock pen rn. Stone cutting n. Salvage yard o. Any other manufactur e or industrial operation whose location is determined by the Board to be in keeping with the intent and spirit of this ordinance. I I l I I C. Performance Standards 1. Smoke a. Any use established in an Industrial District after the effective date of this ordinance shall be so operated as to comply with the performance standards governing smoke and particulate matter set forth herein for the area in which such use shall be located. No use already established on the effective date of this ordinance shall be so altered or modified as to conflict with the performance standards governing smoke and particulate matter established hereinafter. Any use already established on the effective date · of this ordinance shall be permitted to be altered, enlarged, expanded, or modified, provided that new sources of smoke and/or particulate matter conform to the performance standards established herein. The total emission weight of particulate matter from all sources within the boundaries of the lot shall not exceed the net amount permitted in the area in which the use is located after such alteration, enlargement, expansion, or modificati·o_i:1. b. In addition to the performance standards S?ecified herein, the emission of smoke or particulate matter in such manner or quantity as to be deterimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or welfare is hereby declared to be a public nuisance and shall henceforth be unlawful. c. For the purpose of grading the density of smoke, the Ringelmann Chart, published by the United States Bureau of Mines, shall be employed. The emission of smoke or particulat e matter of a density greater than No. 2 on the Ringelmann Chart is prohibited, except as otherwise provided herein. - 37 - . �c.1 • Tlic eniiss io:1, f rnm .tl parlil:tiL . 1:_, . ::1 .,: '"I p1:rc,.::;t ' ' ) :l i ,!m\'t. l'r L1r•1··r t ;,.11, ' tii.hited. ·~ o u n.: e s w i L h i. n a n y J o t .J r e .:1 , more t:lt.:111 Lt:11 (lO) : . l ·.. -; h.1 v i ny .J p.-i c I i.,: L, · - ' <,," r ( ~ I ) m i c r on~' 1 . : , ,r· o - 1Jt° .. :it.c1i!.11 :q I" ('. ; )LJ :; t d J 1t.1 (, l 1,1.: T t· I: [J<: I i I ; ,' ) l J l J t_ ; . J: J l ,, I ! . : : . frorn :~uc/1 :.;ourc<.::, ,!, "li, 1·,iq, · <.11·(:<1::;, 1 1H I :-: <J f () r l i . ., i t ll i n l , 1 :. i ,, , ~; r, ri d r 1 •. · · : : 1 1.i L l :.11· Ill i. 11 i. mu 11, ! , ·1 , q ; p r 1 >p r 1 .J t·. , · J,IJ11.!st:,li)lJ1(j, i,JdVJn1_1, 1/ I iI wir1d or ,. I : , ;. Jtl s , t l) d ••Jil:.-' f, CJt.llt~r· :11:r:"pt.:d>l• n;, .. .. l·:n1i);'.~io11 of p~ir: i.,·1:: ::..1.: rnattL'r from ~; ul:l1 :-; our•;c'.; t r. '-' x c t~ s s o f ti, c ·,: c· i 'I t 1 : l Lrn i t-.1lio:1s Spl~cif'1t•J n,.:r( :i.:. for c:1c c1t·(•.:1 i.n ·wh1.c: . ·:1·;:1 u.:::;, ·. ·; 1 1.1 l? ~)'• loc,1t0d L:·. ,n·c)i, 1 :Ji ~L:d. f. • -::11 :.;.; ttJr ·. :,,,,;1 : )(_·:· ,j,,;:~;4 :_•; , L mu r ,. :;i.=i ...:~: 1:1 lS .. ._ ! I .. . • ~ c.. : :: ::1cl p;~():---11: .: ~_ -_· ,· 1, t::,c_c·s~; of i<t. 1 1,!11,1._; :-~1~\rl: : Nr...,. 2.. lfo·~~.-r_,._. . r, ?Crt,;(i eacl, st ·...1,;,. :11.: / ;,:~ntt J:1;: ,, r:,:c dur1,1q ..Jny' six (r,i :1:_;ur ,:,nil up · to twenty (/0) ,;;:1-:.,i-:e units - not lo i:.::-:,:i.,,:,i Hinge lr.un:1 No. 2 - wltt n i.,low ing soot ot· c lt:an t:1') fires. Only clurinq firi..:-r;leaning pcr.ioJs, ilov.·\ ·V•.)r, shall s;nokc of Rinycl m11n,, ;-.Jo. 3 Ge pi..:rm i !: lt~d, .11w then for not. more ti;d:-, fo:u· (,!) minutes ;:i~r pL:riu,i. g. The rat<:: of cmiss1.0n o: pc1rL1cul.1te matt~~r f t ,,1;1 .:I. l sources ....,,ithi..n the: hou::Jaries of any lot slic.11 ! :,,;r. exceed a net f iqurc: of :Jn•:: ?Oun<J per ucre: of L .•l area during c1:1y one i10ur:, ...ifter -.lcuucting frurr, :..:,l: gross hourly emission ;.,l2r: acre t;,c correct.i.or. ~d•.::.or set forth in the following t~Llc: 1 (F'eei) .. --- ··- - - -·-- - ·- - i:'. ;_' (, . ., . ,. h. DeterminJtion of the tot ,11 net r.:i. Ll:! of emlSSlOI: ,.... F ..... '· particulate mc1tter within ~he boundari0s of oll'·.' l~~t: shall be mduc dS follows: (l l Determi.nc the= rnax1murn emission in pounds pt:!r hour from ec1ch sour,~e> of emission and div i\.h: this figure uy tile number of acres of lol arc,i - thereby obtair,i:iq t!!C· _g ros~ hourly i:atc of emission in pounds per ,icre; 38 - �( 2) From each such gross hourly rate of emission, deduct the correction factor (Interpolating as required) for height of emission set forth in the table, thereby obt~ininq the net rate of emission in pounds per acre ri~r hour from each source of emission; and (3) Add together the indiviaudl net rates of emission to obtain the total net rate~ emission from all sources of emission within the boundaries of the lot. Such total shall not exceed one (1) pound per acre of lot area during any one (1) hour. (4) Add together the individual net rates of emission to obtain the total net rate~ emission from all sources of emission within the boundaries of the lot. Such total shall not exceed eight (8) pounds per acre of lot area during any one hour. ,. I I 2. Fire and Explosive Hazards a. Any use established in an Industrial District after the effective date of this ordinance shall be so operated as to comply with the performance standards governing fire and explosive hazards set forth herein. b. No use already established on the effective date of this ordinance shall be so altered or modified as to conflict with, or further conflict with, the performance standards governing fire and explosive hazards established herein. c. The storage, utilization, or manufacture of solid materials or products ranging from incombustible to moderate burning is permitted, subject to compliance with all other performance standards. d. The storage, utilization, or manufacture of solid materials or products ranging from free or active burning to intense burning is permitted subject to compliance with all other performance standards provided the following condition is met: II ! I ( 1) e. Said materials or products shall be stored, utilized, or produced within completely enclosed buildings having incombustible exterior walls and protected throughout by an automatic fire extinguishing system. The storage, utilization, or manufacture of flammable liquids or materials which produce flammable or explosive vapors or gases shall be permitted in accordance with the following Table - exclusive of storage of finished products in original sealed containers, which shall be unrestricted. - 39 - �·-·- - - - - --·-· . ·- ·-· •- - · ··· · · - · - ff ' "'7 :.. ·- TOTAL, C/1/'IICl'l'Y OF Ff,IIMM/'./Jl,r,' l1A'f'r,'ft'Jllf,:; l'f:"!(!1JT'i'r.,'IJ, '--- I ! r.·1: f / o (1 , ·, :' in Storage Only r: round :;n,J er Ground /(iU, 000 400,000 j(),000 '!.00,000 20,000 100,000 Materials having a closed cup flash point over 187° F. ,~O , 000 400,000 From a n d i n c l u r.l i n g 1 J .', c: including 187° F. 1 0,00 0 200,000 S,000 100,000 -A ;,,n 1.1 " I Material:-; hrzving 11 c:lu.:eri flash po,:nt over 187 () F . I F r om an u' 1.. n c l u r. 11-. n g 1 fJ ,',· 0 !-' • and including 187° F. I r I n d 1/.c. t. r 1: r: :~ i';/1/,LON:;" !, () I Materials having a closed cup flash po 1:nt of lr.(;:; !..;1ar! Ji).'ir:: I Industries Engaged i~ Ut ili~at ion and ManufacturP. of Flaml"1abl e /1atcr·ial.~ c . tc Materials having a close i cu;· point of less than 1os 0 P. 1·'. '1 r: ..:; ,. .. ..J . las;; When flammable gases are sto1°ea', utilizeu., or manufactured and measured in cubic feet, th.? quantit'!:: in cubic feet (at S . T . P.) permitted shall not exceed 300 times the quantities as listed above where the factor 300 is the volume in cubic feet occupied by one gal lo~ o: most liquids. 3. Noise a. Any use established in an Industrial District after the effecitve date of this ordinance shall be so operated as to comply with the performance standards governing noise set forth herein. No use already established on the effective date of this ordinance shall be so altered or modified as to conflict with, or further conflict with, the performance standards governing noise established herein. b. Sound levels shall be measured with a sound level meter and associated octave bank filter manufactured according to standards prescribed by the American Standards Association. Measurements shall be made usina the flat network of the sound level meter . Impulsive type noises shall be subject to the performance standards hereinafter prescribed provided that such noises shall be capable of being accurately measured with such equipm ent . Noises capable of being so measured, for the purpose of this ordinance, shall be those noises which cause rapid fluctuations of the needle of the sound level meter with a vari- ,·· •· 1,•' - 40 - �ation of no more than plus or minus two decibels. Noises incapable of being so measured, such as those of an irregular and intermittent nature, shall be controlled so as not to become a nµisance to adjacent uses. c. l l I At no point on the boundary of a Residential or Business District shall the sound pressure level of any operation or plant (other than background noises produced by sources not under control of this ordinance, such as the operation of motor vehicles or other transportation facilities) exceed the decibel limits in the octave bands designated as follows: Octave Band Frequency (Cycles per Second) to to to to to to to above 0 75 150 300 600 1, 2 00 2,400 D. Along Residential District Boundaries Along i3u.cn:ness Oistrict Boundari es 72 67 59 52 46 40 34 32 75 150 300 600 1,200 2,400 4, 800 4,800 79 71 6G 59 53 47 41 .3 9 Building Height Limit No building shall be erected to a height in excess of sixty (60) feet. E. Required Lot Area and Width No limitation F. Requirements for: Front, Side and Rear Yards Except as required herein under regulations along zoning district boundary lines, and applicable performance standards, yards shall be provided in accordance with the following: l. Front Yards Not less than forty (40) feet in depth. Off-street parking shall not be permitted within the first twenty-five (25) feet of the front yard setback. 2. Side Yards a. Not less than forty street. b. Not less than ten (10) interior lot line. - (40) 41 - feet wide when adjoining a feet wide when adjoining an �3. Not less than twenty (20) feet in depth, except when ad..:. joining an alley or r-ailroad r-ighL-ofLway the r~ar yard may be measured from the center- line of the alley or railroad right-of-way. II ! I Rear- Yard 4. Transitional Yards I G. a. Where a side lot line coincides with a side or rear lot line in a Residential or Business District, a yard shall be provided along such side lot line. Such yard shall be not less than twenty (20) feet in width. b. Where a rear lot line coincides with a side lot line in an adjacent Residential or Business District, a yard shall be:- provided along such rear lot line. Such yard shall be not less than twenty (20) feet in depth. c. Where a rear lot line coincides with a rear lot line in an adjacent Residential or Business District, a yard shall be provided along such rear lot line. Such yard shall be not less than thirty (30) feet in depth. Percentage of Lot Coverage Lot coverage by all buildings including accessory buildings shall not exceed fifty (50) percent of the lot area. H. Off-Street Parking Off-street parking requirements shall be in accordance with the provisions set forth in Article VII , Section 3 , of this ordinance. - 42 - �It--·----- I ARTICLE VII - SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS Section 1. EXCEPTIONS, ADDITIONS OR MODIFICATIONS The provisions of this ordinance shall be subject to such exceptions, additions or modifications as herein provided by the following supplementary regulations. A. General This ordinance is not intended to abrogate any easement, covenant, or any other private agreement, provided that where the regulations of this ordinance are more restrictive or impose higher standards or requirements than such easements, covenants, or other private agreements, the requirements of this ordinance shall govern. The provisions of this ordinance regulating the use of land, buildings and structures shall not apply to publicly owned lands, buildings and structures. ---:.:~•.- .-: -·- B. Uses 1. Public garages, filling stations, auto laundries, and parking areas Plans for the erection or structural alteration of any public garage for more than five motor vehicles, or of a filling station, or of an auto laundry, or of a parkirig area, shall be approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Said Board may require such change therein in relation to yards, landscape treatment, location of pumps, buildings, floodlights, surfacing and construction of buildings as it may deem best suited to insure safety, to minimize traffic difficulties and to safeguard adjacent properties. 2. Stripping of Top Soil No person, firm or cbrporation shall strip excavate or otherwise remove top s oi l fo r sale, or for use other than on the premises from wh i ch th e same shall be taken except in connection with a deve lopment project on such premises and the excav a tion or g r a d i ng inc i dental thereto. 3. Natural Prod u ction Uses There may be pe r mitt eu 1n any ui sc r1 ct , on approval of the Board, t he ex c avation and sa l e of s a nd, gravel, clay, - 43 - �shale or other natural mineral deposit or the quarrying of any kind of rock formation. As a condition of approval, the Board may impose some or all of the following conditions: 4. 5. a. In the case of any open excavation there shall be a substantial fence with suitable gates cbmpletely enclosing the portion of the property in which the excavation is located, and such fence shall be located at all points forty (40) feet or more distant from the edge of such excavation. b. The slope of the material in such sand, gravel, or other pit shall not exceed the normal angle of repose of such material, and the plane of such angle of repose shall not come nearer than forty (40) feet to any property line or street line. c. No rock crusher, cement plant or other crushing, grinding, polishing or cutting machinery or other physical, or chemical process for treating the product of such quarry shall be permitted. ..!~ailers or Mobile Homes shall not be permitted in any district as an accessory building nor shall they be occupied for dwelling or lodging purposes except in an approved mobile home park. They may be used, however, as temporary office or storage space incidental to construction, only during the general period of construction, and only if located on the construction site. Dwellings on Small Lots Notwithstanding the limitations imposed by any other provisions of this ordinance, a dwelling may be erected on any lot platted prior to the passage of this ordinance on an area or width smaller than that required for a onefamily dwelling, except that such lot shall not be less than forty (40) feet in width. The dwelling shall conform to the building height, yard widths, lot coverage, building size and off-street parking requirements of the district in which it is located. C. Height 1. Height Exceptions The height limitations of this ordinance shall not apply to church spires, belfries, cupolas, penthouses, domes, and grain elevators; nor to chimneys, radio and television antennae, ventilators, skylights, water tanks, bulkh e ad s , silos, windmills, similar features, and necessary mech an ical appurtenances usually carried abov~ the roof level. - 44 - lil �2. Ornamental Features The provisions of this ordinance shall not apply to pre~ vent the erection above the building height limit of a parapet wall or cornice for ornament, and without windows, extending above such height limit not more than five (5) feet. 3. Exceptions, Airport Districts Notwithstanding the regulations contained in any part of this ordinance, no exception to the height limit shall be permitted in any district which is combined with an airport district, as may now exist or hereafter be adopted, except to the extent that the maximum height limit specified in such airport district exceeds the height limit specified in the use district. D. Area 1. Reduced Lot Area No lot shall be so reduced in area that any required open space will be smaller than prescribed in the regulations for the district in which said lot is located. Whenever such reduction in lot area occurs, any building located on said lot shall not thereafter be used until such building is altered, reconstructed, or relocated so as to comply with the area and yard requirements applicable thereto. E. Yards 1. Terraces A paved unroofed, unenclosed terrace shall not be considered in the determination of yard sizes or lot coverage. 2. Unenclosed Porches An unenclosed, one-story porch, even though roofed, may project into a required fron~ side or rear yard area a distance not to ex~eed six (6) feet and shall not be considered in the determination of the size of yards or lot coverage; provided, however, that such a porch shall not be closer than five (5) feet at any point to any lot line, and that no building shall have such porches projecting into more than one required side yard. 3. Enclosed Porches An enclosed porch shali be considereJ a part of the building in the determination of the size of yard or lot coverage. - 45 - �. 4. ---- - -- - --- ------ ------ -- Projecting Architectural Features The space in any required yard shall be ~pen and unobstructed except for the ordinary projections of window sills, belt courses, cornices, eaves and other architectural features, provided, however, that such features shall not project more than two (2) feet into any requireed yard. 5. Front Yard Depth In any residential district each dwelling hereafter erected shall have a front yard equal to the average depth of the front yards of the lots immediately adjacent thereto on either side, but no front yard shall be less than ten (10) feet. Adjacent unimproved lots shall be considered as having a front yard depth as required for the district in which it is located. oft 6. Rear and Side Yards - Accessory Building Any accessory building closer than ten (10) fe~t from a main building shall be considered as part of the main building and shall be provided with the side and rear yards required for the main building. An accessory building more than ten (10) feet from a main building may be ~rected within two (2) feet of a side or rear lot line but must be located at least sixty (60) feet from the front street line. 7. Garage Where a garage is entered from an alley, it must be kept ten (10) feet from the alley line. Section 2. A. TRANSITION REQUIREMENTS Lots in Two Districts Where a district boundary line divides a lot in single or joint ownership of record · at the time such line is adopted, the regulations for the less restricted portion of such lot shall extend not more than thirty (30) feet into the more restricted portion, provided the lot has frontage on a street in the less restricted district. B. Corner Lot Transition On corner lots in . residential districts, there must be a front yard on both streets. On corner lots less than sixty (60) feet in width platted prior to the passage of this ordinance, side street yard requirement may be relaxed to not less than ten ( 10) feet. - 46 - �-- - . ·-- ··-·. - . __ ~ ..... -·. ,_,._ - ·-·-- .,. Section 3. - OFF-STREET PARKING The following off-street parking spaces shall I be provided and satisfactorily maintained, by the owner of the property, for each building which, after the effective date of this ordinance, is erected~ enlarged or altered for use for any of the following purposes: 1. Dwelling At least one and one-half parking spaces for each dwelling . unit in the building or buildings. 2. Auditorium, Stadium, Theater, Church or other places of public assemblage At least one parking space for each four (4) seats provided for its patrons, based on maximum seating capacity. 3. Hotel At least one parking space for each three (3) guest sleeping room. 4. Motel At least one parking space for each guest sleeping room. 5. Restaurant or other eating space Parking spaces in a number equal to one-third (l/3) of the total seating capacity, except when it is in a building which provides parking space, in which case the number of places already provided may be taken to be available for the restaurant or other eating place. 6. Hospital, Sanitarium or Nursing Horne At least one parking space for each five 7. (5) patients. Retail Stores, Service Establishments and Repair Shops At least one parking space for each one hundred and twenty (120) square feet of store floor area devoted to sales. 8. Offices, Office Buildings, Banks and other Financial Institutions At least one parking space for each three hundred (300) square feet of office floor ar ea . - 47 - �9. Industrial or Manufacturing Establishments I At least one parking space for each two employees of the maximum number of employees at any one time. 10. Bowling Alleys At least four 11. (4) parking spaces for each alley. Amusement Enterprises, Exhibition Halls, Auction Barns, and places of public assembly without fixed seats At least one parking space for each one hundred (100) square feet of floor area in public use. 12. Funeral Homes and Mortuaries At least one parking space for each fifty of floor area in service rooms. 13. (50) square feet Laundromats At least one parking space for each two (2) machines. 14. Auto Wash Establishments Auto wash establishments shall provide off-street parking as follows: a. Automatic auto wash establishments: A minimum of twenty (20) car storage spaces per wash line on the entrance side, and one (1) car storage space for each lane on the exit side. b. Manual or coin operated auto wash establishments: A minimum of four (4) car storage spaces for each stall on the entrance side, and one (1\ storage spaces for each stall on the exit side. c. Motor vehicles in any off-street parking area shall not park upon or overhang a public sidewalk, street or other right-of-way, or cross a public sidewalk, street or right-of-wa y , except at an authorized curbcut opening. All parking spaces provided pursuant to this section shall be on the same lot with the building, except that in Band I Districts the Board may permit the parking spaces to be on any lot within three hundred (300) feet of the building, which may . be provided jointly by two or more owners, if it determines that it is impractical to provide parking on th e same lot with the building. In R Districts and in B a nd I Di str i c t s within fifty (50) feet of an R Distri c t, no pa rk i ng space may 0e lo cated in a front yard - 48 - �_e_~f~P.!:._.!;;_tia ~. . P.M_}(i_ng__i,s__ ~;r_ m.i..t. t~Q __9.n_ an_~_s ta bl i shed.1_~u,r:_f~_g_ed , driveway nearer the front property line than the main building. · In R-2 Districts, parking may be provided in 1the front yard provided that the required "yard" be maintained between the parking space and the building line. Parking spaces may be provided in side and rear yards in R Districts and in any yard in Band I Districts provided that in Band I Districts the building be set~ back thirty (30) feet from the street. .:~~4 '· \ r For uses not specified above, parking spaces shall be provided in a number equal to the number required for the listed use which is most similar, as determined by the Board. For purposes of this ordinance, a parking space shall be an· area ten (10) feet wide and twenty (20) feet long, exclusive of driveways, and each parking space shall be accessible from a street without having to pass over another space. Each space _and access thereto shall be paved with either -concrete or macadam -.surfacing and satisfactorily maintained by the owner of the property. Regardless of the provisions of this section, the area bounded by Broadway Street on the south, The St. Joseph River on the west, Cass Street on the north and Fourth Street on the east shall be exempt from off-street parking requirements. Section 4. J~· T ' OFF-STREET LOADING On the same premises with every building or structure erected hereafter and occupied for manufacturing, storage, warehouse, goods display, department store, wholesale store or business, market, hotel, mortuary, laundry, dry cleaning or other uses involving the receipt or distribution of material by vehicle, there shall be provided and maintained on the lot adequate space for vehicles while standing, loading and unloading in order to avoid undue interference with public use of the street or alley. Such space, unless otherwise adequately provided for, shall include a twelve foot by thirty-five foot (12' x 35') loading space with a fourteen foot (14') height distance for every twenty thousand (20,000) square feet or fraction thereof in excess of three thousand (3,000) square feet of floor area or land areas used for the above mentioned purposes. These requirements may upon appeal be increased, modified or waived by the Board where the conditions or circumstances justify such action, provided it has obtained thereon recommendations from the Commission. ( /1 _---- - -- ---------·--·····-···· · Sec_tion 5. ' FENCES. AND SCREENING "-.J In R Districts or residential occupancy in Band I Districts, fences shall be located in accordance with the following rules: - 49 - �. _ ·--:;· A. - - :.. ....... Corner Lot Fences On corner lots where front or side yards are i;equired, no fence more than thirty ·(30) percent solid, or more than three and one-half (3-1/2) feet high, and no shrubbery, hedge, or other view-obstructing object more than three and one-half (3-1/21 feet high may be located within thirty (30) feet of a street intersection. No fence more than four (4) feet high or more than fifty (SO) percent solid and no view obstructing shrubbery or hedge more than four (4) feet high may be located nearer to the street line than the front wall of the main building in the area more than thirty (JO) feet of a street intersection. Interior Lot Fences B. On in·ter ior lots in R Districts no fence more than four ( 4) feet high or more than fifty (SO) percent solid, and no hedge or shrub row more than four (4) feet high may be located nearer to the street line than the front wall of · the main building. For any purpose of this ordinance, any wall of solid exterior on porches, entrances, and similar appendages, more than five (5) feet high shall be considered the wall of the building. Glass, plastics, or similar substances shall be considered as of solid exteriors. For the purposes of setbacks, side clearances, and area calculations concerning open carports, the edge of the roof shall be considered to be the wall. C. Other Fences Except as provided in A and B above, fences not over six (6) feet high may be erected on those parts of a lot that are as far or further back from the street than the main building. Commercial, manufacturing, ecclesiastical and institutional occupancies may install fences in excess of the height limits of the ordinance, providing they .3o not constitute a traffic or safety hazard. ,· Section 6. A. STGNS General Provisions 1. , '' I No sign shall be erected or maintained at any location II. .' where by reason of its position, working, size, shape, color or illumination it may obstruct, obscure, imeair, or interfere with the view o f , ~ confused with any authorized traffic control device, signal, or sign. - so - �2. No part of any sign attached to the exterior wall of a building shall be erected ~to a height in e~cess of six (6) feet above the roof line or parapet line of such I · building. 3. No illuminated sign shall be permitted within fifty (50) feet of any Residential District unless it is so designed that it does not reflect or shine light onto said district. 4. No part of any free-standing sign shall be erected to a '-,------.._, height greater than that specified for other structures \ in the district in which it is located; rooftop signs shall not extend more than twenty (20) feet above the roofline I nor shall such sign be located closer to an exterior wall I than a distance equal to the height such sign extends above / the roof. I 5. The minimum setback of free-standing signs from street rights-of-way shall not be less than: Minimum Setback Area of Sign 5 5 15 50 100 150 square feet to 14. 9 square 49.9 square to to 99.9 square to 149.9 square square or more 2 feet feet feet feet feet feet 10 20 30 60 100 feet feet feet feet feet 6. The area of a sign shall be determined by the smallest circle, triangle, or rectangle that can be used to enclose the sign, exclusive of supporting members that bear no message. 7. No pennants, banners, flags, spinners, or similar devises shall be permitted, and, except as specifically provided for . herein, no moveable signs shall be permitted. 8. Each permitted or required parking area that has a capacity of more than five (5) cars shall be permitted one sign, not more than two (2) square feet in area, designating each entrance or exit; · ~bd one sign, not more than twelve (12) square feet in area, identifying or designating the conditions of use of such parking area for each twenty-five (25) spaces. 9. One "For Sale" or "For Rent" sign not more than twelve (12) square feet in area for each dwelling unit, garage, or other quarters, buildings, structures or land. 10. One sign, not more than twenty (20) square feet in area, pertaining to the sale of agricultural products raised on the premises. - 51 - �11. Signs established by, or by order of, any governmental agency. 12. One sign, not more than twelve (12) square feet in area, for construction and development, giving the name of the contractors, engineers, or architects, shall be permitted but only during the time that construction or development is actively under way. 13. For an event of public interest such as a county fair, or church event, one sign, not over twenty-four (24) square feet in area and located upon the site of the event shall be permitted. Such sign shall not be erected more than thirty (301 days before the event in question and shall be removed immediately after such event. Also directional signs, not more than three (3) square feet in area, showing only a directional arrow and the name of the event of public interest. Such signs shall not be erected more than fourteen (14) days before the event in question and shall be removed immediately after such event. 14. B. For each real estate development that has been approved in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance, one sign, not over three hundred (300) square feet in area, advertising the sale of property in such subdivision shall be permitted, but only when located on some portion of the subdivision being advertised for sale. Such sign may be illuminated, but no flashing, intermittent, or animated illumination is permitted. Such sign shall be maintained only during such time as some portion of the land advertised for sale remains unsold. Permits for such signs shall be issued for one (1) year periods and may be renewed for additional one year periods to allow time for reasonable display. 15. No sign which does not conform to the provision of this section shall be replaced, enlarged or structurally reinforced so as to extend its useful life. 16. All signs shall be installed in accordance with the Standards and requirements~specified by the "Sign Ordinance of the City of Niles". Residential Districts 1. A nameplate which shall not exceed one square foot in area is permitted for each dwelling unit of a singlefamily, or row house structure; such nameplate shall indicate nothing other than name and/or address of the occupant, and/or customary home occupation. No other sign shall be allowed. 2. Multiple-family residences a nd residential projects of all - 52 - .i �... ) types may display identification signs indicating nothing other than name and/or address of the premises and/or the name of the management. SuG.h .,, sign shall not exceed six (6) square feet in area. C. 3. For uses other than those listed in paragraphs land 2, above, bulletin boards or identification signs indicating nothing other than name and/or address of the premises, and schedule of services or other information relevant to the operation of the premises; such signs shall not exceed fifteen (15) square feet in area. These signs may be illuminated by well-shielded incandescent lighting. Open neon tubes are not permitted. 4. For each use of paragraphs 2 and 3 above, eligible to display a sign, only one sign per street frontage shall be permitted; except that uses occupying extended frontages shall be permitted one such sign per five hundred (500) feet of frontage or major fraction thereof. Local, General and Highway Business Districts 1. Residential uses shall be subject to the provisions of Section B. 2. Each public recreation, community facility, or clinic use, shall be permitted one bulletin board or identification ~ig~ not to exceed twelve sq)lare feet, except that uses occupying extended frontages shall be permitted one such sign per five hundred (500) feet of frontage or major fraction thereof. 3. Each primary use other than those listed in paragraphs land 2 signs shall be permitted according to the number and net area of signs set forth below: District Number of Signs L-B 7 G-8 2 2 H-B Net Area · each! 4 0 sqiiar e feet:· 60 square f e et SO squar e f ee t However, one additional sign shall be permitted for each fifty (50) lineal 'feet of store front in excess of fifty (50) feet. 4. No sign shall project over a lot line and no sign shall project into a required yard by more than two (2) feet, except in those blocks where twenty-five (25) percent of the frontage is already occupied by business uses and where overhanging signs are already established. Signs may project to within two (21 feet of an established curb line but in no event shall a sign extend more than six (6) feet beyond the face of the building. - SJ - �D. Industrial Each use shall be permitted identification signs on the lot only as incidental uses, not to exceed two signs and the total area of all signs shall not exceed th~ee hundred (300) square feet . Section 7. NON-CONFORMING USES The lawful use of any building, structure, or land existing at the time of the enactment of this ordinance may be continued, except as otherwise herein provided, although such use does not conform with the provisions of this ordinance. l. Unsafe Structures Any structure or portion thereof except a sign or advertising device, declared unsafe by proper authority may be restored to a safe condition. 2. Alterations A non-conforming building may not be reconstructed or structurally altered during its life to an extent exceeding in aggregate cost one hundred and fifty (1501 percent of the assessed value of the building unless such building is changed to a conforming use. 3. Extension An extension of a non-conforming use shall not exceed fifty (50) percent of the existing structure's floor area, but the extension of a lawful use to any portion of a non-conforming buildi~g which existed prior to the enactment of this ordinance shall not be deemed the extension of such non-conforming use. 4. Construction Approved Prior to Ordinance Nothing herein contained shall require any change in plans, construction or designated use of a building or structure for which a Building Permit has been heretofore issued c~d the construction of which shall have been diligently prosecuted and which entire.building shall be complet~d according to such plans as filed w1th1n one (ll year from da~~ of this ordinance. 5. Restoration A building damaged by fire, explosion, windstorm or simi lar causes to an extent of not more than sixty (60) percent of its fair market value may be reconstructed 1n the same locat~on, provided that reconstruction shall begin within one (ll year of the date of damage and shall be carried on without interruption. In event a building is damaged in excess of sixty (60) percent of its fair value the structure may be restoreu by special permission of the Council. - 54 - �6. Abandonment Whenever a non-conforming use hai be~n discontinued for a period of six (6) months or more, such use shall not thereafter be re-established, and any future use shall be in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance. (See Article IX) 7. Changes Once changed to a conforming use no building or land shall be permitted to revert to a non-conforming use. A non-conforming use may be changed to a use of the same or higher classification, and when so changed to a higher classification, such use thereafter shall not be changed to a lower classification. 8. Displacement No non-conforming use shall be extended to displace a conforming use. 9. Cessation Notwithstanding any other provisions of this ordinance, any automobile wrecking yard or other junk yard, or any billboard non-conforming sign or advertising device, in existence in any residential district at the date of enactment of this ordinance shall, at the expiration of two (2) years from such date, become a prohibited and unlawful use and shall be discontinued. 10. District Changes Whenever the boundaries of a district shall be changed so as to transfer an area from one district to another district, the foregoing provisions shall also apply to any non-conforming uses existing therein. 11. Temporary Permits The Board may authorize, by written permit, in a residential district for a period of not more than one (ll year from the date of such permit, a temporary building for commercial or industrial use incidental to the residential construction and development of said di~trict. Section 8. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT To establish a more flexible procedure for the approval of development plans for large tracts of land and to encourage good planning practices through the submission of such development plans, the Board may authorize the issuance of Building Permits for a unit development in any zone where such development is ueemed desirable to the public convenience and welfare and is in harmony with various elements or objectives of the Comprehensive Plan; and if - 55 - �.. . ' ''I" ' I 1. .. . its ·location, plan and the character of development are first approved by the . Commission. In the exercise of its approval, the Commission may recommend to the Board such conditions regarding the location, character and other features of the proposed buildings or structures or uses as it may deem advisable in the furtherance of the purposes of this ordinance. Petitions for planned unit developments shall be taken, processed, heard and determined in the manner and procedures as required for a variation (Article IX, Section 51. Tracts of land as herein described to be used for R-Zone, L-B Zone, G-B Zone, or I Zone purposes may be developed as a unit; e.g., group housing, shopping center or industrial district. Any parcel of land, including any interior streets, which is proposed as a development designed as a unit may be deemed to be one lot. To be considered a unit development, clude at least: the parcel of land must in- 1. Ten (101 acres if used only for R-Zone or only for L-B, H-B, or G-B Zone purposes. 2. Fifteen (15) acres if used only for I-Zone purposes, or a combination of R-Zone and L-B and G-8 Zone purposes. 3. Twenty (20) acres if used for combinations of L-8 and G-B Zone and I Zone purposes. Where a unit development consists of two or more buildings on a plot of ground not subdivided into the customary streets and lots, and which will not be so subdivided, or where the existing or contemplated street and lot layout make it impractical to apply the requirements of this ordinance to the individual building units in such unit development, the application of such requirements may be varied, provided that: 1. The nature of such variance w i 11 not result in a develop..ment inharmonious with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. 2. If residential use is -~nvolved, there may be a twenty 120) percent relaxation of,the lot area per family and the standard of open space as required in the zone in which the proposed unit development is to be located. If the Board approves plans for a proposed unit development, Building Permits and Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued in conformance with such approved plans, even though the use of the land and the location of the buildings with respect to each other does not conform to the regulations for the district in which the unit development is located. - 56 - I II �ARTICLE VIII - ENFORCEMENT Section 1. PERMITS AND CERTIFICATES The enforcement of this ordinance is hereby vested in the Building Official. No building permit or occupancy permit shall be issued for any purpose except in compliance with the provisions of this ordinance. A. Building Permit No building may be undertaken in the City without a building permit as required by the building code (current addition) and without an occupancy permit as required by Section B. Each application for a building permit shall be accompanied by a plat in duplicate, drawn to scale, showing the name of the person making the application, the actual dimensions of the lot to be built upon as shown by a survey, the size, shape, and location of the building to be erected, and such other information as may be necessary to provide for the enforcement of this ordinance. A record of applications and plats shall be kept in the office of the Building Official , and any deviation.by the owner or builder from the approved plot plan, without the written consent of the Building Department, shall be considered a violation of this ordinance. -· B . Certificate of Occupancy Subsequent to the effective date of this ordinance no change in the use or occupancy of land, nor any change of use or occupancy in an existing building, shall be made, nor shall any new building be occupied until a certificate of occupancy has been issued by the Building Official. Every certificate of occupancy shall state that the new occupancy complies with all provisions of this ordinance. No permit for excavation for, or the erection or alteration of, any building shall be issued before the application had been made and approved for a certificate of occupan9y and compliance, and no building or premises shalJ be occupiec until such certificate and permit is issued. A record of all certificates of occupancy shall be kept on file in the office of the Building Official and copies shall be furnished on request to any person having a proprietary or tenancy interest in land or a building affected by such certificate of occupancy. C. Interpretation, Conflict with Other Laws In their interpretation and application, the provisions of - 57 - �this ordinance shall be held to be minimum requirements, adopted for the promotion of the public health, safety and the general welfare. Wherever the requirements of this ordinance are at variance with the requirements of any other lawfully adopted rules, regulations, or ordinances, the most restrictive, or that imposing the higher standards, shall govern. - 58 - �II ARTICLE IX - THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS i Section 1. ~I CREATION A Board of Appeals is hereby created. The said Board shall consist of five (5) members, each to be appointed for a term of three (3) years; provided, that appointments for the first year shall be one (1) year, two for two (2) years, and two for three (3) years. Section 2. RULES, POWERS AND DUTIES The Board of Appeals shall elect its own Chairman, for a term of one (1) year, and an Acting-Chairman who shall carry on the duties of the office in the absence of the Chairman. All meetings of the Board shall be held at the call of the Chairman. The Building Official shall be present to represent the interests of the City. All hearings conducted by the Board shall be open to the public. The Board shall keep minutes of its proceedings showing the vote of each member upon every question, or if absent or failing to vote . indicating such fact and shall also keep records of its hearings and other official actions. Findings of fact shall be included in the minutes of each case of a requested variation, and the reasons for recommending or denying such variation shall be specified. Every rule or regulation, every amendment or repeal thereof, and every order, requirement, decision or determination of the Board shall be filed immediately in the office of the Board and shall be a public record . The Board shall adopt its own rules of procedure not in conflict with this ordinance or with the Michigan Statutes in such case made and provided . The presence of three (3) or more members shall constitute a quorum, and a majority vote on all questions shall be required for passage thereof, except as provided in Section 3. Section 3. ACTION OF THE BOARD The concurring vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the Board shall be necessary to reverse any order, requirement, decision or determination of the Buildi~g Official or to decide in favor of an applicant on any of the matters specified in Section 4. The Board may reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the order, requirement, decision, or determination appealed from and shall make such 9rder, requirement, decision, or determinaiton as in its opinion should be made in the premises, and to that end shall have all the powers of the officer from whom the appeal is taken . The decision of the Board shall not become final until the expiration of five (5) days from t h e d ate of the entry of such order unless the Board shall fin d the immediate effect of such order is necessary for the pres e rvation of property or personal rights and shall so certif y on the rec o rd. - 59 - i r It ! I 1 �- - -·---- ·- -·· - --·-·- No order of the Board permitting the erection or alteration of a building shall be valid for a period longer than ninety 190) days unless a building permit for such erection or alteratibn is obtained within such period and such erection or alteration is started and proceeds to completion in accordance with the terms of such permit. No order of the Board permitting a use of a building or premises shall be valid for a period longer than ninety (90) days, unless such use is established within such period; provided, however, that where such use permitted is dependent upon the erection or alteration of a building, such order shall continue in force and effect if a building permit for said erection or alterations is obtained within such period and such erection or alteration is started and proceeds to completion in accordance with the terms of such permit. Section 4. AUTHORITY The Board shall: Hear and determine appeals from and review any order, require1. ment, decision or determination made by the Building Official, subject to the standards established herein. 2. , Hear and determine petitions for special uses subject to the standards established herein. 3. Hear and aries of !Article Building interpret the zoning district map Is) and the boundsuch districts subject to standards herein established II .I, Section 21 upon request by the Commission, the Official, or an aggrieved or interested party. 4. Hear and interpret the terms, conditions, requirements and provisions of this ordinance in such a way as to carry out the purpose and intent of this ordinance. 5. Permit the continuance of a non-conforming use, building, or structure that has ceased or discontinued for a period of six {61 months, provided that the owner of the building or premises devoted to said us~·c~n show proof that the intent was not to discontinue. APPEALS FOR VARIATIONS, HOW TAKEN Section 5. Appeals to the Board may be taken by any person aggrieved or l. by any officer, department, board or bureau of the City affected by a decision of the Building Official. Such appeal shall be taken within such time as shall be prescribed by the Board of Appeals by general rule, by the filing with the Building Official and the Bo a r d of Apµe a ls a notice of appeal specifying the grounds ther e o f a ft e r paying a fee of $5.00 to the - 60 - �, I • City Treasurer. The Building Official shall forthwith transmit to the Board all the papers consututing the record upon which the action appealed from was taken. I 2. An appeal stays all proceedings of the action appealed from unless the Building Official certifies to the Board that a stay would cause imminent peril to life or property in which case a restraining order may be granted by the Board of Appeals or by the circuit court, on application, on notice to the Building Official and on due cause shown. 3. The Board of Appeals shall fix a reasonable time for the hearing of the appeal and give due notice thereof to the parties including all owners of record of property within three hundred (300) feet of the premises in question, such notice to be delivered personally or by mail addressed to the respective owners at the address given in the last assessment roll, and shall decide the same within thirty (30) days. Upon the hearing, any party may appear in person or by agent or by attorney. 4. Standards for Variance The Board, after public hearing, may vary the terms of this ordinance, but no such variation shall be granted except upon a determinatlon and finding that: a. The grant will not be injurious to the public health, safety, and general welfare. b. The use or value of the land or area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be adversely affected. c. The need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property involved and does not exist in similar property in the same district. d. The strict application of the Lerms of this ordinance will constitute an unusual and unnecessary hardship as applied to the property in which the variance is sought. e. That such variance is ne~essary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial pro?erty right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and district but which is denied to the property in qu e stion. f. That such variance is the mini mum departure from the strict application of the provisions of this ordinance which will afford relief. g. The Board shall not grant a v a ri a ti o n Erorn a use district or classification. - 61 - .I �5. The Board, in granting an appeal, may prescribe any reasonable conditions applying thereto that it may deem necessary in carrying out the general purpose of this ordinance. 1 Section 6. SPECIAL USES It is recognized that there are certain uses, which because of their unique characteristics, unusual size, infrequent occurrence, safety hazard, effect on surrounding property, cannot be classified in any particular district, without cor.sideration of the impact on those uses at a specific location. Such uses fall into two categories: l. Uses publicly operated or traditionally associated with a public interest. 2. Uses private in character but of such nature that their operation may give rise to problems of their impact on neighboring property or public facilities. Section 7. PETITIONS FOR SPECIAL USE, HOW TAKEN l. Petitions for a special use shall be taken, processed, heard and determined in the same manner and procedure as required for a variation. However, the Board may permit special uses only in the districts in which they are listed (Articles IV thru VI l • 2. Standards for Special Use No special use shall be granted unless the Board shall find: a. That the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the special use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. b. That the special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the general area. c. That the establishment oI the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. d. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or are being provided. e. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. - 62 - �3. Conditions and Guarantees I Prior to the granting of any special use, the Commission may recommend and the Board shall stipulate such conditions and restrictions upon the establishment, location, construction, maintenance, and operation of the special use as deemed necessary for the protection of the public interest and to secure compliance with the standards and requirements specified in this section. In all planned unit developments and all mobile home parks, the findings and recommendations of the Commission shall be required. In all cases in which special uses are granted, the Board shall require such evidence and guarantees as it may deem necessary as proof that the conditions stipulated in connection therewith are being and will be complied with. 0 - 63 - �ARTICLE X - AMENDMENT, VIOLATION ANL PENALTY, VALIDITY Section l .• AMENDMENT The Council may from time to time amend this ordinance in the manner prescribed by the statutes of the State of Michigan. No such amendment shall be made until it shall have been referred to the Commission and a report received from said Commission of the effect of said amendment upon the City and the welfare of the inhabitants thereof. The Commission shall hold one (1) public hearing upon such amendment as required by law and is hereby designated as the body to hold such hearings. If no report 1s received from the Commission in sixty (60) days, it may be assumed that said Commission has approved the amendment. Before any action shall be taken as provided in this section, the party or parties proposing or recommending a change in the district regulations or district boundaries shall deposit with the City Treasurer the sum of Fifty Dollars ($50.001 to cover the approximate cost of this procedure and under no condition shall said sum or any part thereof be refunded for failure of said change to be adopted by the Council. Section 2. VIOLATION AND PENALTY The owner or agent of a building or premises in or upon which a violation of any provision of this ordinance has been committed or shall exist, or the lessee or tenant of an entire building or entire premises in or upon which violation has been committed or shall exist, or the agent, architect, building contractor or any other person who commits, takes part or assists in any violation or who maintains any building or premises in or upon which such violation shall exist, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be punished by a fine not to exceed One Hundred Dollars ($100.00). Each and every day that such violation continues may constitute a separate offense. In case any building or structure is erected, constructed, reconstructed, altered, repaired, converted or maintained, or any building, structure or land is used in violation of this ordinance, the appropriate author1t1es of. the City, in addition to other remedies, may institute approir1ate action or proceeding to prevent such unlawful erection, construction, reconstruction, alteration, conversion, maintenance, or use, or to correct or abate such violation, or to prevent the occupancy of said building, structure or land. - 65 - �l I I f Section 3. VALIDITY If any part or parts of this ordinance shall be held to be unconstitutional, such unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this ordinance.1 The Council hereby declares that it would have passed the remaining parts of this ordinance if it had known that such part or parts thereof would be declared unconstitutional. Section 4. REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES Ordinance No. 141, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NILES, MICHIGAN, approved July 22, 1957, is hereby repealed. All other ordinances or parts of ordinances inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance are, to the extent of their inconsistency, repealed. Section 5. ADOPTION This ordinance shall take effect and be in force twenty-one (21) days after the date of its adoption and approval by the Common Council. Adopted and approved October 26 SIGNED: Ralph Wegner Mayor ATTEST: Burt C. Luth City , Clerk I ! - - 66 - 1970 �::"~ -:..~---_:_-_:_,_ ·~---.- - ___ : ----=-~ -- -· - -- ··-. '\ 1r,:; CITY OF NILES · MICHIGAN - .. .. I __. '---·-- - I J T ZONING ,, c-- I q IA I MAP Slf,C,L[•rAMILY R[SID[NTIIIL - LB rwo B "4ULTI . rAMILY RE s ~°"'l ~ HB it¾! P?7/ R? LOC A, BUSINESS t11G"1""'l.' BUS1NtSS Q �ZONING ORDINANCE ORDINANCE NO. ------ CITY OF NILES BERRIEN COUNTY, MICHIGAN PREPARED BY: CITY OF NILES CITY PLANNER PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY, 1990 �TABLE OF CONTENTS PREAMBLE AND ADOPTION ARTICLE I: ARTICLE II: INTENT AND PURPOSE ARTICLE Ill: RULES AND DEFINITIONS Section Section 3.01 3.02 ARTICLE IV: Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section 4.01 4.02 4.03 4.04 4.05 4.06 4.07 4.08 4.09 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.21 4.22 4.23 4.24 4.25 4.26 ARTICLE V: Section Section 5.01 5.02 Section Section 5.03 5.04 Section Section 5.05 5.06 Section 5.07 Section 5.08 TITLE Rules Definitions SUPPLEMENTARY DISTRICT REGULATIONS Scope of Regulations Use and Bulk Regulations Dwellings on Small Lots Lot Coverage Access to Public Streets Number of Buildings on a Zoning Lot Rezoning of Public and Semi-Public Areas Accessory Buildings Accessory Uses Temporary Buildings Home Occupations Existing Special Use Uses Not Specifically Permitted in District Exterior Lighting Exceptions to Height Regulations Swimming Pools Outdoor Storage in Residential Districts Front Yard Corner Lot Landscaping Provisions Fences Stripping of Top Soil Antennas Unlicensed or Inoperable Motor Vehicles Division of a Zoning Lot National Flood Insurance Program NONCONFORMING LOTS, USES AND STRUCTURES Intent Nonconforming Use of Land or Land with Minor Structures Only Nonconforming Structures Nonconforming Uses of Structures or of Structures & Premises in Combination Repair and Maintenance Uses Under Special Use Provisions Are Not Nonconforming Uses Zoning Compliance Permit for Nonconforming Structures and Uses Change of Tenancy or Ownership �ARTICLE VI: Section Section Section Section 6.01 6.02 6.03 6.04 ARTICLE VII: Section Section Section Section 7.01 7.02 7.03 7.04 ARTICLE VIII: Section Section Section Section Section 8.01 8.02 8.03 8.04 8.05 ARTICLE IX: Section Section Section 9.01 9.02 9.03 ARTICLE Section Section ARTICLE Section Section Section Section Section ARTICLE X: 10.01 10.02 XI: 11.01 11.02 11.03 11.04 11.05 XII: Section Section Section Section Section Section Section 12.01 12.02 12.03 12.04 12.05 12.06 12.07 ARTICLE XIII: Section Section Section Section Section Section Section 13.01 13.02 13.03 13.04 13.05 13.06 13.07 ZONING DISTRICTS AND MAPS Districts Official Zoning Map Interpretation of District Boundaries Zoning of Public Ways RESIDENCE DISTRICTS Statement of Legislative Intent R-1, Single Family Residence District R-2, Two Family Residence District R-3, Multiple Family Residence District BUSINESS DISTRICTS Statement of Legislative Intent C-1, Local Business District C-2, Downtown Retail District C-3, Community Business District OC, Office Commercial District INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS Statement of Legislative Intent 1-1, Light Industrial District 1-2, General Industrial District SPECIAL DISTRICTS· Open Space District Plain Flood, Overlay District SCHEDULE OF PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES Planned Unit Development Residential Uses Commercial Uses Industrial Uses Public and Semi Public Uses OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING Purpose General Provisions - Parking and Loading Off Street Parking - Regulations Location of Accessory Off-Street Parking Facilities Schedule of Parking Requirements Exclusions General regulations - Off-Street Loading SPECIAL USES Purpose Authority Initiation Application Hearing Review and Approval Issuance of a Special Use Permit - 1 - - ----- - ---- ~~ - - - - - - - -----~---- �Section Section Section Section Section Section ARTICLE Section Section Section Section ARTICLE Section Section Section Section Section Section ARTICLE 13.12 13.13 XIV: XV: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Provisions and Requirements Procedure Content of Petition Construction of Improvements Street Classification Standards 15.04 15.05 15.06 XVI: ARTICLE XVII: Section Section Section 17.02 17.03 AMENDMENTS Authority Initiation of Amendment Content Processing Public Hearing Protest Petition Enactment Official Filing and Map Change 16.01 16.02 16.03 16.04 16.05 ADMINISTRATION Zoning Administrator Duties and Limitations of the Zoning Administrator Zoning Compliance Permit Administrator 17.01 ARTICLE XVIII: Section Section Purpose When Required Contents Application, Review Process, Approval 15.01 15.02 15.03 16.06 16.07 16.08 ARTICLE SITE PLAN 14.01 14.02 14.03 14.04 Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Section Appeal Basis of Determinations Effective Date Permit Validity Requirements for Compliance - Penalties Once Granted a Special Use Permit, the Use is a Permitted Use 13.08 13.09 13.10 13.11 BOARD OF APPEALS 18.01 18.02 Creation and Membership Jurisdiction and Authority Appeals from the Board of Appeals Duties of Zoning Administrator, Board of Appeals, and Courts on Matters of Appeals 18.03 18.04 IX)\ SCHEDULE OF FEES, CHARGES, EXPENSES 19.01 19.02 -- Fees Fee Schedule �ARTICLE Section Section Section Section ARTICLE Section Section XX: 20.01 20.02 20.03 20.04 XXI: 21.01 21.02 GENERAL PROVISIONS ---- Interpretation Separability Abatement of Nuisance Violation, Penalty, Enforcement REPEAL OF PREVIOUS ORDINANCE: EFFECTIVE DATE -- Repeal of Previous Ordinance Effective Date ~ - - - - - --- - - -- - -------- �ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF NILES ZONING ORDINANCE PREAMBLE The City of Niles, Berrien County, Michigan, under and by virtue of the provisions of the Act No. 207 of the Public Acts of 1921, as amended does hereby ordain: ARTICLE I TITLE This Zoning Ordinance Zoning Ordinance. may be designated as the City of Niles ARTICLE II INTENT AND PURPOSE This ordinance is adopted to implement the City's Master Plan for the following purposes: I -~ 1) To promote and protect the public health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of the people of the City of Niles, Berrien County, Michigan; 2) To divide the City of Niles into zones or districts, restricting and regulating therein the location, erection, construction, reconstruction, alteration, and use of buildings, structures and land for residence, business, manufacturing and other specified uses; 3) To protect the character and stability of the residential, business, and manufacturing areas within the City of Niles and to promote the orderly and beneficial development of such areas; 4) To provide adequate light, air, privacy and convenience of access to property; 5) To regulate the intensity of use of lot areas and to determine the area of open spaces surrounding buildings, necessary to provide adequate light and air, and to protect the public health; 6) To establish building lines and the locations of buildings designed for residential, business and manufacturing or other uses within such areas; 7) To fix reasonable standards to which buildings or structures shall conform therein; 8) To prohibit uses, buildings or structures incompatible with the character of deV,elopment or intended uses within specified zoning districts; 9) To prevent additions to or alterations of existing buildings or structures in such q way as to avoid the requirements established herein; 10) To limit congestion in the public streets and protect the public health, safety, convenience and general welfare by providing for the off--street parking of motor vehicles and the loading and unloading of commercial vehicles; 1 - - - - - - - ~ - -- - - - - -- -- - - - -- ~- �11) To facilitate adequate provision for a system of transportation, sewage disposal, safe and adequate water supply, education, recreation and other public requirements; 12) To protect against fire, explosion, noxious fumes and other hazards in the interest of public health, safety, comfort and ger:ieral welfare; 13) To prevent the overcrowding of land and undue concentration of structures, so far as is possible and appropriate in each district, by regulating the use and bulk of buildings in relation to the land surrounding them; 14) To conserve the taxable value of land and buildings throughout the City of Niles; 15) To conserve the natural resources and character of land throughout the City of Niles; i 6) To provide for the gradual elimination of non-conforming uses of land, buildings, and structures which are adversely affecting the character and value of desirable development in each district; 17) To define and limit the powers and duties of the administrative officers and bodies as provided herein; 18) And to prescribe the penalties for the violation of the provisions of this Ordinance or any amendments thereto. 2 - -- ---- --- - ~ �ARTICLE Ill RULES AND DEFINITIONS Section 3.01 = Rules In the construction of this Ordinance, the rules and definitions contained in this section shall be observed and applied, except when the context clearly indicates otherwise: 1) Words used in the present tense shall include future: 2) Words in the singular number include the plural number and words in the plural number include the singular number; The phrase "used for" shall include the phrases "arranged for", designed for", "intended for 11, "maintained for", and "occupied for"; 3) 4) The word "shall" is mandatory; 5) The word "may" is permissive. Section 3.02 = Definitions ABANDONMENT: Any action or inaction indicating an intent to give up one s right or interest in property or intention to give up a particular use of such property. 1 ACCESSORY BUILDING OR USE: An accessory building or use is one which: 1) Is subordinate to and serves a principal building or principal use; 2) Is subordinate in area, extent or purpose to the principal use served; 3) Contributes to the comfort, convenience or necessity of occupants of the principal building or principal use served; and 4) Is located on the same zoning lot as the principal building or principal use served with the single exception of such accessory off-street parking facilities as are permitted to locate elsewhere on the same zoning lot with the building or use served. An accessory use includes, but is not limited to the following: 1) A children 1s playhouse, garden house, and private greenhouse; 2) A shed, garage or building for domestic storage; 3} Incinerators, incidental to residential use; 4) Storage of merchandise normally carried in stock on the same lot with any retail service or business use, unless such storage is excluded by the district regulations; 5) Storage of goods; used in or produced by manufacturing activities on the same lot or parcel of ground with such activities unless such storage is excluded by the district regulations; 6) Swimming pool, private for use by the occupants and his/her guests; �7) Off-street motor car parking areas, and loading facilities; 8) Signs (other than advertising signs) as permitted and regulated in each district incorporated herein; 9) Carports; 10) Public utility facilities -- telephone, electric, gas water and sewer lines, their supports and incidental equipment unless such use is excluded by the district regulations. ACREAGE: Any tract or parcel of land having an area of one or more which has not heretofore been subdivided or platted. AGRICULTURE: All the processes of planting, growing, harvesting of crops in the open and the raising and feeding of livestock and poultry; including farming, farm buildings and farm dwellings, truck gardens; flower gardens apiaries , aviaries, mushroom growing, nurseries, orchards, forestry, dairying, green houses and commercial vegetables. AIRPORT: Any area of land which is used or intended to be used for the landing and taking off of aircraft, and any appurtenant areas which are used or intended for use of airport building or other airport facilities located thereon. ALLEY: A public way, not more than thirty (30) feet wide, which affords only a secondary means of access to abutting property. ALTERATION, STRUCTURAL: Any change which would tend to prolong to alter the life of or alter or change or remove the supporting members of a building or structure, such as bearing walls, columns, beams or girders. ANIMAL HOSPITAL: Any building or portion thereof designed or used for the care, observation or treatment of household domestic animals. ANTENNA: Any system of wires, poles, rods, reflecting discs or similar devices used for the transmission or reception of electromagnetic waves, which system is external or attached to the exterior of any building. Antennas shall include devices having active elements extending in any direction, and directional beam type arrays having elements carried by and disposed from a generally vertical mast or tower interconnecting the boom and antenna support, all of which elements are deemed to be a part of the antenna. Antennas shall also include satellite receivers, satellite dishes or discs, direct broadcast systems (OBS 1s) and television reception only systems (lVRO's) . The height of an antenna shall be the total maximum to which it is capable of being raised and shall be measured from the highest mounted or from the peak of the roof it roof mounted. APARTMENT: A room or suite of rooms in a multiple family structure which is arranged, designed, used or intended to be used as a single housekeeping unit. Complete kitchen facilities, (sink, stove, refrigerator and storage facilities), and necessary sanitary facilities must always be included for each apartment. APARTMENT HOTEL: SeeHOTELAPARTMENT AUDITORIUM: A room, hall or building, made a part of a church, theater, school, recreation building or other building assigned to the gathering of people as an audience to hear lectures, plays and other presentations. 2 �AUTOMOBILE LAUNDRY (AUTOMATIC): A building or portion thereof containing facilities for washing automobiles, using production line methods with a chain conveyor, blower, steam cleaning device or their mechanical devices. AUTOMOBILE REPAIR, MAJOR: Engine rebuilding or major reconditioning of worn or damaged motor vehicles or trailers; collision service including body, frame or fender straightening or repair, and painting of vehicles. AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION: Building and premises where gasoline, oil, grease, batteries, tires and automobile accessories may be supplied and dispensed at retail, also cold drinks, package foods, tobacco and other similar convenience goods for service station customers may be provided as accessory and incidental to the principal operation. Other incidental services including minor automobile repair and automobile washing and polishing where no chain conveyor, blower or steam cleaning devices are employed, may be provided. Automobile service stations shall not include sale or storage of automobiles or trailers (new or used) or major automobile repairs. AUTOMOBILE AND TRAILER SALES AREA: An open area other than a street used for the display or sale of new or used automobiles or trailers, and where no repair work is done except for minor incidental repair of automobiles of trailers to be displayed and sold on the premises. AUTOMOBILE WRECKING YARD: Any place where one or more motor vehicles, not in running condition or parts thereof, are stored in the open and are not being restored to operation or any land, building or structure used for wrecking or storing of such motor vehicles or parts thereof and including the commercial salvaging of any other goods, articles or merchandise. Also, any motor vehicle stored by mounting on blocks or any other means for more than thirty (30) days. AWNING: A rooflike cover, temporary in nature, which projects from the wall of a building or overhangs the public way. BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS: Commercial banks, currency exchanges, savings and loan associations, brokerage offices and other similar financial institutions, but not including loan offices, finance companies and pawn shops. BASEMENT: A story partly or wholly underground. Where more than one-half (1/2) of its height is above the established curb level or above the average level of the adjoining ground where the curb level has not been established, a basement shall be counted as a story for the purpose of height measurement. BEACH: Beach is that portion of the shore line of the river known as "St. Joseph" or any man-made watercourse, both above and below the high water line which is sanded, pebbled or graveled and used for activities normally associated with shorefront properties. BEDROOM: Any room other than a living room, family room, dining room, kitchen, bathroom or utility room for the purpose of this Ordinance, shall be considered a bedroom. BLOCK: A tract of land bounded by streets or in lieu of a street or streets, by public parks, cemeteries, railroad rights-of-way, bulkhead lines or shore lines of waterways or corporate boundary lines of municipalities. BOARD OF APPEALS: The Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Niles. 3 ----♦--- �BOARDING HOUSE: A building other than a hotel or restaurant where meals are provided for compensation to three but not more than twelve persons, who are not members of the keeper's family. BOATHOUSE: Any structure designed for the purpose of protecting or storing of boats used in conjunction with a residence for noncommercial purposes, and located on the same lot as the principal building and not for human habitation. BORROW PIT: Any place or premises where dirt, soil, gravel or other material is removed by excavation or otherwise below the grade of surrounding land for any purpose other than the necessary and incidental to grading or to building construction or operation on the premises. BUILDABLE AREA: The space remaining on a zoning lot after the minimum open space requirements have been complied with. BUILDING: Any covered structure built for the support, shelter or enclosure of persons, animals, chattels or movable property of any kind, and which is permanently affixed to the land. BUILDING, DETACHED: A building surrounded by open space on the same building lot. BUILDING HEIGHT: The vertical distance measured form the sidewalk level or its equivalent established grade opposite the middle of the front of the building to the highest elevation of the roof in the case of a slant or flat roof; to the deck line of a mansard roof; and to the mean height level between eaves and ridge of a gable, hip or gambrel roof; provided that where buildings are set back from the street line, the height of the building may be measured from the average elevation of the finished lot grade at the front of the building. BUILDING LINE: The line nearest the front of and across a zoning lot, establishing the minimum open space to be provided between the front line of a building or structure and the street right-of-way line. BUILDING, NON-CONFORMING: Any building which does not conform to the regulations herein prescribing the required yards, coverage, height and setbacks, minimum required usable open space for the district in which the building is located. BUILDING PERMIT: A permit by the Building Official of the City of Niles for the construction, alteration, removal or demolition of a building or structure within the City of Niles. BUILDING, PRINCIPAL: A non-accessory building in which the principal use of the zoning lot on which it is located is conducted. BUILDING SETBACK LINE: A line parallel to the street line at a distance from it, regulated by the front yard requirements set up herein. BUILDING, TEMPORARY: Any building not designated to be permanently located in the place where it is or where it is intended to be placed or affixed. BULK: The term used to indicate the size and setbacks of buildings or structures and location of same with respect to one another and includes the following: 1) Size and height of buildings; 4 -~ - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - ◄ �2) Location of exterior walls at all levels in relation to lot lines, street, or other buildings; 3) All open spaces allocated to the building; 4) - Amount of lot area per dwelling unit; 5) Required parking areas. BUS LOTS: Any lot or land area used for the storage or layover of passenger buses, school buses, or motor coaches. BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICE: The office of an engineer, doctor, dentist, attorney, real estate broker, insurance broker, architect, or other similar professional person and any office used primarily for accounting correspondence, research, editing or administration. CARPORT: A roofed-over area attached and/or detached to the principal building for vehicle storage, which may be open on three sides if attached or four sides if detached. Cl1Y: The City of Niles, Michigan. CLINIC OR MEDICAL HEALTH CENTER: A medical center clinic is an establishment where three or more licensed doctors of medicine engage in the practice of medicine, operating on a group or individual basis, with pooled facilities such as coordinated laboratory, x-ray and allied departments, for the diagnosis and treatment of humans, which need not but may include a drug prescription counter (not a drug store) for the dispensing of drugs and pharmaceutical products to the patients of the said organization. In addition to the above, the medical center or medical clinic may include the space for the practice of dentistry. CLUB OR LODGE, PRIVATE: A non-profit association of persons who are bona fide members paying annual dues, which owns, hires or leases a building or portion thereof, the use of such premises being restricted to members and their quests. CLUSTER SUBDIVISION: A land subdivision with a majority of the individual building sites abutting directly on parks or other common open space. COUNTRY CLUB: A facility, intended to be non-profit, under the management of private membership association which leases and/or owns a minimum of 60 acres of contiguous property on which are located structures and site developments including a minimum of a nine-hole golf course, club house, maintenance buildings and possible other customary facilities including but not limited to a restaurant with or without liquor license, locker room, pro-sales shop, swimming pool, game room, outdoor activity areas; intended for use solely by members and guests. COURT, OUTER: An open unoccupied space opening onto a street, alley or yard. CURB LEVEL: The level of the established curb in front of the building measured at the center of such front. Where a building faces on more than one street, the "curb level" shall be the average of the levels of the curbs at the center of the front of each street. Where no curb elevation has been established the mean of the street grade shall be considered "curb level". DAY NURSERY: A building or portion thereof used for the daytime care of preschool children. 5 �DISTRICTS: The areas into which the City of Niles has been divided for which uniform regulations governing the use, size and intensity of land and buildings and open space about buildings are established. DRIVEWAYS: A paved, private drive connecting a house, garage or other building with a street. DWELLING: A building or portion thereof, but not including house trailer or mobile home, designed or used exclusively for residential occupancy, including one-family dwelling units, two-family dwelling units, but not including hotels, motels, boarding or lodging houses. DWELLING UNIT: A room or rooms connected together constituting a separate, independent housekeeping establishment for one (1) family occupancy, and physically separated from any other rooms or dwelling units which may be in the same structure, and containing independent cooking, bathroom and sleeping facilities. DWELLING, DETACHED: A dwelling which is entirely surrounded by open space and is not connected to any other dwelling unit by roof, walls or porches on the same lot. DWELLING, SINGLE-FAMILY: A detached residential dwelling unit, other than a mobile home, designed for and occupied by one (1) family only. DWELLING, TWO-FAMILY: A detached residential building, other than a mobile home, containing two (2) dwelling units designed for occupancy by not more than two (2) families. DWELLING, MODULAR: A detached residential dwelling composed of two or more units containing an assembly of materials or products intended to comprise part of a building or structure, which are assembled at other than the final location of the unit of the circumstances intended to insure conformity of quality and material content. DWELLING, MULTIPLE-FAMILY: A residential building, other than a mobile home, designed for or occupied by three {3) or more families, with the number of families in residence not exceeding the number of dwelling units provided. DWELLING, ROW (PARTY WALL): A row of two to eight attached one-family party wall dwellings, not more than two and one-half stories in height, not more than two rooms in depth, measured from the building line. DWELLING, GROUP: Two or more one-family, two-family, or multiple family dwellings or boarding or lodging houses, located on one zoning lot but not including tourist courts or motels. EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION: Public, parochial schools, charitable or non-profit junior college, college or university, other than trade or business schools including instructional and recreational uses with or without living quarters, dining rooms, restaurants, heating plants and other incidental facilities for students, teachers, and employees. EFFICIENCY UNIT: A dwelling unit consisting of one principal room for living, sleeping, and eating plus facilities for cooking and complete bath and toilet facilities. FAMILY: One or more persons related by blood, marriage or adoption, or a group of not more than five persons (excluding servants) who need not be related by blood, marriage or adoption, living together and maintaining a common household but not including sororities, fraternities, or other similar organizations. 6 �FENCE: A constructed structure which is vertical to the terrain, and consists of equally spaced vertical support members (posts), to which have been affixed horizontal and/or vertical materials which span the openings between the vertical support members (posts), thus forming an enclosure for limiting access to and from real property. FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP (FIRM): The official map on which the Federal Insurance Administration has delineated both the areas of special flood hazards and the risk premium zones applicable to the City. FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY: The official report provided by the Federal Insurance Administration that includes flood profiles, the Flood Boundary-Floodway Map and the water surface elevation of the base flood. FLOODPLAIN: The area defined by the most current 100 year flood hazard elevation (1 % chance of flooding in any given year) as described within the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development - Federal Insurance Administration, Flood Insurance Study for the City of Niles, Michigan. FLOODWAY: The channel of a river or the water course and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than .01 foot. GROSS FLOOR AREA (FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING REQUIREMENTS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING AND OFF-STREET LOADING): The floor area shall mean the sum of the gross horizontal area of the several floors of the buildings or portion thereof, devoted to such use, including accessory storage areas located within selling or working space, such as counter, rack or closets, and any basement floor area devoted to retailing activities to the production of goods or to business or professional offices. HOWEVER, floor area for the purpose of measurement of off-street parking spaces shall not include floor area devoted primarily to storage purposes. The following areas shall not be included for the purpose of measurement of off-street parking spaces. 1) Floor area devoted to off-street parking or loading facilities, including aisles, ramps, and maneuvering space. 2) Basement floor area other than area devoted to retailing or service activities or the production or processing of goods, or the business or professional offices. FREEWAY: A major highway having no intersections at grade and having fully controlled access, hence 11free 11 from conflicts and interruptions. FRONTAGE: All the property fronting on one side of a street between the nearest intersecting streets or between a street and a right-of-way, waterways or other similar barrier. GARAGE, BUS: Any building used or intended to be used for the storage of three or more passenger motor buses or motor coaches used in public transportation including school buses. GARAGE, PRIVATE: Any accessory building or an accessory portion of the principal building in which is intended for and used to store the private passenger vehicles of the family or families resident on the premises, and in which no business, service or industry connected directly or indirectly with the automotive vehicles is carried on; provided that not more than one-half of the space may be rented for the private vehicles of 7 �I and recreational uses with or without living quarters, dining rooms , restaurants, heating plants and other incidental facilities for students, teachers, and employees. EFFICIENCY UNIT: A dwelling unit consisting of one principal room for living, sleeping, and eating plus facilities for cooking and complete bath and toilet facilities . FAMILY: One or more persons related by blood, marriage or adoption , or a group of not more than five persons (excluding servants) who need not be related by blood, marriage or adoption, living together and maintaining a common household but not including sororities, fraternities, or other similar organizations. FENCE: A constructed structure which is vertical to the terrain , and consists of equally spaced vertical support members (posts) , to which have been affixed horizontal and/or vertical materials which span the openings between the vertical support members (posts) , thus forming an enclosure for limiting access to and from real property. FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP (FIRM): The official map on which the Federal Insurance Administration has delineated both the areas of special flood hazards and the risk premium zones applicable to the City. FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY: The official report provided by the Federal Insurance Administration that includes flood profiles, the Flood Boundary-Floodway Map and the water surface elevation of the base flood . FLOODPLAIN: The area defined by the most current 100 year flood hazard elevation (1% chance of flooding in any given year) as described within the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development - Federal Insurance Administration , Flood Insurance Study for the City of Niles, Michigan. FLOODWAY: The channel of a river or the water course and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water stJrface elevation more than .01 foot. GROSS FLOOR AREA (FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING REQUIREMENTS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING AND OFF-STREET LOADING): The floor area shall mean the sum of the gross horizontal area of the several floors of the buildings or portion thereof, devoted to such use, including accessory storage areas located within selling or working space, such as counter, rack or closets, and any basement floor area devoted to retailing activities to the production of goods or to business or professional offices . HOWEVER, floor area for the purpose of measurement of off-street parking spaces shall not include floor area devoted primarily to storage purposes. The following areas shall not be included for the purpose of measurement of off-street parking spaces. 1) Floor area devoted to off-street parking or loading facilities , including aisles, ramps , and maneuvering space. �2) Basement floor area other than area devoted to retailing or service activities or the production or processing of goods, or the business or professional offices. FREEWAY: A major highway having no intersections at grade and having fully controlled access, hence "free" from conflicts and interruptions. FRONTAGE: All the property fronting on one side of a street between the nearest intersecting streets or between a street and a right-of-way, waterways or other similar barrier. GARAGE, BUS: Any building used or intended to be used for the storage of three or more passenger motor buses or motor coaches used in public transportation including school buses. GARAGE, PRIVATE: Any accessory building or an accessory portion of the principal building in which is intended for and used to store the private passenger vehicles of the family or families resident on the premises, and in which no business, service or industry connected directly or indirectly with the automotive vehicles is carried on ; provided that not more than one-half of the space may be rented for the private vehicles of persons not resident on the premises, except that all the space in a garage of one or two car capacity may not be so rented. Such a garage shall not be used for ·more than two commercial vehicles and the load capacity of such vehicles shall not exceed two and one-half tons. GARAGE, PUBLIC: A building other than a private garage used for the care, incidental serving and sale of automobile supplies or where motor vehicles are parked or stored for renumeration, hire or sale within the structure but not including trucks, tractors, truck trailers and commercial vehicles exceeding one and one-half tons capacity. GOLF COURSE: Public, semi-public, or private grounds over which the game of golf is played, including accessory buildings and land uses incidental thereto, and consisting of at least forty-five (45) acres for each standard nine-hole course and twenty-five (25) acres for each nine hole "par 3" course. GRADE, STREET: The elevation of the established street in front of the building measured at the center of such front. Where no street grade has been established, the County or authorized engineer shall establish such street grade or its equivalent for the purpose of this section. GROUND FLOOR AREA: An occupation or profession carried on by an occupant of a dwelling unit as a secondary use which is incidental to the use of the dwelling unit for residential purposes. HEDGE: A vertical, row-like obstruction consisting of living vegetation, excluding trees, which is cultivated and maintained for pleasing appearance and serves as an enclosure for limited access to and from real property. �HOME OCCUPATION: An occupation or profession carried on by an occupant of a dwelling as a secondary use which is incidental to the use of the dwelling unit as a residence. HOSPITAL OR SANITARIUM: An institution devoted primarily to the maintenance and operation of facilities for the diagnosis, treatment or care for not less than twenty-four (24) hours in any week of three (3) or more non-related individuals suffering from illness, disease, injury, deformity or other abnormal physical or mental conditions. HOTEL, APARTMENT: A hotel in which at least ninety (90) percent of the hotel accommodation are for occupancy by the permanent guests. An apartment hotel having not less than fifty (50) guest rooms may have a dining room open to the public which is accessible only from an inner lobby or corridor. HOTEL, MOTEL, INN OR AUTO COURT: An establishment containing lodging accommodations. HOUSEHOLDER: The occupant of a dwelling unit who is either the owner or lessee thereof. KENNEL, COMMERCIAL: Any lot or premises or portion thereof on which more than four (4) dogs, cats or other household domestic animals over four (4) months of age are kept, or on which more than two (2) such animals are boarded for compensation or kept for sale. LABORATORY, COMMERCIAL: A place devoted to experimental study such as testing and analyzing. Manufacturing, assembly or packaging or products is not included within this definition. LOADING SPACE: Any off-street space or berth on the same lot with a building or contiguous to a group of buildings, for the temporary parking (less than 24 hours) of a commercial vehicle while loading or unloading merchandise or materials. LODGING OR ROOMING HOUSE: A building with the owner in residence with not more than five (5) guest rooms where lodging is provided for compensation pursuant to previous arrangement, but not open on a daily, overnight or per meal basis to transient guest. LOT: For the purpose of this Ordinance, a lot is a parcel of land of at least sufficient size, exclusive of areas under water, to meet minimum zoning requirements for use, coverage and area, and to provide such yards and other open spaces as are herein required. The word lot includes the words plot and parcel. Such lot shall have frontage on a recorded public or private street. In no case of division or combination shall any new or residual lot or parcel be created which does not meet the requirements of the Ordinance. LOT COVERAGE: The area of a zoning lot occupied by the principal building or buildings and accessory buildings. �The creation of a Lot of Record as defined in this Ordinance on a premises or parcel of land by the proprietor thereof, or by his successors or assigns, where the act of creating a Lot of Record creates five (5) or more Lots of Record each of which is ten (10) acres or less in area are created by successive acts within a period of ten (10) years shall be deemed subdividing as defined in Act 288 or 1967 and ·the Ordinances of the City of Niles. LOT TYPES: The diagram below illustrates terminology used in this Ordinance with reference to corner lots, interior lots, through lot and reverse corner lots: In the diagram, A = corner lot, defined as a lot located at the intersection of two (2) or more streets. A lot abutting on curved street or streets shall be considered a corner lot if straight lines drawn from the foremost points of the side lot lines to the foremost point of the lot meet on an interior angle or less than one hundred thirty (130 degrees. See lots marked A (1) in the diagram. B = interior lot, defined as a lot other than a corner lot with only one (1) street. Through lots abutting two (2) streets may be referred to as double frontage lots. C = through lot, defined as a lot other than a corner lot with frontage on more than one (1) street. Through lots abutting two (2) streets may be referred to as double frontage lots. D = reverse corner lot, defined as a corner lot, the rear of which abuts upon the side of another lot, whether across an alley or not. MANUFACTURE: The production, making or processing of products or commodities for general consumption of the public or for sale to specialized institutions or organizations. Also included is the subassembly, fabrications, or processing of parts or components for use in other products or commodities. MARINA: Any place where one or more boats are berthed or moored except where a property owner berths or moors his own personal boat only. A complete marina will normally have facilities or berthing, securing and servicing all types of recreational water craft, as well as providing adequate supplies, provisions, storage, fueling and launching facilities . The following facilities may, therefore, be provided in a complete marina: Recreational Facilities; Park and Picnic Grounds; Marina and Hardware Supply Store; Boat Handling Equipment; Fuel Station; Repair and Maintenance Shops ; Boat Gear and Storage; Launching Facilities ; Restaurant; Club House; Motel or Boatel ; Commercial Stores; Spectator Area; Pedestrian Area; Automobile Parking ; Lockers and Sanitary Facilities. Provided , however, that a permit for special use as a marina shall not include the right to use the property for any of the above purposes unless it is expressly provided for in the application and the special use permit, after full compliance with the requirements for securing a special use permit as provided for in Article XIII of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Niles. �MARQUEE OR CANOPY: A rooflike structure of a permanent nature which projects from the wall of a building and may overhang the sidewalk and is designed and intended to protect pedestrians from adverse weather conditions. MOBILE HOME: A structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is built on a chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling with or without permanent foundation, when connected to the required utilities, and includes the plumbing, heating, air conditions, and electrical systems contained in the structure. Mobile home does not include a recreational vehicle. MOBILE HOME PARK: Any parcel or tract of land licensed and regulated under provisions of the State Mobile Home Park Act, being Act 419 of the Public Acts of 19767, as amended, under the control of any person, upon which three (3) or more occupied mobile homes are harbored on a continual or nonrecreational basis, or which is offered to the public for that purpose, regardless of whether a charge is made therefore, together with any building, structure, enclosure, street, equipment or facility used or intended for use incident to the harboring or occupancy of mobile homes. f MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION: A "subdivision" as defined by the State Subdivision Control Act, being Act 288 of the Public Acts of 1967, as amended, which has been expressly established for the sole purpose of selling lots on which mobile homes may be used and occupied for residential purposes, and which has been established in full compliance with all applicable provision of the aforementioned Act and of all other applicable State, County, and City regulations. MOTOR FREIGHT TERMINAL: A building in which freight, brought to said building by motor truck is assembled and sorted for routing is either interstate or intrastate shipment by motor truck. NAME PLATE: A sign indicated the name and address of a building or the same of an occupant thereof, and the practice of a permitted occupation therein. NET SITE AREA: rights-of-way. The area of a zoning lot, parcel or tract, excluding boundary NON-CONFORMING USE: Any building, structure or land lawfully occupied by a use or lawfully established at the time of the adoption of the Ordinance or amendments thereto, which does not conform after the passage of the Ordinance or amendments thereto with the use regulations of the Ordinance . NOXIOUS MATTER: Material which is capable of causing injury to living organisms by chemical reaction or is capable of causing detrimental effe8ts upon the psychological, social or economic well being of human beings. �NON-CONFORMING USE: Any building, structure or land lawfully occupied by a use or lawfully established at the time of the adoption of the Ordinance or amendments thereto, which does not conform after the passage of the Ordinance or amendments thereto with the use regulations of the Ordinance. NOXIOUS MATTER: Material which is capable of causing injury to living organisms by chemical reaction or is capable of causing detrimental effects upon the psychological, social or economic well being of human beings. NURSERY, CHILD-CARE: An establishment for the part-time care of five or more children of pre-elementary school age in addition to the members of the family residing therein. All child care nurseries must comply with all governmental licensing regulations. NURSING HOME OR REST HOME: A commercial establishment for the care of children or the aged or infirm, or a place of rest for those suffering bodily disorders but not including facilities other than for physical care. All nursing homes must comply with all governmental licensing regulations. OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE: A certificate issued by the Building Inspector stating the occupancy and use of land or a building or structure referred to therein complies with the provisions of this Ordinance. OPEN SALES LOT: A lot or parcel of land used or occupied for the purpose of buying, selling, or trading of all goods and commodities and including the storage of same prior to sale or exchange. ORDINANCE: The City of Niles Zoning Ordinance. PARKING AREA, PRIVATE: An open, hard surfaced area, macadam base and bituminous top, other than a street or public way intended to be used for the storage of passenger automobiles and commercial vehicles under one and one-half tons capacity, and available to the public, whether for compensation, fee or as an accommodation to clients or customers. PARKING FACILITY: An off-street parking strip, driveway, garage, or combination thereof which provides parking spaces, accessory to a principal use. PARKING SPACE, OFF-STREET: A space adequate for parking an automobile with room for opening doors on both sides, together with properly related access to a public street or alley and maneuvering room. Required off-street parking areas for three (3) or more automobiles shall have individual spaces marked, and shall be so designed, maintained and regulated that no parking or maneuvering incidental to parking shall be on any street, walk, or alley and so that any automobile may be parked and unparked without moving another. Each parking space shall comprise a net area of at least 10 feet by 20 feet. For purposes of rough computation, an off-street parking space and necessary access and maneuvering room may be estimated at 300 square feet, but off-street parking requirements will be considered to be met only when actual spaces meeting the requirements above are provided and maintained, improved in a manner appropriate to the circumstances of the case, and in accordance with all ordinances and regulations of the City. PLANNING COMMISSION: The City of Niles Planning Commission. 12 �PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: A tract of land which is planned as a whole for development under single ownership or control and which, by virtue of such unified planning and development, provides greater amenities, convenience or other benefits than normally would be had through the development, adequate provision shall be made for basic community facilities such as schools, parks, playgrounds and churches, among others. The minimum area for a planned unit development shall be: a) b) c) d) for for for for residential .... 3 acres; business ........ 3 acres; industrial... .. 10 acres; government.. .... 2 acres; PRINCIPAL USE: The main use of land or buildings as distinguished from a subordinate or accessory use. PUBLIC OPEN SPACE: Any publicly owned open area including but not limited to the following: parks, playgrounds, forest preserves, benches, waterways, parkways and streets. PORCH: A roofed-over structure, projecting out from the wall or walls or a main structure and commonly open to the weather in part. PUBLIC UTILITY: Any person, firm or corporation duly authorized to furnish under public regulation to the public electricity, gas, steam, telephone, transportation or water. RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY: A strip of land with tracks and auxiliary facilities for track operation, but not including depth leading platforms, stations, train sheds, warehouses, car shops, car yards, locomotive shops, water towers, etc. RESTAURANT, DRIVE-IN: An establishment designed or operated to serve a patron while seated in an automobile parked in an off-street parking space. ROADSIDE STAND: A structure used or intended to be used solely by the householder, owner or tenant of the parcel on which such structure is located for the sale of the farm products raised on such parcel. SIGN, CHURCH BULLETIN BOARDS: A sign attached to the exterior of a church or located elsewhere on the church premises, used to indicate the services or activities of the church and including its name, it desired. SIGN, FLASHING: Any illuminated sign of which the artificial light is not maintained stationary or constant in intensity and color at all times when such sign is in use. For the purpose of this Ordinance, any revolving illuminated sign shall be considered a flashing sign. SPECIAL USE: A Special Use is a use that would not be appropriate generally or without restriction throughout the zoning district but which, if controlled as to number, area, location or relation to the neighborhood, would promote the public health, safety, welfare, morals, order, comfort, convenience, appearance, prosperity or general welfare. Such uses may be permitted upon the issuance of a Special Use Permit by the City Council in such zoning district as a Special Use, if specific provision for such Special Use is made in this Ordinance. STABLE, PRIVATE: Any building which is located on a lot on which a dwelling is located and which is designed, arranged, used or intended to be used for housing horses for the private use of occupants of the dwelling. 13 �STACKING REQUIREMENTS: For the purposes herein, stacking requirements are the number of cars that must be accommodated in a reservoir space while awaiting ingress or egress to specified business or service establishments. STORY: That portion of a building included between the surface of any floor and the surface of the floor above it, or if there is no floor above then the space between the floor and the ceiling next to it. Any portion of a story exceeding fourteen (14) feet in height shall be considered as an additional story for each fourteen (14) feet or fraction thereof. STORY, HALF: A half-story is that portion of a building under a gable, hip or mansard roof, the wall plates of which on at least two opposite exterior walls are not more than four (4) and one half (1/2) feet above the finished floor of each story. In the case of onefamily dwellings less than three (3) stories in height, a half-story in a sloping room shall not be counted as a story. STREETS: A public way other than an alley which affords a primary means of access to abutting property. STREET LINE: A line separating a lot, piece or parcel of land from a street. STRUCTURE: Anything constructed or erected which requires location on the ground or is attached to something having location on the ground including a fence or freestanding wall. A sign or other advertising medium, detached or projected shall be construed to be a structure. STRUCTURAL ALTERATIO NS: See ALTERATIONS, STRUCTURAL. SWIMMING CLUB, PRIVATE (COMMERCIAL): A private club operated for profit, maintaining and operating a swimming pool and apparatus and equipment pertaining to the swimming pool with specified limitations upon the number of members for the exclusive use of members and their guests. SWIMMING POOL, COMMERCIAL: A swimming pool and the apparatus and equipment pertaining to the swimming pool, operated for profit, open to the public upon payment of an hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, annual or other fee. SWIMMING POOL, PRIVATE: A swimming pool and the apparatus and equipment pertaining to the swimming pool, maintained by an individual for the sole use of his household and his guests, without charge for admission and not for the purpose of profit, located on a lot as an accessory use to a residence. SWIMMING POOL, PUBLIC: A swimming pool and the apparatus and equipment pertaining to the swimming pool, maintenance and operated by a municipality or other units of government for the general public whether or not an admission fee is charged. TAVERN OR LOUNGE: A building where liquors are sold to be consumed on the premises but not including restaurants where the principal business is serving food. TOXIC MATERIAL: A substance (liquid, solid or gaseous) which by reason of an inherent deleterious property, tends to destroy life or impair health. TRAILER: A vehicle with or without motive power used to adaptable for living, sleeping, business or storage purpose, having no foundation other than wheels, clocks, skids, jacks, horses or skirting, which does not meet the building code requirements and has been or reasonably may be equipped with wheels or other devices for transporting the structure form place to place. The term "trailer'' includes "camp car" and "horse car". A 14 �permanent foundation shall not change its character nor shall the erecting of additions to said trailer unless the trailer itself and any additions thereto conform to all City laws. TRAILER SALES AREA: An open area, other than a street, used for the display or sale of new or used trailers, and where no repair work is done except for minor incidental repair of trailers to be displayed and sold on the premises. TRAILER, SPORTS OR CAMPING: A vehicle designed to be used primarily for recreational purposes, including temporary sleeping quarters and/or cooking facilities, or a unit designed to be attached to vehicle and used for such purposes, including selfpropelled motor homes, pickup campers, travel trailers and tent trailers. TRAILER, UTILITY: See UTILITY, VEHICLES AND TRAILERS. TRUCK PARKING AREA OR YARD: Any land used or intended to be used for the storage, parking of trucks, trailers, tractors and including commercial vehicles, while not loading or unloading which exceeds one an one-half tons in capacity. USE: The purpose for which land or building is designed, arranged or intended or for which it is occupied or maintained, let or leased. USE, PRINCIPAL: The main use of land or buildings as distinguished from a subordinate or accessory use. UTILITY, VEHICLES -- TRAILERS: Trucks and trailers available on a rental basis. VARIANCE: A variance is a relaxation of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance where such variances will not be contrary to public interest and where, owing to conditions peculiar to the property and not the results of the actions of the applicant, a literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary and undue hardship. As used in this Ordinance, a variance is authorized only for height, area, and size of structure of size of yards and open space. Establishment or expansion of a use, otherwise prohibited, shall not be allowed by variance nor shall a variance be granted because of the presence of non-conformities in the zoning district or uses in an adjoining zoning district. VEHICLE SALES LOT (WITH OR WITHOUT MOTOR POWER): A zoning lot on which used or new cars, trailers or trucks are displayed in the open for sale or trade. YARD: A required open space, between a lot line and a structure or group of structures, other than a court, unoccupied and unobstructed by any structure or portion of a structure, except as provided within this Ordinance provided however, that fences, walls, poles an other customary yard accessories, ornaments, and furniture may be permitted in any yard subject to height limitations and requirements limiting obstruction of visibility. YARD, FRONT: A front yard extending between side lot lines across the front of a lot adjoining a public street; or in the case of water front lots, which shall be considered as trough lots, an public street on one frontage and the water front on the other frontage. In the case of through lots, unless the prevailing front yard pattern on adjoining lots indicates otherwise, front yards shall be provided on all frontages. Where one of the front yards that would normally be required on a through lot is not in keeping with the prevailing yard pattern, the Zoning Administrator may waive the requirement for the normal front yard and substitute therefore a special yard requirement which shall not exceed the average of the yards provided on adjacent lots. 15 �YARD, SIDE: A yard extending from the rear line of the required front yard to the front line of the required rear yard. In the case of through lots, side yards shall extend between the rear lines of the required front yards. WIDTH OF REQUIRED SIDE YARD: Shall be measured in such a manner that the yard established is a strip of the minimum width required by the district regulations with the inner edge parallel with the side lot line. YARD, REAR: The yard extending across the rear of a lot between side lot lines. DEPTH OF A REQUIRED REAR YARD: Shall be measured in such a manner that the yard established is a strip of the minimum width required by the district regulations with the inner edge parallel with the rear lot line. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Where the term "Zoning Administrator" is used, it shall mean the Zoning Administrator, Administrative Official appointed by the City of Niles City Council and such deputies or assistants as have been or shall be duly appointed. That officer is hereby authorized and it is his duty to administer and enforce the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, making such determinations, interpretations and orders as are necessary thereof and with applications for permits as are necessary for him to judge compliance with the Ordinance. ZONING LOT: A single tract of land within a single block which (at the time of filing for building permit) is designated by its owner or developer as a tract to be used, developed or built upon as a unit under single ownership or control. Therefore, a zoning lot may or may not coincide with a lot of record. ZONING MAP: The map incorporated herein as a part hereof, designating zoning districts. 16 �ARTICLE IV SUPPLEMENTARY DISTRICT REGULATIONS Section 4.01 = Scope of Regulations CHANGE IN STRUCTURES OR USE: Except as may otherwise be provided, all buildings erected hereafter, all uses of land or buildings, all structural alterations or relocation of existing buildings, and all enlargements of or additions to existing uses, shall be subject to all regulations herein which are applicable to the zoning district in which such buildings uses or land shall be located. Section 4.02 =Use and Bulk Regulations 1. USE: No building, structure or land shall be used or occupied and no building or part thereof or other structure shall be erected, raised, moved, reconstructed , extended, enlarged or altered except in conformity with regulations herein specified for the district in which it is located. 2. BULK: All new buildings and structures shall conform to the building regulations established herein for the district in which each building shall be located, except that parapet walls, stacks and necessary mechanical appurtenances shall be permitted to exceed the maximum height provisions when erected in accordance with all other ordinances of the City of Niles. Section 4.03 = Dwellings on Small Lots 1. When two (2) or more parcels of land, each of which lack adequate area and dimension to qualify for a permitted use under the requirements of the use district in which they are located are contiguous and are held in one ownership, they shall be used as one zoning lot for such use. 2. Notwithstanding the limitations imposed by any other provision of this ordinance, a dwelling may be erected on any lot platted prior to the passage of this ordinance on an area or width smaller than that required for a one-family dwelling, except that such lot shall not be less than forty (40) feet in width. The dwelling shall conform to the building height, yard widths, lot coverage, building size and off-street parking requirements of the district in which it is located. Section 4.04 = Lot Coverage 1. MAINTENANCE OF YARD, COURTS AND OTHER OPEN SPACE: The maintenance of yards, courts and other open spaces and minimum lot are required for a building shall be a continuing obligation of the owner of such building or of the property of which it is located, as long as the building is in existence. No legally required yards, courts, or other open space or minimum lot area allocated to any building, shall be virtue of change of ownership or for any reason be used to satisfy yard, court or other open space or minimum lot area requirements for any other building. 2. LOCATION OF REQUIRED OPEN SPACE: All yards, courts and other open spaces allocated to a building or dwelling group shall be located on the same zoning lot as such building or dwelling group. 1 �3. REQUIRED YARDS FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS: No yards now or hereafter provided for a building existing on the effective date of the Zoning Ordinance shall subsequently be reduced below or further reduced below if already less than the minimum yard requirements of the Ordinance for equivalent new construction. 4. PERMITTED OBSTRUCTION IN REQUIRED YARDS: The following shall not be considered to be obstructions when located in the required yards as specified: a) IN ALL YARDS: 1) Open terraces not over four (4) feet above the average level of the adjoining ground, but not including permanently roofed-over terrace or porch; 2) Awnings and canopies but not projecting more than ten (10) feet and at least seven (7) feet above the average level of the adjoining ground; 3) Steps, four (4) feet or less above grade which are necessary for access to a permitted building or for access to a zoning lot from a street or alley; 4) Chimneys projecting eighteen (18) inches or less into the yard; 5) Arbors, trellises, flag poles, fountains, sculptures, plant boxes and other similar ornamental objects; 6) Fences and walls not exceeding four (4) feet in height above natural grade level in front yards and not exceeding six (6) feet in height in side and rear yards; and open type fences exceeding six (6) feet in any side yard provided that visibility through any surface of such fence not be reduced by more than forty (40) percent. b) IN FRONT YARDS: One story suspended bay windows projecting three (3) feet or less into the yards; and overhanging eaves and gutters projecting three (3) feet or less into the yard. c) IN REAR YARDS: Enclosed, attached or detached off-street parking spaces, open off-street parking spaces, accessory shed, tool rooms and similar buildings or structures for domestic or agricultural storage; balconies, breezeways and open porches; one story bay windows projecting three (3) feet or less into the yard. In any residential district, no accessory building shall be nearer than five (5) feet to the side lot line nor nearer than five (5) feet to the rear lot line nor nearer than ten (10) feet to any principal building unattached; d) IN SIDE YARDS: Overhanging eaves and gutters projecting into the yard for a distance not exceeding forty (40) percent of the required yard width, but in no case exceeding four (4) feet. 2 �5. VISION CLEARANCE -- CORNER LOTS: No building or structure hereafter erected and no planting or other obstruction to the vision of persons lawfully using the public streets shall be located: a) In any residential district exceeding a height of three (3) feet above the street grade within twenty-five (25) feet of the intersecting street right of way lines bordering corner lots; and b) In any manufacturing district within twenty-five (25) feet of the intersecting street lines bordering a corner lot. Section 4.05 =Access to Public Streets Except as otherwise provided for herein, every building shall be constructed or erected upon a lot or parcel of land which abuts upon a public street, unless a permanent easement of access to a public street was of record prior to the adoption of the Ordinance. Section 4.06 = Number of Buildings on g Zoning Lot Except in the case of a planned development, not more than one (1) principal detached residential building shall be located on a residential lot, nor shall a principal detached building be located on the same zoning lot with any other principal building. For acces§Q!Y buildings, see Section 4.08 of this Ordinance. Section 4.07 = Rezoning of Public and Semi-Public Areas A area indicated on the zoning map as a public park, recreation area, public school site, cemetery or other similar open space, shall not be used for any other purpose than that designated and when the use of the area is discontinued, it shall automatically be zoned to the most restricted adjoining district until appropriate zoning is authorized by the City Council within three (3) months after the day of application filed for rezoning. Section 4.08 =Accessory Buildings 1. LOCATION: Any accessory building or buildings shall be located on the same zoning lot with the principal building. Accessory buildings shall be located in required rear yard. When a side yard is required, no part of any accessory building shall be located closer than three (3) feet to the side lot line along such side yard. When a rear yard is required, no part of an accessory building shall be located closer than three (3) feet to the rear lot line or to those portions of the side lot lines abutting such required rear yard. In a residential district, no detached accessory building shall be closer than ten (1 O) feet to the principal building. No accessory building shall be located in front of the front building line of the principal building on any residential zoning lot. 2. NUMBER: Except in the case of a planned development, not more than one (1) accessory building shall be located on a residential lot nor shall an accessory building be located on a lot with any other accessory building. 3. TIME OF CONSTRUCTION: No accessory building or structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the start of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory. 3 �4. PERCENTAGE OF REQUIRED REAR YARD OCCUPIED: No accessory building or buildings shall occupy more than twenty-five (25) percent of the area of a required yard, plus forty (40) percent of any non-required yard, provided that in no instance shall the accessory building exceed the ground floor area of the main building. 5. HEIGHT OF ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IN REQUIRED REAR YARDS: No accessory building or portion thereof located in a required rear yard shall exceed fifteen (15) feet in height. 6. ON REVERSED CORNER LOTS: On a reversed corner lot in a residential district, no accessory building or portion thereof located in a required rear yard shall be closer to the side lot line abutting the street than the required front yard on the adjacent lot to the rear. Further, in the above instance, no such accessory building shall be located within three (3) feet of any part of a rear lot line which coincides with a side lot lien or portion thereof of property in a residential district. 7. Where the accessory building is structurally attached to a main building, it shall be subject to, and must conform to, all regulations of this ordinance applicable to the main building. 8. In no instance shall an accessory building be located within a dedicated easement right-of-way. 9. Where an accessory building such as a garage is entered from an alley, it must be kept ten (10) feet from the alley line. Section 4.09 = Accessory Uses 1. Customary home occupations are permitted as an accessory to residential use or occupancy, but only to the extent authorized by this ordinance in the Home Occupation Section (4.11). 2. Accessory uses to a gas station are limited to lubrication, changing oil and filters, changing and repair of tires and tubes, engine tune-up, hand washing and polishing without automatic equipment and replacement of light bulbs, windshield wiper blades and other parts, and does not include steam cleaning, body repairs or painting. 3. When a accessory building in any zoning district is intended for a use which is not incidental and subordinate to the principal use, the accessory use shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. 4. Coin or token operated amusements, pool tables, pinball machines, video games and other similar devices may be permitted as an accessory use to other customary commercial uses provided such amusements are and remain clearly incidental and subordinate to the principal use as to floor space utilized by said amusements or dollar volume generated. Section 4.10 =Temporary Buildings Temporary buildings for construction purposes may be allowed in any district for a period not to exceed the completion date of such construction. Section 4.11 = Home Occupations Home occupations shall be allowed only by Special Use Permit in conformance with the 4 �following regulations: 1. No person other than members of the family residing on the premises shall be engaged in such family occupation. 2. The use of the dwelling unit for the home occupation shall be clearly incidental and subordinate to its use for residential purpose by its occupants, and not more than twenty-five (25) percent of the floor area of the dwelling unit shall be used in the conduct of the home occupation. 3. There shall be no change in the outside appearance of the building or premises or other visible evidence of the conduct of such home occupation other than one (1) sign, not exceeding one hundred (100) square inches in area, non-illuminated, and mounted flat against the wall of the principal building. 4. No traffic shall be generated by such home occupation in greater volume than would be normally expected in a residential neighborhood, and any need for parking generated by the conduct of such home occupation shall be met off the street and other than in a required front yard. 5. No equipment or process shall be used in such home occupation which creates noise, vibration, glare, fumes, odors or electrical interference detectable to the normal senses off the lot. In the case of electrical interference, no equipment or process shall be used which creates visual or audible interference in any radio or television receivers off the premises or causes fluctuations in line voltage off the premises. 6. Home occupations may include the use of premises by a physician, surgeon, dentist, lawyer, clergyman or other professional person for consultation or emergency treatment, but not for the general practice of his profession. 7. There shall be no sales of goods on the premisis in connection with the home occupation. Section 4.12 = Existing Special Uses Where a use is classified as a special use and exists as a permitted use at the date of the adoption of this Ordinance, it shall be considered a legal use, without further action of the City Council, the Planning Director, the Zoning Board or the Planning Commission. Section 4.13 = Uses Not Specifically Permitted in Districts When a use is not specifically listed in the sections devoted to Permitted Uses or Special Uses, it shall be assumed that such uses are hereby expressly prohibited unless by a written decision of the Zoning Board. If it is determined that said use is similar to and not more objectionable than uses listed, then such uses may be permitted. Section 4.14 = Exterior Lighting All lighting for parking areas or for the exterior illumination of buildings or grounds or for the illumination of signs shall be directed away from and shall be shielded from adjacent residential districts and shall also be so arranged as to not affect driver visibility adversely on adjacent thoroughfares. 5 �Section 4.15 = Exceptions to Height Regulations The height limitations contained in this Ordinance sh.all not apply to spires, belfries, cupolas, water tanks, silos, ventilators, chimneys, or their appurtenances usually required to be placed above the roof level and not intended for human occupancy. Height requirements for antennas are contained in Section 4.23 of this Article. Section 4.16 =Swimming Pools Any swimming pool shall meet location requirements of an accessory structure and comply with provision of Chapter , Code of Ordinances. Section 4.17 = Outdoor Storage in Residential Districts The outdoor storage or parking of any airplane, antique or racing automobile, boat, float, raft, trailer, trailer coach, camping trailer, motorized home, pickup truck camper and other equipment or vehicles of similar nature shall be permitted provided the following minimum conditions are met: 1) All such vehicles or equipment shall be placed within a completely enclosed building or be located behind the front face of the principal building, but no closer than three (3) feet to any side or rear lot line. 2) Visual screening from nearby property and streets of all such vehicles or equipment not placed within a completely enclosed building is encouraged. 3) Storage or parking shall be limited to a lot or parcel of land upon which is located an inhabited dwelling unit and the vehicle or equipment is owned by the occupant. 4) Trailer coaches and other vehicles or equipment intended or adaptable for sleeping purposes shall remain unoccupied and shall not be connected to sanitary sewer facilities, or have a fixed connection to electricity, water, or gas. Section 4.18 = Front Yard 1. Where forty percent (40%) or more of the frontage on the same side of a street between two intersecting streets is developed with buildings that have (with a variation of five (5) feet or less) a front yard greater in depth than herein required, new buildings shall not be erected closer to the street than the front yard so established by the existing building. 2. Where forty percent {40%) or more of the frontage on one side of a street between two intersecting streets is developed with buildings that do not have a front yard as described above, then: the minimum front yard shall be a line drawn between the two (2) closest front corners of the adjacent building on each side. Section 4.19 1. =Corner Lot Prior to construction on, or improvement to, a corner lot, the Zoning Administrator shall designate which street frontage shall be the front lot line of the lot. The Zoning Administrator shall consider ingress, egress, sight lines, and applicable standards in this ordinance in making the designation. 6 �2. Every corner lot in a residential district having on its side street an abutting interior lot, shall have minimum setbacks from both streets equal to the minimum required front setback of the district in which it is located; provided, however, that this does not reduce the buildable width of any lot of record to less than twentyfive (25) feet. 3. The rear lot line shall be that lot line opposite the designated front lot line. Section 4.20 = Landscaping Provisions 1. Not less than fifty (50) percent of any residential lot excluding that portion used for buildings, off-street parking, loading and maneuvering areas, drives and pedestrian walks, shall be landscaped with a lawn or other suitable planted ground cover which may include trees and shrubs. Such landscaping shall be appropriately maintained, and any lawn or ground cover shall not exceed a height of six (6) inches. Trees and bushes must be trimmed and maintained so as to allow safe passage for occupants and the public. 2. All zoning lots of record shall be suitably landscaped and maintained so as not to create a nuisance or violate the provisions of this or any other City ordinance. 3. Whenever pursuant to this Ordinance a greenbelt or landscaped buffer is required, it shall be planted within six (6) months from the date of issuance of a certificate of occupancy and shall thereafter be reasonably maintained with permanent plant materials to provide a screen to abutting properties. Section 4.21 1. = Fences PERMITTED FENCES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS: a) b) FRONT YARDS: 1) Any fence erected for the purpose of enclosing a front yard shall be an open fence not exceeding four (4) feet in height above natural grade. All vertical support members (posts) must not exceed the fence height by more than four (4) inches. 2) Any wall erected for the purpose of enclosing a yard shall be three (3) feet in height above the natural grade; said wall may be ventilated or solid. 3) Any hedge erected for the purpose of enclosing a front yard shall not exceed three (3) feet in height above the natural grade. 4) At no time should a fence, wall or hedge obstruct the vision of a pedestrian or motor vehicle driver or non-motorized vehicle driver to the extent that a safety hazard exists in the opinion of the Zoning Administrator. This shall apply along street or highway rights-ofway including ingress and egress facilities to real property. 5) Any fence, wall, or hedge erected for the purpose of enclosing a front yard shall not be used to house or enclose animals of any kind. SIDE YARDS: 1) Any fence erected for the purpose of enclosing a side yard may be 7 �an open fence not exceeding six (6) feet in height above the natural grade. All vertical support members (posts) must not exceed the fence height by more than four (4) inches. c) 2. 3. 4. 2) Ventilated fences, walls and/or hedges may be erected providing they do not exceed six (6) feet in height above the natural grade. All vertical support members (posts) must not exceed four (4) inches. 3) No fence, wall or hedge enclosing a side yard shall be erected within ten (1 O) feet of an established street or highway right-of-way. REAR YARDS: 1) Any fence erected for the purpose of enclosing a rear yard may be an open or ventilated, or solid fence, not exceeding six (6) feet in height above natural grade. All vertical support members (posts) must not exceed the fence height by more than four (4) inches. 2) Hedges erected to enclose rear yards must not exceed six (6) feet in height above natural grade. 3) Fences, walls or hedges within five (5) feet of any opening to a building which serves to provide light or air for persons using said building shall not be more than five (5) feet high above natural grade. PERMITTED FENCES IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS a) Fences located adjacent to a residential district or residential use shall not exceed six (6) feet in height above natural grade. b) Except in a) above, and Article IV of this Ordinance, there shall be no maximum height restriction for fences in non-residential districts, subject to site plan review. PERMITTED FENCES IN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS a) Fences located adjacent to a residential district or residential use shall not exceed six (6) feet in height and shall be erected in accordance with screening requirements determined to be necessary by the Zoning Administrator. b) Except in a) above, the Article IV of this Ordinance, there shall be no maximum height restrictions for fences industrial districts, subject to site plan review and covenant restrictions. CORNER LOTS -- VISIBILITY AT INTERSECTIONS a) On any corner lot no fence, accessory structure, plant, shrub, or similar object over three (3) feet in height shall hereafter be placed, erected, planted, or allowed to grow in the area bounded by the street lines of such corner lot and a line joining points along the right-of-way lines of such corner twenty-five (25) feet from the point of the intersection. (See Article IV, Section 4.04, #5, Vision Clearance -- Corner Lots). 8 �5. 6. FENCES PROHIBITED a) No person shall place or permit to be placed any fence with spikes, barbed wire or sharp pointed cresting, or other manmade thing dangerous and liable to snag, tear, cut or otherwise injure anyone coming in contact therewith, except that which encloses industrial property, provided it does not abut residentially zoned property. b) No person shall erect any fence, wall or hedge for the purpose of injuring the property of another by obstructing the view, shutting out the sunshine, hindering ventilation or causing inconvenience in any manner. c) No person shall erect a fence, wall, or hedge in a front yard for the purpose of enclosing animals. d) No person shall erect an electric fence containing uninsulated electric conductors that may be exposed to human contact. CONSTRUCTION: a) 7. LOCATION a) 8. Private swimming pools having a water depth of two (2) or more feet shall be separated from the remainder of the yard by a protective fence at least four (4) feet in height. The Protective enclosure shall be maintained by gates with a closing and latching device for keeping the gate or door securely closed at all times when not in actual use. Fences around swimming pools must comply with all applicable regulations regarding swimming pools. TERRACES AND SOIL RETAINING WALLS: a) 11. Any fence, wall or hedge constructed or erected in the City shall have a pleasing esthetic appearance and shall be maintained in a safe and acceptable manner. FENCES AROUND SWIMMING POOLS: a) 10. Except as herein provided, fences may be located adjacent to a lot line, but shall be constructed and located entirely on the lot of the person(s) responsible for the construction or erection of the fence. MAINTENANCE: a) 9. Construction of fences shall be completed within sixty (60) days from the start of construction. Only solid wall construction shall be permitted for the purpose of forming a terrace or soil retaining wall along property lines. When such walls are constructed, adequate and proper drainage must be provided so as to not damage neighboring property. VARIATION IN HEIGHT: a) Any variations in fence height above the natural grade of the property must b.e with the approval of the Zoning of Board Appeals. 9 �12. DOUBLE FRONTAGE LOTS: a) 13. Where double frontage lots exist, the side of the lot facing the local roadway shall be considered the front yard, and the side of the lot facing a collector or arterial roadway shall be considered the back yard, and each shall conform to all applicable requirements described herein. Where necessary, to preserve the esthetic quality of the City, the Zoning Administrator may require landscaping in conjunction with the erection of any fence. SUPPORTS: a) Section 4.22 All fences shall be constructed with any and all supporting structures or devices on the inside of the fence. = Stripping of Top Soil No person, firm or corporation shall strip, excavate, or otherwise remove top soil for sale, or for use other than on the premises from which the same shall be taken except in connection with a development project on such premises and the excavation or grading incidental thereto. Section 4.23 1. =Antennas All antennas shall be subject to the review and approval of the Building Official and Zoning Administrator. a) Antennas shall be installed and maintained in compliance with the requirements of the City's Building Code. (Uniform Building Code, latest edition) . b) Antennas that are roof-mounted shall not extend higher than fifteen (15) feet above the peak of the roof; except a single-vertical pole antenna may extend to twenty (20) feet above the peak of the roof. Disc antennas exceeding twenty-four (24) inches in diameter shall not be permitted on the roof unless an architect or engineer registered in the State of Michigan shall certify that the roof structure can support the expected structural load. c) Not more than one ground-mounted antenna exceeding forty-five (45) feet in height shall be permitted on each lot. This provision does not limit the number of antennas permitted on a zoning lot, provided each antenna erected conforms to the requirements of this Ordinance. d) Antennas shall be used for private, non-commercial purposes in residential areas. e) Antennas shall be erected or maintained to the rear of the main building, except in those instances when the subject property is a cul-de-sac or corner lot where the side yard is larger than the rear yard in which case the antenna may be located in the side yard. Antenna towers shall not be located in any required setback area. No portion of an antenna array shall extend beyond the property lines or into any front yard area. Guy wires shall not be anchored within any front yard area but may be attached to the building. 10 �f) Antennas may be roof or ground mounted, freestanding, or supported by guy wires, buildings, or other structures in compliance with the manufacturer's structural specifications. Ground mounted antennas shall be any antenna with its base mounted directly in the ground, even if such antenna is supported or attached to the wall of the building. Fixed guyed antenna towers shall be facsia-mounted or guyed according to approved standard. Wire antennas that are not self-supporting shall be supported by objects within the property lines but not with any front yard areas. g) The antenna, including guy wires, supporting structures and accessory · equipment, shall be located and designed so as to minimize the visual impact on surrounding properties and from public addition of architectural features and/or landscaping that harmonize with the elements and characteristics of the property. The materials used in constructing the antenna shall not be unnecessarily bright, shiny, garish, or reflective. h) Antennas shall meet all manufacturer's specifications. The mast or tower shall be of nonconbustible and corrosive hardware, such as brackets, turnbuckles, clips, and similar type equipment subject to rust or corrosion, shall be protected with a zinc or cadmium coating by either galvanizing or a sheradizing process after forming. These finishes are selected to guard against corrosion and to protect the elements against electrolytic action due to the use of adjoining dissimilar metals. i) Whenever it is necessary to install an antenna near power lines, or where damage would be caused by its falling, a separate safety wire must be attached to the antenna mast or tower and secured in a direction away from the hazard. Transmission inches clear of telephone or light wires. j) Every antenna must be adequately grounded, for protection against a direct strike of lightning, with an adequate ground wire. Ground wires shall be for the type approved by the latest edition of the Electrical Code for grounding masts in a mechanical manner, with as few bends as possible, maintaining a clearance of at least two (2) inches from combustible materials. Lightning arrestors shall be used that are approved as safe by the Underwriter's Laboratories, Inc. and both sides of the line must be adequately protected with proper arrestors to remove static charges accumulated on the line. When lead-in conductors of polyethylene ribbontype are used, lightning arrestors must be installed in each conductor. When coaxial cable or shielded twin lead is used for lead-in, suitable protection may be provided without lightning arrestors by grounding the exterior metal sheath. k) In no instance shall an antenna be used as a sign. 2. Prior to installa\ion of any antenna, and application shall be submitted to and approved by the Building Official and Zoning Administrator. The application shall be accompanied by the manufacturer's specifications, and a plot plan showing the location of the antenna, property and setback lines and all structures. In additions, applications for a tower or pole mounted antenna shall be accompanied by engineering data establishing the fact that the antenna conforms to the structural requirements of the Building Code. Such engineering data may include the manufacturer's engineering specifications for mounting or anchoring, or custom engineering calculations submitted by a structural or civil engineer registered by the State of Michigan. 3. All applications shall be accompanied by a ten dollar ($10.00) application fee. An 11 �application and fee shall be submitted to the Building Official for review and preliminary approval. The Building Official shall then submit the application to the Zoning Administrator for final approval. The Zoning Administrator shall notify the applicant within ten (10) working days after receipt of an application of the approval or denial of said application. 4. All antennas shall be subject to periodic reinspection. No addition, changes, or modifications shall be made to an antenna, unless the addition, change or modification is in conformity with the Building Code. Section 4.24 = Unlicensed or Inoperable Motor Vehicles No wrecked, junked, inoperable motor vehicles or vehicles without current licenses plates or tags shall be parked or stored in any zoning district unless expressly permitted by this Ordinance or stored in a completely enclosed building. Section 4.25 = Division of .§ Zoning Lot 1. Land may be partitioned or divided upon resolution adopted by the City only into not more than four (4) parts, provided that the resulting lots or parcels or combinations of portions of divided lots shall not be less in width or size than the more restrictive the City Zoning Ordinance or the Michigan Subdivision Control Act of 1967, and provided further that such resulting lots shall each have minimum frontage required feet on a public street and also have access to public utilities necessary or required to service such lot, and provided further, that all such resulting lots shall conform in all particulars to the requirements of the Michigan Subdivision Control Act of 1967 and all City Ordinances and/or Subdivision Control Ordinances of the City. The aforementioned action is also contingent upon water and sewer benefits being added to the new description. 2. A written request shall be submitted by the owner or purchaser holding a purchase Agreement to the Planning Director for a placement on the agenda of a specified Planning Commission meeting to seek a lot split. The request shall include the following information: a) Description of use of property under consideration; b) Legal description of the property before the requested change and a legal description after the requested change, if the request is approved; c) Plot plan or plat clearly identifying the property in relation to surrounding parcels, streets, and boundaries. If there are existing buildings, show setback, side yard and rear yard dimensions. For commercial or industrial property, include parking spaces plus ingress and egress drives; The Building Official may require that this plot plan or plat be prepared and sealed by a State of Michigan registered land surveyor or engineer. d) Existing and proposed location of public utilities; e) Proof of ownership or Purchase Agreement 12 �3. The Planning Director shall notify all property owners and occupants within three hundred (300) feet of the parcel in question and hold a public hearing on the request for a lot split at the above specified meeting. Thereafter, the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council on the requested lot partition. 4. The City Council may hold a public hearing on the requested lot partition. Thereafter, they shall act on the recommendation; modify same and act on the recommendation, or refer the recommendation back to the Planning Commission, with comment, for further public hearings, and recommendations. 5. The applicant or designated representative should attend the Planning Commission meeting and the City Council meetings to answer any questions that may arise. Section 4.26 = National Flood Insurance Program 1. The rules and regulations promulgated by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Insurance Administration, as published in the Federal Register Volume 41, No. 207, Tuesday, October 26, 1976, together with subsequent additions, amendments, and deletions made in accordance with the National Flood Program as constituted in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, are hereby ratified and approved. 2. A summary of rules and regulations pertaining to the National Flood Insurance Program Promulgated by the United States Department of Natural Resources prepared by the Building Official a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk is hereby approved for distribution to the general public and enforcement by the Building Official 13 �ARTICLE V NONCONFORMING LOTS, USES, AND STRUCTURES Section 5.01 = Intent 1. Within the districts established by this Ordinance or any subsequent amendments thereto, there exist lots, structures, uses of land and structures, and characteristics of use which were lawful before this Ordinance was passed or amended but which would be prohibited, regulated, or restricted under the terms of this Ordinance or future amendment. It is the intent of this Ordinance to permit these nonconformities to continue until they are removed but not to encourage their continuation. It is further the intent of this ordinance that nonconformities shall not be enlarged upon, expanded or extended, nor be used as grounds for adding other structures or uses prohibited elsewhere in the same district. 2. Nonconforming uses are declared by this Ordinance to be incompatible with permitted uses in the district involved. A nonconforming use of land or a nonconforming use of structure and land in combination shall not be extended or enlarged after passage of this Ordinance by attachment on a building or premises, or by the addition of other uses of a nature which would be prohibited generally in the district involved. 3. BUILDING PERMITS: Where a building permit for a building or structure has been issued in accordance with law, prior to the effective date of the Ordinance, and provided that construction is begun within sixty (60) days of such effective date and diligently prosecuted to completion, said building or structure may be completed in accordance with the approved plans on the basis of which the building permit was reissued, and further may, upon completion be occupied under a certificate of occupancy by the use for which it was originally designated -- subject thereafter to the provisions of this Article. Section 5.02 -- Nonconforming Uses of Land or Land with Minor Structures Only Where at the time of passage of this Ordinance lawful use of land exists which would not be permitted by the regulations of this Ordinance, and where such use involves no individual structure with a replacement cost exceeding One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), the use may be continued so long as it remains lawful, provided: 1. No such nonconforming use shall be enlarged, increased or extended to occupy a greater area of land than was occupied at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this Ordinance. 2. No such nonconforming use shall be moved in whole or in part to any portion of the lot or parcel other than that occupied by such use at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this Ordinance. 3. If any such nonconforming use of land ceases for any reason for a period of more than one (1) year, any subsequent use of such land shall conform to the regulations specified by this Ordinance for the district in which the land is located. 4. No addition structure not conforming to the requirements of this Ordinance shall be erected in connection with such nonconforming use of land. �Section 5.03 = Nonconforming Structures Where a lawful structure exists at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this Ordinance that could not be built under the terms of this Ordinance by reason of restrictions on area, lot coverage, height, yards, its location on the lot, or other requirements concerning the structure, such structure may be continued so long as it remains otherwise lawful, subject of the following provisions: 1. No such nonconforming structure may be enlarged or altered in a way which increases its nonconformity but any structure or portion thereof may be altered to decrease its nonconformity. Any building or structure which is nonconforming with respect to yards or any other bulk regulation shall not be altered or expanded in any manner which would increase the degree or extend of its conformance with respect to the bulk regulations of the district in which it is located. A nonconforming building may be enlarged or extended only if the entire building is thereafter devoted to a conforming use and then conforms to all regulations of that district. 2. Should such nonconforming structure or nonconforming portion of structure be destroyed by any means to an extend of more that fifty (50) percent of its replacement costs at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this Ordinance. In the event the damage or destruction is less than fifty (50) percent of its replacement value, the building may be restored to its original condition and the occupancy or use of such building may be continued which existed at the time of such partial destruction. Restoration or repair of the building or other structure must be started within a period of six (6) months from the date of damage or destruction and diligently prosecuted to completion. 3. Should such structure be moved for any reason for any distance whatever, it shall thereafter conform to the regulations for the district in which it is located after it is moved. Section 5.04::. Nonconforming Uses or Structures or of Structures and Premises in Combination If lawful use involving individual structures with a replacement cost of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or more, or of structure and premises in combination, exists at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this Ordinance that would not be allowed in the district under the terms of this Ordinance, the lawful use may be continued so long as it remains otherwise lawful, subject to the following provisions: 1. No existing structure devoted to a use not permitted by this Ordinance in the district in which it is located shall be enlarged, extended, constructed, reconstructed, moved, or structurally altered except in changing the use of the structure to a use permitted in the district in which it is located; 2. Any nonconforming use may be extended throughout any parts of a building which were manifestly arranged or designed for such use at the time of adoption or amendment of this Ordinance, but no such use shall be extended to occupy any additional land outside such building; 3. If no structural alterations are made, any nonconforming use of a structure, or structure and premises, may as a Special Use be changed to another nonconforming use provided the City Council either by general rule or by marking findings in the specific case, shall find the proposed use is equally appropriate or more appropriate to the district than the existing nonconforming use. In permitting such change, the City Council may require appropriate conditions and safeguards in accord with the provision of this Ordinance; �4. Any structure, or structure and land in combination, or on which a nonconforming use is superseded by a permitted use, shall thereafter conform to the regulations for the district, and the nonconforming use may not hereafter be resumed, even though the building may have been originally designed and constructed for the prior nonconforming use; 5. No nonconforming use may be extended in anyway to occupy any required open space or any land- beyond the boundaries of the zoning lot as it existed, or to displace any conforming use in the same building or on the same parcel; 6. When a nonconforming use of a structure or structure and premises in combination, is discontinued or abandoned for twelve (12) consecutive months (except when circumstances beyond the control of the owner impedes access to or occupation of the premises), the structure, or structure and premises in combination, shall not thereafter be used except in conformity with the regulations of the district in which it is located; 7. Where nonconforming use status applies to a structure and premises in combination, removal or destruction of the structure shall eliminate the nonconforming status of the land. Destruction for the purpose of this subsection is defined as damaged to an extend of more than fifty {50) percent of the replacement cost at the time of destruction. Section 5.05 = Repair and Maintenance 1. 2. In any nonconforming structure or portion of a structure containing a nonconforming use, work may be done in any period of twelve (12) consecutive months or ordinary repairs or on repair or replacement of nonbearing walls, fixtures, wiring or plumbing to an extent no to exceed fifty (50) percent of the current replacement cost of the nonconforming structure or nonconforming portion of the structure as the case may be, provided the cubic content existing when it became nonconforming shall not be increases. No structural alteration shall be made in a building or other structure containing a nonconforming use, except in the following situations: a. When the alteration is required by law; b. When the alteration will actually result in eliminating the nonconforming use; c. When a building in a residential district containing residential nonconforming uses may be altered in any way to improve livability, provided no structural alterations shall be made which would increase the number of dwelling units or the bulk of the building. If a nonconforming structure or portion of a structure containing a nonconforming use becomes physically unsafe or unlawful due to lack of repairs and maintenance and is declared by and duly authorized official to be unsafe or unlawful by reason of physical condition, it shall not thereafter be restored, repaired, or rebuilt except in conformity with the regulations of the district in which it is located. Section 5.06 = Uses Under Special Use Provisions are not Nonconforming Uses Any use which is approved by the City Council after the effective date of this Ordinance as a Special Use in district under the terms of this Ordinance in accordance with Article XIII shall not be deemed a nonconforming use in such district but shall without further action be considered a conforming use. The City Council may approve as a Special Use a use existing to the effective date of this Ordinance, subject to the limitations and conditions of this Ordinance as though such existing use were a newly initiated use, in which case the use would thereafter have the status of a conforming use as provided for above. �' Section 5.07 = Zoning Compliance Permit for Nonconforming Structures and Uses 1. In order to establish a record of lawfully existing nonconforming structures and nonconforming uses of structures and land, the Zoning Administrator shall upon application by the owner, within one (1) year of the time of passage of this Ordinance, issue a Zoning Compliance Permit for such lawfully existing nonconformance. 2. If such Zoning Compliance Permit is not so obtained, the burden of proof of the lawful existence of a nonconforming structure of use shall rest upon the owner. 3. Within six (6) months of the time of passage of this Ordinance, the Zoning Administrator shall conduct a suNey of lawfully existing nonconforming structures and nonconforming uses of structures and land and shall notify the owners of record thereof of the above conditions of this section. It is not, however, the intent of this paragraph that nonconforming structures and nonconforming uses of structures and land not included in the above described survey and notifications procedure would assume the status of conforming to the provisions of this Ordinance by virtue of omission of such notification, it being recognized that for practical reasons certain such nonconforming uses of structures and land could be missed in such survey and notification procedures described above. Section 5.08 = Change of Tenancy or Ownership There may be a change of tenancy, ownership or management of any existing nonconforming uses of land, structures and premises, provided there is not change in the nature or character of such nonconforming uses. �ARTICLE VI ZONING DISTRICTS AND MAPS Section 6.01 = Districts In order to accomplish the purpose of this Ordinance as stated in Article II, The City of Niles, Berrien County, Michigan, is hereby divided into the following districts: R-1 R-2 R-3 Single Family Residence District Two Family Residence District Multiple Family Residence District C-1 C-2 C-3 OC Local Business District Downtown Retail District Community Business District Office Commercial District 1-1 1-2 Light Industrial General Industrial District OS Open Space Conservancy District FP Floodplain Overlay District Section 6.02 = Official Zoning Map The boundaries of the zoning districts are established as shown on the map entitled 11 Official Zoning Map of the City of Niles, Berrien County, Michigan 11 ; this map is made a apart hereof, and shall have the same force and effect as if the Official Zoning Map, together with all notations, references and other information shown thereon were fully set forth and described herein. 1. The Official Zoning Map shall be identified by the signature of the mayor, attested by the City Clerk and shall bear the seal of the City under the following words: 11This is to certify that this is the Official Zoning Map referred to in Section __ of Zoning Ordinance Number of the City of Niles, Berrien County, Michigan 11 , together with the date of the adoption of this Ordinance. 2. If in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance, changes are made in district boundaries or other matter portrayed on the Official Zoning Map, such changes shall be entered on the Official Zoning Map within ten (10) days after the amendment has been approved by the City Council with a notation of the changes made and the date of action of the City Council. 3. Any unauthorized change of whatever kind by any person or person shall be considered a violation of this Ordinance and punishable provided in Article XX, Section 20.4. 4. Regardless of the existence of purported copies of the Official Zoning Map which may from time to time be made or published, the Official Zoning Map which shall be located in the City Hall shall be the final authority as to the current zoning status of land and water areas, buildings, and other structures on the City. 1 �5. 6. In the event the Official Zoning Map becomes damaged, destroyed, lost, or difficult to interpret because of the nature or number of changes and additions, the City Council may by resolution adopt a new Official Zoning Map which shall supersede the prior Official Zoning Map. The new Official Zoning Map may correct drafting or other errors or omission in the prior Official Zoning Map, but no such correction shall have the effect of amending the original Official Zoning Map or any subsequent amendment thereof. The new Official Zoning Map shall be identified by the signature of the Mayor, attested by the City Clerk and shall bear the seal of the City under the following words: "This is to certify that this Official Zoning Map supersedes and replaces the Official Zoning Map adopted {date of adoption of map being replaced) as part of Zoning Ordinance No. _ _ of the City of Niles. 11 Unless the prior Official Zoning Map has been lost, or has been totally destroyed, the prior map or any significant parts thereof remaining, shall be preserved together with all available records pertaining to its adoption or amendment. Section 6.03 = Interpretation of District Boundaries When uncertainty exists with respect to the boundaries of the various districts, as shown on the Zoning Map, the following rules shall apply: 1. Boundaries indicated as approximately following the center lines of streets, highways, or alleys shall be construed as following such center lines. 2. Boundaries indicated as approximately following property, parcel, or lot lines shall be construed as following such lines. 3. Boundaries indicated as approximately following municipal boundaries shall be construed as following such boundaries. 4. Boundaries indicated as following railroad lines shall be construed to be midway between the main tracks. 5. Boundaries indicated as following shorelines shall be construed to following such shorelines, and in the event of change in the shoreline shall be construed as moving with the actual shoreline; boundaries indicated as approximately following the center lines of streams, rivers, canals, lakes, or other bodies of water shall be construed to follow such center lines. 6. Boundaries indicated as parallel to or extensions of features indicated in Rules 1 through 5 above shall be so construed. Distances not specifically indicated on the Official Zoning Map shall be determined by the scale of the map. 7. Where physical or cultural features existing on the ground are at variance with those shown on the Official Zoning Map, or in other circumstances not covered by Rules 1 through 6 above, the Board of Appeals shall interpret the district boundaries. 8. Where a district boundary line divides a lot which was in single ownership at the time of passage of this Ordinance, the entire lot shall be construed to be within the more restricted district. 2 �Section 6.04 = Zoning of Public Ways All streets, alleys, public way, waterways and railroad rights-of-way, if not otherwise specifically designated shall be deemed to be in the same zone as the property immediately abutting on such streets, alleys, public ways and railroad right-of-way or waterways. Where the center line of a street, alley, public way, waterway or railroad right-of-way serves a district boundary, the zoning of such areas, unless otherwise specifically designated, shall be deemed to be the same as that of the abutting property up to such center line. 3 �ARTICLE VII RESIDENCE DISTRICTS Section 7.01 = Statement of Legislative Intent The Residence Districts established in this Ordinance are designed to promote and protect public health, safety, comfort, convenience, prosperity, and other aspects of the general welfare. These general goals include, among others, the following specific purposes: 1. To provide sufficient space in appropriate locations for residential development to meet the housing needs of the City's present and expected future population, with due allowance for the need for a choice of sites and building types; 2. To protect residential areas, as far as possible, against the heavy traffic and against through traffic of all kinds; 3. To protect residential areas against congestion, by regulating the density of population and the bulk of buildings in relation to the land around them and to one another, and by providing for off-street parking spaces; 4. To require the provision of open space and a maximum conservation of beach, lake front, river front and protection of ravines and watercourses in residential areas; 5. To provide for access of light and air to windows and for privacy by controls over the spacing and height of buildings and other structures; 6. To provide appropriate space for those public and private educational, recreational, health and similar facilities, which serve the needs of the nearby residents, which generally perform their own activities more effectively in a residential environment, and which do not create objectionable influences; 7. To promote the most desirable use of land and direction of building development in accord with an adopted comprehensive plan, to promote stability of residential development. Section 7.02 = R-1 Single Family Residence District 1. INTENT: To establish and preserve single family neighborhoods as desired by large numbers of people, free from other uses except these which are both compatible with and convenient to the residents of such districts, and to maintain the character and integrity of existing residential areas predominantly comprised of single family dwellings. 2. PERMITTED USES: No building and/or land shall be used, erected, or occupied except for one or more of the uses specified in Article XI, SCHEDULE OF PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES. 3. SPECIAL USES: No building and/or land shall be used, erected or occupied except for one or more of the uses specified in Article XI, SCHEDULE OF PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES. 4. OFF-STREET PARKING: Automobile parking facilities shall be provided as required or permitted in Article XII . i �5. MINIMUM LOT SIZE, DEPTH AND WIDTH: a. Every one-family detached dwelling hereafter erected shall be located on a lot having an area of not less then ten thousand (10,000) square feet, and a width at the established building line of not less than seventy-five (75) feet, and a depth of not less than one hundred (100) feet. b. All non-residential principal uses of buildings as permitted herein shall be located on a tract of land having an area of not less than ten thousand (10,000) aware feet, and a width at the established building line of not less than seventy-five (75) feet. 6. MINIMUM FLOOR LIVING AREA IN SQUARE FEET PER DWELLING: No dwelling shall be erected having a floor living area less than 1,000 square feet. The computation of floor living area shall exclude garages, breezeways and carports, and open decks and patios. 7. YARD AREAS: No building shall be erected or enlarged unless the following yards are provided and maintained in connection with such building structure or enlargement: a. Front Yard: A front yard of not less than thirty (30) feet; b. Side Yard: A side yard on each side of the main building of not less than ten (10) feet except where a side yard adjoins a street, the minimum width of such yard shall be not less than twenty (20) feet. c. Rear Yard: A rear yard of not less than twenty (20) percent of the depth of the lot; provided, however, that such rear yard shall not be less than twenty (20) feet. 8. MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE: No more than thirty-five (35) percent of the lot area may be occupied by buildings and structures including accessory buildings. 9. BUILDING HEIGHT: No building shall exceed a height of thirty-five (35) feet or two and one-half (2-1 /2) stories, whichever is lower. 10. SIGNS: All signs in the R-1 Residential District must conform to the provisions of the City of Niles Sign Ordinance. Section 7.03 = R-2 Two-Family Residence District 1. INTENT: To establish and preserve quiet neighborhoods of single and twofamily homes free from other uses except those which are both compatible with and convenient to the residents of such a district. 2. PERMITTED USES: No building and/or land shall be used, erected, or occupied except for one or more of the uses specified in Article XI, SCHEDULE OF PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES. 3. SPECIAL USES: No building and/or land shall be used, erected, or occupied except for one or more of the uses specified in Article XI, SCHEDULE OF PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES. 2 �4. OFF-STREET PARKING: Off-street parking and loading facilities shall be provided as required or permitted in Article XII. 5. MINIMUM LOT SIZES: a. Every single-family detached dwelling or two-family dwelling hereafter erected or structurally altered, shall be located on a lot having an area of not less than eight thousand (8000) square feet, and a width at the established building line of not less than sixty-five (65) feet; b. Existing residential buildings in the R-2 District may be altered to provide for not more than two (2) dwelling units , provided that no existing residential building is altered in such a way as to conflict with or further conflict with the forgoing requirements; c. Minimum lot sizes for special uses shall be prescribed at the time a special use permit is authorized, but in no case shall any such lot be less than eight thousand (8000) square feet, width at the established building line of not less than sixty-five (65) feet. 6. MINIMUM FLOOR AREA IN SQUARE FEET PER UNIT: No dwelling shall be erected having a floor living area less than 800 square feet per unit. The computation of floor living area shall exclude open decks and patios, garages, breezeways and carports. 7. YARD AREAS: No building shall be erected or enlarged unless the following yards are provided and maintained: a. Front Yard: A front yard of not less than twenty-five (25) feet deep; b. Side Yards: The minimum side yard requirements for permitted uses shall be as follows: 1. For single and two-family buildings, the side yard shall be not less than seven (7) feet; 2. For each permitted non-residential building, interior side yards on each side of the building shall not be less than seven (7) feet plus one (1) foot for each two (2) feet by which the building height exceeds fifteen (15) feet; 3. For special uses, the interior side yards shall be as specified in the special use permit, but in no case shall the interior side yards be less than seven (7) feet. 4. Minimum Corner Side Yards: ments are as follows: (a) Minimum corner side yard require- For single and two-family dwellings not less than fourteen (14) feet. 3 �c. (b) For reversed corner lots, there shall be maintained a setback from the side street of not less than fifty (50) percent of the front yard required on the lots in the rear of such corner lots. No accessory building on said reversed corner lot shall project beyond the front yard required on the adjacent lot to the rear, nor be located nearer than seven (7) feet to the side lot line of said adjacent lot; (c) For permitted non-residential uses, seven (7) feet plus one (1) foot for each two (2) feet by which the building height exceeds fifteen (15) feet; (d) For special uses, corner side yards shall be as specified in the special use permit, but in no case shall such side yards be less than seven (7) feet. Rear Yard: There shall be a rear yard of not less than twenty-five (25) feet. 8. MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE: Not more than forty percent (40%) of the lot area may be occupied by buildings and structures including accessory buildings. 9. BUILDING HEIGHT: No building shall exceed a height of thirty-five (35) feet or two and one-half (2-1/2) stories, whichever is lower. 10. SIGNS: All signs in the R-2 Residence District must conform to the provision the City of Niles Sign Ordinance. Section 7.04 = R-3 Multiple Family Residence District 1. INTENT: To provide sites for multiple family dwelling structures, and related uses which generally serve the residential needs of persons desiring an apartment-type of accommodation with central services as opposed to the residential patterns found in single and two-family residential districts. The multiple family district is further provided to serve as a zone of transition between nonresidential districts and lower density residential districts. 2. PERMITTED USES: No building and/or land shall be used, erected or occupied except for one or more of the uses specified in Article XI, SCHEDULE OF PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES. 3. SPECIAL USES: No building and/or land shall be used , erected or occupied except for one or more of the uses specified in Article XI, SCHEDULE OF PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES. 4. OFF STREET PARKING: Automobile parking facilities shall be provided as required or permitted in Article XII. 5. MINIMUM LOT SIZES: a. Every single-family detached dwelling and two-family dwelling hereafter erected shall be located on a lot having an area of not less than eight thousand (8000) square feet, a width at the established building line of not less than sixty-five (65) feet; 4 �b. All structures or buildings containing three (3) or more dwelling units shall be located on a lot which provides a minimum lot area, per dwelling unit, as follows: ~ Land Area Per Dwelling of Dwelling Unit Unit in Square Feet 4,000 3,000 2,700 2,400 2,100 More than 4 Bedrooms 4 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 2 Bedrooms 1 Bedroom & efficiency Provided, however, that in no case shall the minimum lot area be less than eight thousand (8000) square feet, with a width at the established building line of not less than sixty-five (65) feet. 6. 7. c. All non-residential permitted uses in this district shall be located on a lot having an area of not less than eight thousand (8000) square feet, with a width at the established building line of not less than sixty-five (65) feet. d. Minimum lot sizes for special uses shall be prescribed at the time a special use permit is authorized, but in no case shall any such lot be less than eight thousand (8000) square feet, with a width at the established building of not less than sixty-five (65) feet. MINIMUM FLOOR LIVING AREA IN SQUARE FEET PER UNIT: a. For single-family and two-family units: 800 square feet. b. For multiple-family units: one (1) bedroom apartments shall have a floor living area of not less than 400 feet; two bedroom apartments shall have a floor living area of not less than 500 square feet; and apartments with four or more bedrooms must add a minimum of 100 square feet per bedroom (See Rental Dwelling Ordinance) . YARD AREAS: No building shall be erected or enlarged unless the following yards are provided and maintained: a. Front Yard: A front yard of not less than twenty-five (25) feet plus one (1) additional foot of front yard for each two (2) feet over thirty (30) feet in building height. b. Side Yards: The minimum side yard requirements for permitted uses are as follows: 1) For buildings containing three (3) or more dwelling units, a side yard on each side of each building of seven (7) feet plus four (4) additional feet for each additional story above two (2) stories in height; 2) For buildings containing three (3) or more dwelling units there may not be less than fifteen (15) feet between adjacent row buildings; 3) For permitted non-residential buildings, side yards on each side of the building shall not be less than seven (7) feet plus one (1) foot 5 �(15) feet; c. 4) For special uses, side yards shall be as specified in the special use permit, but in no case shall the side yards be less than those specified for non-residential buildings in paragraph three (3) above; 5) Minimum Corner Side Yards: The minimum corner side yard requirements for permitted uses shall be not less than itemized below: a) For buildings containing three(3) or more dwelling units -ten (10) feet except that buildings fifty (50) feet for more in overall width, as projected upon the front lot line, shall have corner side yards not less than fifteen (15) percent of the building width or thirty (30) percent of the building height, whichever is greater. b) For reversed corner lots, there shall be maintained a setback from the side street of not less than fifty (50) percent of the front yard required on the lots in the rear of the corner lots. No accessory building on such reversed corner lot shall project beyond the font yard required on the adjacent lot to the rear, not be located nearer than seven (7) feet to the side lot line of said adjacent lot; c) For permitted non-residential uses, ten (10) feet plus one (1) additional foot for each two (2) feet by which the building height exceeds fifteen (15) feet. d) For special uses, corner side yards shall be as specified in the special use permit, but in no case shall such side yards be less than that specified for non-residential buildings in paragraph (c) above. Rear Yard: There shall be a rear yard of not less than twenty-five (25) feet. 8. MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE: For single and two family dwellings, the principal building shall not cover more than forty (40) percent of the lot acres provided, however, for multiple family dwellings, the principal building shall not exceed fifty (50) percent of the lot. 9. BUILDING HEIGHT: No building shall exceed a height of forty (40) feet or four (4) stories, whichever is lower. 10. SIGNS: All signs in the R-3 Residence District shall conform with the provision of the City of Niles Sign Ordinance. 6 �ARTICLE VIII BUSINESS DISTRICTS Section 8.01 =Statement of Legislative Intent The business districts established in this ordinance are designed to promote and protect public health, surety, welfare, and prosperity. These general goals include, among others, the following specific purposes: 1. To provide sufficient space, in appropriate locations, to meet the needs of the City for development of various types of commercial and service activities; 2. To provide appropriate bulk regulations, buffers and parking areas to assure compatibility with adjacent zones and minimize traffic congestion; 3. To encourage the continued orderly expansion of commercial facilities without creating increased vehicular congestion; 4. To prevent commercial encroachment on existing residential districts. 5. To promote the most desirable use of commercial land and development in accord with a comprehensive plan, to promote stability of commercial development, to strengthen the economic base of the City, to protect the character of the district and its suitability for particular uses and to conserve the value of land and buildings. Section 8.02 = C1 Local Business Districts 1. INTENT: To establish and preserve areas for those commercial facilities which are especially useful in close proximity to residential areas, while minimizing the undesirable impact of such uses on the neighborhoods which they serve. 2. PERMITTED USES: No building and/or land shall be used, erected or occupied except for one or more of the uses specified in Article XI SCHEDULE OF PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES. 3. SPECIAL USES: No building and/or land shall be used, erected or occupied except for one or more of the uses specified in Article XI SCHEDULE OF PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES. 4. CONDITIONS OF USE: A. All business establishments shall be retail or service establishments dealing directly with consumers. All goods produced on the premises shall be sold at retail on premises where produced. B. All business, servicing or processing, except for off-street parking and loading, shall be conducte_ 9 within completely enclosed buildings. 5. MINIMUM LOT SIZE: All buildings as permitted herein shall be located on a tract of land having an area of six thousand (6000) square feet, and a width at the established building line of sixty (60) feet. 6. OFF STREET PARKING: Automobile parking facilities shall be provided as required or permitted in Article XII. �2) All dwelling units shall be located above the ground floor. Residential use of the ground floor or any basement is prohibited. 6. OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING: Parking and loading facilities shall be provided as required or permitted in Article XII. 7. BUILDING HEIGHT: The height of any structure shall not exceed sixty (60) feet, except as provided herein. 8. MINIMUM LOT SIZE: No minimum provided all applicable requirements of this Ordinance are complied with. 9. YARD AREA: a. Transitional Yards: Shall be provided as in the C1 Local Business District; b. Front Yard: May build on property line, but yard must be seven (7) feet if not built on property line; c. Side Yard: May build on property line but yard must be seven (7) feet if not built on property line; d. Rear Yard: No less than seven (7) feet. 10. MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE: No more than ninety percent (90%) of the lot area may be occupied by buildings and structures including accessory structures. 11 . SIGNS All signs in the C2 Business District shall conform to the provision of the City of Niles Sign Ordinance. Section 8.04 = C3 Community Business District 1. INTENT: To establish and preserve general commercial areas consisting of shopping centers and commercial strips where customers reach individual business establishments primarily by automobile. The C3 Community Business Districts are designed to cater to the needs of a larger consumer population that is served by the other business districts. 2. PERMITTED USES: No building and/or land shall be used, erected or occupied except for one or more of the uses specified in Article XI, SCHEDULE OF PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES. 3. SPECIAL USES: No building and/or land shall be used, erected or occupied except for one or more of the uses specified in Article XI, SCHEDULE OF PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES. 4. CONDITIONS OF USE: A. All business establishments shall be retail or service establishments dealing directly with consumers. All goods provided on the premises shall be sold at retail on the premises where provided. �Future development will reinforce the districts role as the symbolic center of the community and the region with special attention to the unique setting of the district with surrounding riverfront park land, unique vistas, and complimentary development in surrounding districts. It is further the intent of this Article to strengthen the district1s economic viability by permitting with certain conditions, limited residential development of the upper floors of commercial buildings thereby allowing regulated redevelopment of otherwise functionally obsolete office space. 2. PERMITTED USES: No building and/or land shall be used, erected or occupied except for one or more of the uses specified in Article XI, SCHEDULE OF PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES. 3. SPECIAL USES: No building and/or land shall be used, erected or occupied except for one or more of the uses specified in Article XI, SCHEDULE OF PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES. 4. CONDITIONS OF USE - COMMERCIAL USES: All permitted uses in this district except residence district uses, shall be retail and shall be subject to the following conditions: 5. a. There shall be no manufacture, processing or treatment of products other than those which are clearly indicated and essential to the retail business conducted on the same premises; b. Such uses, operations or products shall not be objectionable due to odor, dust, smoke, nolse, or vibrations or other similar causes; c. All outside storage of refuse material shall be containerized. CONDITIONS OF USE -- RESIDENTIAL: a. b. Housing for the elderly in high rise structures subject to the following conditions: 1) All dwelling units shall consist of not less than three hundred fifty (350) square feet of floor area per unit (Not including kitchen and sanitary facilities); 2) Density shall not exceed fifty (50) dwelling units per acre. The area used for computing density shall be the total site area exclusive of any dedicated roads; 3) Total site coverage of all buildings sha ll not exceed thirty (30) percent of the total site exclusive of any dedicated right-of-way. Residential dwelling units are permitted provided the following standards are met: 1) Each residential dwelling unit shall contain a minimum of six hundred (600) square feet of floor area, and shall contain at least one bedroom, a living room, bathroom and kitchen. Efficiency apartments and sleeping rooms, or rooming houses are specifically prohibited . �7. BUILDING HEIGHT: The height of anystructureshall notexceedthirtyfivefeet (35'), except as provided herein. 8. YARD AREA: a. Transitional Yards: Where a C-2 District adjoins a residence qistrict, transitional yards shall be provided in accordance with the following regulations: 1) Where lots in a C-1 District front on the street and at least eighty (80) percent of the frontage directly across the street between two (2) consecutive intersecting streets is in a residence district, the front yard regulations for the residence district shall apply to the lots in the business district. 2) In a C-1 District, where a rear lot line coincides with a side or rear lot line of property in an adjacent residential district, a rear yard shall be provided equal in dimension to the minimum side yard required in the adjacent residence district. 3) In a C-1 District, where a rear lot line coincides with a side or rear lot line of property in an adjacent residential district, a rear yard shall be provided equal in dimension to the minimum side yard required in the adjacent residence district. 4) In a C-1 District, where the extension of a front or side lot line coincides with the front line of an adjacent lot located in a residence district, a yard of not less than ten (10) feet shall be provided. b. Front Yard: A front yard of not less than fifteen(15) feet; c. Side Yard: A side yard on each side of the main building of not less than seven (7) feet where the lot adjoins a residential district is a corner lot, or a side yard is to be provided. Where a lot is adjacent to another commercially zoned lot, the building may be constructed on the property line; d. Rear Yard: A rear yard of not less than fifteen (15) feet. 9. MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE: No more than fifty percent (50%) of the lot area may be occupied by buildings and structures including accessory buildings. 10. SIGNS: All signs in the C-1 Business District shall comply with the provisions of the City of Niles Sign Ordinance. Section 8.03 1. =C-2 Downtown Retail District INTENT: To implement the recommendations of the Downtown City of Niles Development Plan, establishing and preserving the downtown area as a consolidated and intensified retail shopping area. The district will be convenient and attractive for the needs of nearby office workers, for shoppers and tourists arriving by automobile and parking once to carry out several facilities and safe and convenient pedestrian travel and essential to the economic viability of the district and public safety and welfare. Commercial uses requiring individual vehicular access across sidewalks are, therefore, excluded. �B. All business, servicing or processing, except for off-street parking and loading, shall be conducted within completely enclosed buildings. 5. OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING: Parking and loading facilities shall be provided as required in Article XII. 6. BUILDING HEIGHT: The height of any building shall not exceed forty-five (45) feet. 7. MINIMUM LOT SIZE: Minimum lot area of twelve thousand five hundred (12,500) square feet. Width at front building line shall be not less than one hundred (100) feet. 8. YARD AREA: a. Transitional Yards: Shall be as provided in the C1 Local Business District. b. Front Yard: Shall not be less than twenty (20) feet. C. Side Yard: May build on property line, but side yard must be ten (1 O) feet if not on property line or corner lot. d. Rear Yard: Shall not be less than fifteen (15) feet. 9. MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE: No more than fifty percent (50%) of the lot area may be occupied by buildings and structures including accessory structures. 10. SIGNS: Signs in the C3 Business District shall conform to the requirements of the City of Niles Sign Ordinance. Section 8.05 = OC Office Commercial District 1. INTENT: The OC Office Commercial Districts are designed to accommodate office uses, office sales related commercial activities and certain basic personal services. 2. PERMITTED USES: No building and/or land shall be used, erected or occupied except for one or more of the uses specified in Article XI, SCHEDULE OF PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES. 3. SPECIAL USES: No building and/or land shall be used, erected or occupied except for one or more of the uses specified in Article XI, SCHEDULE OF PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES. 4. CONDITIONS OF USE: 5. a. All business establishments shall be retail or service establishments dealing directly with consumer. All goods provided on the premises shall be sold at retail on the premises where provided; b. All business, servicing or processing, except for off-street parking and loading, shall be conducted within completely enclosed buildings. OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING: Parking and loading facilities shall be provided as required in Article XII. �6. BUILDING HEIGHT: The height of any building shall not exceed sixty (60) feet. 7. MINIMUM LOT SIZE: No minimum, except that all applicable provision of this ordinance must be complied with. 8. YARD AREA: a. Transitional Yards: Shall be as required in the C1 Local Business District. b. Front Yard: May build on property line but front yard must be fifteen (15) feet if not built on property line. c. Side Yard: May build on property line but required side yard shall be ten (10) feet if not built on property line. d. Rear Yard: A rear yard of not less than ten (1 O) feet shall be provided. 9. MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE: No more than eighty percent (80%) of the lot may be occupied by buildings and structures including accessory structures. 10. SIGNS: Signs in the OC Office Commercial District shall conform to the requirements of the City of Niles Sign Ordinance. �ARTICLE IX INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS Section 9.01 = Statement of Legislative Intent The Industrial Districts established in this ordinance are designed to promote and protect the public health, safety, and general welfare. These general goals include, among others, the following specific purposes: 1. To provide sufficient space, in appropriate locations, to meet the needs of the City for development of various types of manufacturing and related actlvities, with due allowance for the need of a choice of sites; 2. To provide, as far as possible, that such space will be available for use for manufacturing and related activities, and to protect residences by separating them from manufacturing activities and by prohibiting the use of such space for new residential development; 3. To encourage manufacturing development which is free from danger of fire, explosions, toxic and noxious matter, radiation, and other hazards, and from offensive noise, vibration, smoke, dust, and other particulate matter, odorous matter, heat, humidity, glare, and other objectionable influences, by permitting such development in areas where this article restricts the emission of such nuisances, without regard to the industrial products and processes involved; 4. To protect adjacent residential and commercial areas, and to protect the labor force in other establishments engaged in less offensive types of manufacturing activities which involve danger of fire, explosives, toxic and noxious matter, radiation and other hazards, or create offensive noise, vibration, smoke, and other particulate matter, odorous matter, heat, humidity, glare and other objectionable influences to those limited areas which are appropriate therefore; 5. To protect manufacturing and related development against congestion, as far as is possible and appropriate in each area, by limiting the bulk of buildings in relation to the land around them and to one another, and by providing space of public streets for parking and loading facilities associated with such activities; 6. To promote the most desirable use of land and development in accord with a comprehensive plan, to promote stability of manufacturing and related development, to strengthen the economic base of the City, to protect the character of the district and its suitability for particular uses, and to conserve the value of land and buildings. Section 9.02 = l:1 Light Industrial District 1. INTENT: The 1-1 Light Industrial District is designed to primarily accommodate wholesale and warehouse activities and industrial operations whose external physical effects are restricted to the area of the districts and in no manner detrimentally effect any of the surrounding districts. The 1-1 District is structured to permit, along with any specified uses, the manufacturing, compounding, processing, packaging, assembly and/or treatment of finished or semi-finished products from previously prepared material. It is the intent of this article that the processing of raw material for shipment in bulk form, to be used in an industrial operation at another location, not be permitted. �2. PERMITTED USES: No building and/or land shall be used, erected or occupied except for one or more of the uses specified in Article XI, SCHEDULE OF PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES. 3. SPECIAL USES: No building and/or land shall be used, erected or occupied except for one or more of the uses specified in Article XI, SCHEDULE OF PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES. 4. OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING: Shall be as permitted or required in Article XII. 5. CONDITIONS OF USE: All permitted uses are subject to the following conditions: 6. a. All local , county, state and federal laws, rules and regulations must be strictly adhered to as to the emission of odor, dust, smoke, gas, noise, vibration and the like; b. All business, production, servicing, processing shall take place within completely enclosed buildings unless otherwise specified. Within one hundred and fifty (150) feet of a residence district all storage shall be in completely enclosed buildings or structures, and storage located elsewhere in this district may be open to the sky but shall be enclosed by solid walls or fences (including solid doors or gates thereto) at least six (6) feet high, and suitably landscaped. However, open off-street loading facilities and open off-street parking of motor vehicles may be unenclosed throughout the district, except for such screening of parking and loading facilities as may be required under the provision of Article XII. c. All zoning lots or tracts located in the City of Niles Industrial Park shall be subject to the provisions of the Industrial Park Covenants. In the event of a conflict between the provision of the Industrial Park Covenants and this Ordinance the provisions of the Industrial Park Covenants shall prevail. YARD AREAS: No building or structure shall hereafter be erected or structurally altered unless the following yards are provided and maintained in connection with such building: a. Front Yard: On every zoning lot, a front yard of not less than fifty (50) feet in depth shall be provided. However, where lots within the same block and comprising forth (40) percent of the frontage on the same street are already developed on the effective date of the Ordinance with front yards with an average depth shall be the required front yard depth for such frontage in said block. No industrial building or a position thereof or any accessory building in connection therewith, shall be hereafter erected in front of a building or setback line. b. Side Yards: A side yard twenty-five (25) feet deep is required except on the side of the lot adjoining a residence district, in which case there shall be a side yard of not less than forty (40) feet. c. Rear Yards: On every zoning lot there shall be a rear yard of not less than thirty (30) feet, except where a use in the 1-1 Light Industrial District is adjacent to a residence district, a rear yard shall be provided and maintained of not less than fifty (50) feet. �7. BUILDING HEIGHT: No building or structure in the 1-1 Light Industrial District shall exceed forty five (45) feet in height. 8. MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE: No building with its accessory building and accessory uses including parking facilities, driveways and roadways outside storage areas, railroad sidings, outside truck berths and other accessory uses, shall occupy in excess of seventy-five percent (75) of any lot or tract. 9. MINIMUM LOT SIZE: No minimum, except that all applicable requirements of this ordinance and the Industrial Park Covenants, if applicable, must be complied with. Section 9.03 = 1-2 General Industrial District 1. INTENT: The 1-2 General Industrial District is established to provide areas in which a wide variety of intensive industrial concerns may be located; to provide performance standards that will adequately protect the community; to provide regulations to assure adequate open space between uses, and between the boundaries of the 1-2 General Industrial District and other established uses. 2. PERMITTED USES: No building and/or land shall be used, erected or occupied except for one or more of the uses specified in Article XI, SCHEDULE OF PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES. 3. SPECIAL USES: No building and/or land shall be used erected or occupied except for one or more of the uses specified in Article XI, SCHEDULE OF PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES. 4. CONDITIONS OF USE: Permitted uses are subject to the following conditions: a. All local, county, state and federal laws, rules and regulations must be strictly adhered to as to the emission of odor, dust, smoke, gas, noise, vibration and the like. b. Within one hundred (100) feet of a residence district, production, processing, servicing and fabrication shall take place or be within completely enclosed buildings or structures unless otherwise specified. All Exterior storage within one hundred fifty (150) feet of residence district shall be enclosed with a solid wall or fence to a height of such stored materials. Off-street parking and off-street loading facilities may be unenclosed except for such screening and improvements as may be required under the provisions of Article XII. c. All zoning lots located in the City of Niles Industrial Park shall be subject to the provision of the Industrial Park Covenants. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of the Industrial Park Covenants and this Ordinance, the provisions of the Industrial Park Covenants shall prevail. 5. OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING: Shall be as permitted or required in Article XII. 6. YARD AREAS: All yard areas shall be the same as required in the 1-1 Light Industrial District. �7. BUILDING HEIGHT: No building or structure in the 1-2 General Industrial District shall exceed sixty (60) feet in he•ight. 8. MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE: No building with its accessory building(s) and accessory uses including parking facilities, driveways and roadways outside storage area, railroad sidings, outside truck berths and other accessory uses shall occupy in excess of seventy five percent (75%) of any lot or tract. 9. MINIMUM LOT SIZE: No minimum, except that all applicable requirements of this ordinance and the Industrial Park Covenants, if applicable, must be complied with. �ARTICLE X SPECIAL DISTRICTS = OS : Open Space Conservancy District Section 10.01 1. INTENT: The intent of this district is to provide recreational areas and to protect and preserve areas of scenic, scientific and cultural value. These areas will provide for contact with nature in an urban area. 2. PERMITTED USES: No building and/or land shall be used, erected or occupied except for one or more of the uses specified in Article XI, SCHEDULE OF PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES. 3. SPECIAL USES: No building and/or land shall be used, erected or occupied except for one or more of the uses specified in Article XI, SCHEDULE OF PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES. 4. CONDITIONS OF USE: 5. a. The permitted uses shall not involve the dumping, filling, cultivation, soil or peat removal or any other use that would disturb the natural flora, fauna, water course, water regiment or topography. Any drainage channel improvement plans shall be approved by the City Engineer and the Zoning Administrator, who shall certify in writing that satisfactory, adequate and safe improvements as contemplated are possible. b. All outside storage of refuse shall be containerized in an impermeable container. BUILDINGS: None permitted except accessory to the principal use. If accessory buildings are permitted the Zoning Administrator shall establish the setback, side yards, height of building and any other necessary protective measures necessary in order to preserve the intent of this district. Section 10.02 = Floodplain Overlay District 1. INTENT: It is the purpose of this District to significantly reduce hazards to persons and damage to property as a result of flood conditions in the City of Niles requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program, as constituted in accord subsequent additions, amendment and deletions, and the rules and regulations promulgated in furtherance of this program by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Insurance Administration, as published in the Federal Register, Vol. 41, No. 207, Tuesday, October 26, 1976 together with subsequent additions, amendments and deletions. 2. DELINEATION OF FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT: a. The floodplain district shall overlay existing zoning districts delineated on the official City of Niles Zoning Map. The boundaries of the floodplain overlay district shall coincide with the boundaries of the areas indicated within the limits of the 100-year flood boundary in the report entitled 11The Flood Insurance Study, City of Niles, with accompanying Flood Insurance Rate, Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps. The study and accompanying maps are adopted by reference, appended and declared to be a part of this Ordinance. The term floodplain district as used in this Ordinance �shall mean the floodplain overlay district and shall be the designated regulatory floodplain. b. c. 3. Where there are disputes as to the location of a floodplain overlay district boundary or the limits of the floodway, the Zoning Board of Appeals shall resolve the dispute in accord with the following rules: 1) The location of the floodplain overlay district boundary or the limits of the floodway, shall be determined based upon the most current floodplain studies issued by the Federal Insurance Administration (FIA) . Where FIA information is not available, the best available floodplain information shall be utilized. 2) Where there is allegation that the boundary is incorrect as mapped and FIA floodplain studies are being questioned, the Zoning Board of Appeals shall modify the boundary of the flood hazard area or the floodway only upon receipt of an official letter of map amendment issued by the FIA. 3) All parties to a map dispute may submit technical evidence to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Conflicts between the requirements of this or any other Ordinance shall be resolved in favor of this Article, except where the conflicting requirement is more stringent and would further the objectives of this Article. In such cases, the more stringent requirement shall be applied . PERMITTED USES: No building and/or land shall be used, erected or occupied except for one or more of the uses specified in Article XI, SCHEDULE OF PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES. a. In the area outside the 100-year Floodplain, uses permitted by the underlying zoning district subject to the regulations of such district: provided, however, the elevation of the lowest floor designed or intended for human use or habitation, including basements, shall be at least three (3) feet above the elevation of the nearest point of the 100-year Floodplain. b. In the area within the 100-year Floodplain, land may be used to supply open space or lot area requirements of a lot partially located outside the floodplain. 4. SPECIAL USES: No building and/or land shall be used, erected or occupied except for one or more of the uses specified in Article XI, SCHEDULE OF PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES. 5. ACCESSORY USES: No building , structure, or equipment other than boundary monuments are permitted within the 100-year Floodplain as an accessory use. 6. CONSTRUCTION: No building or structure shall be erected, converted or structurally altered or placed and no land filled or structure used in a floodplain district, unless a permit therefore shall have first been obtained from the City of Niles Zoning Administrator after due compliance is shown with all City ordinances, state statutes and federal regulations. �7. UTILITIES: All on-site new and replacement water and sewer systems and appurtenances in the floodplain shall be designed to minimize infiltration of flood waters and so constructed as to avoid impairment that might otherwise result from flooding. 8. ALTERATION OF WATERCOURSES: No alteration of any watercourse in the floodplain district shall be undertaken unless the Michigan Department of Natural Resources shall have first been notified and provided with detailed plans and specifications prepared by a registered engineer. Such plans shall show full compliance with local ordinances, state statutes, state regulatory agencies and federal regulations and shall make provisions for maintaining the full carrying capacity of the altered water course. 9. PENALTIES: Any building or structure which is erected altered, maintained or changed in violation of any provision of this Ordinance is hereby declared to be a nuisance, per se. The City Council, the City Attorney and the County prosecuting attorney may institute injunction, mandamus, abatement or any other appropriate action or proceedings to prevent, enjoin, abate or remove any unlawful erection, alteration, maintenance or use of lands in the Floodplain District. 10. DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY: Approval of the use of land under this section shall not be considered a guarantee or warranty of safety from flood damage. This Ordinance does not imply that areas outside the flood hazard area will be free from flood damage. This Ordinance does not create liability on the part of the City of Niles or any officer or employee thereof for any flood damages that result from reliance on this Ordinance or any administrative decision lawfully made thereunder. �ARTICLE XI SECTION 11.01 SCHEDULE OF PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES P=PERMITTED USE S=SPECIAL USE* DISTRICT USE CATEGORY I R1 I R2 I R3 I C1 I C2 I C3 I OC I 11 I 12 I OS I FP I PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 1s 1s 1s 1s 1s Is 1s 1s Is Is Is I SECTION 11.02 RESIDENTIAL USES SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED DUELLING & CUSTOHARY ACCESSORY USES TIJC) FAMILY DIIELLING MULTIPLE FAMILY DIIELLING APARTMENT CCJ4PLEX APARTMENT HOTEL ONE FAMILY RCJJ DIIELLINGS (PARTY UALL). UITH NO HORE THAN SIX DIIELLINGS PER RO',J OR BUILDING Ha-IE OCCUPATIONS NURSING HOMES FRATERNITY, SORORITY OR STUDENT CO- OP ORPHANAGES. BOYS & GIRLS HOHES RESIDENTIAL DIIELLINGS UNITS (ACCESSORY TO PRINCIPAL USE) BED AND BREAKFAST IP I I I I I I Is I I I I Is Ip IP I I I Is I Is Is Is Is I Ip IP Ip IP IP IP I Is Is Is Is I Is I I I I I I I I I I I Is Is I I I I I I I I I I I Is I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Is I I I I I I I I Is Is I I �ARTICLE XI SECTION 11.03 SCHEDULE OF PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES P= PERMITTED USE S=SPECIAL USE* DISTRICT USE CATEGORY I R1 I R2 I R3 I C1 I C2 I C3 I OC I 11 I 12 COMMERCIAL USES: I I IP I I IP IP I Is IP I I I I I I APPRAREL AND ACCESSORY SALES AND SERVICE CLOTHING, APPAREL AND ACCESSORY SALES OJSTOC TAILORING, DRESSMAKING & ASSOCIATED ACCESSORY AND SPECIALTY SALES FURRIERS AND FUR SHOPS AND STORAGE DRY CLEANING AND LAUNDRY PICK-UP STATIONS LAUNDRIES AND DRY CLEANING (LIMITED CAP. 40# USING NON-FLJJ,14ABLE FLUID) LAUNDERETTE AND CLEANING SERVICE (COIN- OPERATED, INDIVIDUAL OR FAMILY SIZED EQUIPMENT) LAUNDRY. STEAM PLANTS AND DRY CLEANING PLANTS AND STORAGE ,,--- I IP IP I IP Ip IP I IP I Ip I I I I Ip I I IP I I IP I I Is Is Is IP I I Ip I I Ip I P I I I I AUTc»40BILE DEALERS, SERVICES AND REPAIRS AUTCM)BILE SALES AND ASSOCIATED SALES AND SERVICE USED AUTO SALES AUTCM)BILE ACCESSORY SALES AUTc»«JBILE SERVICE STATION AUT040TIVE AND MOTORCYCLE MAINTENANCE SERVICES CAR UASHING STATIONS AUTCJ40BILE C04MERCIAL PARKING ENTERPRISE TIRE RE-CAPPING AND RE- TREADING BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICES AND SERVICE LABORATORIES FOR INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH & TESTING LABORATORIES FOR MEDICAL & DENTAL RESEARCH & TESTING HEDICAL CLINICS OFFICE EQUIPMENT & SUPPLIES, SALES & SERVICE OFFICE-CONSULTANTS, SEMI-PROFESSIONAL & BUSINESS DUPLICATING & BLUE-PRINTING ESTABLISHMENTS PRINTING, PUBLISHING ESTABLISHMENTS (LIMITED TO 5 TRADESMEN)! PRINTING, PUBLISHING ESTABLISHMENTS I SIGN PAINTING - NO OJTSIDE STORAGE I SIGN MANUFACTURING I I IP Ip I IP IP IP I Is I Is I I I Is Is I I s Is IP I I I Is I I I I I Is I I I I I I I I I I s Is I I I I I I I I I I I I Ip I Is I I I I I I I I I IP I I I I I I I I I I I s Is I Ip I I I s I P I Is I I I I Is I I Is Ip I p I P I P I p I P I P I s I p Ip I p I P I p I p I P I p I IP IP I IP Is I Is I I P I I P p P I P p I P p p I p p I I I P P P P P I I P I OS I FP �ARTICLE XI SECTION 11.03 SCHEDULE OF PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES P=PERMITTED USE S=SPECIAL USE* DISTRICT USE CATEGORY I R1 I R2 I R3 I C1 I C2 I I p I Is Ip I Is I I I C3 I OC I 11 I 12 I OS COMMERCIAL USES (con't}: ,,-- BUILDING MATERIALS CONTRACTORS OFFICES &[OR SCREENED STORAGE YARDS HARDUARE, SMALL APPL., ELECTRICAL ITEMS & INCIDENTAL REPAIR BATCHING -AND RED I-MIX LlMBER & OTHER BLDG. MATERIALS & INCIDENTIAL MILL\KJRK PLlMBING & HEATING OR ELECTRICAL RETAIL SALES & SERVICE (ENCLOSED STORAGE} UALLPAPER, PAINT & GLASS STORAGE OR RETAIL I I I I I I p I I I I Is I I I p I I p FARM EQUIPMENT FARM MACHINERY, SALES, REPAIR AND STORAGE FARM MACHINERY ASSEMBLY OR PROOUCTION FUEL OIL & BOTTLED GAS SALES & STORAGE FEED, FERTILIZERS & SEED RETAIL SALES FEED, FERTILIZERS & SEED RETAILS SALES IN BULK GARDEN SUPPLIES GRAIN ELEVATORS AND PROCESSING I I I I I I FOOO RETAIL SALES AND SERVICES DRIVE-THROOGH EATING ESTABLISHMENTS RESTAURANT, UITH PICK-UP[CARRY-ClJT RESTAURANT COFFEE HOOSE AND TEA ROCl4S CATERING ESTABLISHMENTS BAKERIES & CONFECTIONERIES (LIMITED TO 2,500 SQ. FT. MANUFACTURING) BAKERIES {OVER 2,500 SQ. FT. MANUFACTURING} COLD STORAGE LOCKERS - FOR INDIVIDUAL USE COLD STORAGE PLANTS FOOO STORES, RETAIL ONLY {i.e. GROCERY, DELICATESSEN) DAIRIES AND ICE CREAM MANUFACTURING ICE MANUFACTURING MEAT MARKET {RETAIL} MEAT & PClJLTRY PROCESSING & PACKING (UHOLESALE EXCLWING SLAUGHTERING} MEAT & PCl.lLTRY PROCESSING & PACKING (UHOLESALE} TAVERNS, BAR, SALOONS I I I Is I I IP Is I p I p I p I p I I I I I I p I I I I I p I I P I I P I I I I I I I I I Is l I P P P I I I I p I P I P I P I I P I p I I I I I P Is Is IP Is I IP IP I I s Is I IP I I I I I I I I I I s I p I p I I I I I I I I I P p P P P P p P p I I I I I I I I P P p P I I I I I I P P P I I I P I s I s Ip Is Is IP I I Is I I I I I I I I I I Is I I I I I I I I I p P P I I I I I I P I I I I Is I P P P I p I I I p p I P P I p I P I I I I P P I I I Is I I I I FP I �ARTICLE XI SECTION 11.03 SCHEDULE OF PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES S=SPECIAL USE* P=PERMITTED USE DISTRICT USE CATEGORY I R1 I R2 R3 I C1 I C2 I C3 I OC I I1 I I2 I COMMERCIAL LJ_SES (con't}: FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS & SERVICES BANKS, SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOC., CREDIT UNIONS & LIKE INST. CREDIT & INSURANCE AGENCIES & LOANS BROKERS, HOLDING & OTHER INVESTMENT AGENCIES I I I I p I P I I I P I s I I s I p I s I I p I I P P P I p I P P P P P FURNITURE AND HCl.JSEHOLD GOa)S FURNITURE, RETAIL SALES & ASSOCIATED STORAGE FLOOR COVERING, DRAPERY AND UPHOLSTERY STORES CHINA, GLASS\IARE & METAL \LI.RE usPECIALTY SHOPS" MAJOR HCl.JSEHOLD APPLIANCES, SALES AND SERVICE RADIO & TELEVISION, SALES & SERVICE I I I I I I s s s s I --- I I I P I I p I P s I P I s s I I I I I P s I I I I I I I I p I p I P I P s I I I I I - I I MISCELLANECl.JS SALES AND SERVICE ANTIQUE AND GIFT SHOPS DRUG STORES AND PHARMACIES ARTS AND CRAFTS STWIOS ART SUPPLIES RETAIL SALES BICYCLE SALES AND REPAIRS BOOK AND STATIONERY STORES FLORIST, FLCMR SHOPS COMMERCIAL GREENHCl.JSE {NOT EXCEEDING 1,000 SQ.FT.) - - -- - - - - I I I P IP I HOTELS AND OTHER LOOGING HOTELS, HOTELS, AND INNS TCl.JRIST HCJ4ES BOARDING & ROCJ4ING HCl.JSES - P P P I I GENERAL MERCHANDISE ·DEPARTMENT STORE DIRECT SELLING & HAIL ORDER STORES LIMITED PRICE VARIETY STORES SERVICING VENDING MACHINE OPERATORS - I I s s I --- I I s s I - - I I I s I I I p I p I s I I I I I I I I I I s I I p I P I I P s I p p I P I I p I I I I I I p I P s I I I I I I P I P P I I I p I P P P P P I I I I I s s I I I I P I P I OS I FP I �ARTICLE XI SECTION 11.03 SCHEDULE OF PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES P=PERMITTED USE S=SPECIAL USE* USE CATEGORY DISTRICT I R1 I R2 I R3 C1 I C2 I I C3 I OC I I P I I I 11 I 12 I OS I I I P I I I P I I I IP I I I I I I I I I IP I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I FP COMMERCIAL USES (con't): MISCELLANECXJS SALES AND SERVICE CON'T C()olMERCIAL GREENHCXJSE (OVER 1,000 SQ. FT.) JEUELRY AND \IATCH SALES REPAIR LABORATORIES, EXPERIMENTAL, FILM OR TESTING BASIC RESEARCH, DESIGN & PILOT OR EXPERIMENTAL PROOUCT DEVELOPMENT LOCK AND GUNSMITHS OPTICIANS AND OPTICAL SUPPLY SALES PAUii SHOPS SECOND HAND STORES PET SHOPS.BIRD STORES TAXIDERMISTS PHOTOGR~PHIC STLOIOS & CAMERA SUPPLY PHOTO PICK-UP STATION MACHINE AND/OR~ SHOP SPORTING GOCDS SALES SPORTING GOCDS SALES & RETAIL ACCESSORY (RECREATIONAL USE) STUDIOS & GALLERIES (ART, MUSIC, DANCING, ETC.) TRAILER OR MOBILE H()olE SALES VETERINARY HOSPITALS, C()olMERCIAL KENNELS UHOLESALE BUSINESS I I I I I I I I I I PERSONAL SERVICES BARBER AND BEAUTY SHOPS FUNERAL H()olES AND UNDERTAKERS HEALTH CLUBS (PUBLIC) REDUCING SALONS VATCH REPAIR SHOP SHOE REPAIR SHOP & HAT CLEANING TAILOR SHOP PHOTO STLOIOS I I RECREATION AND AlfJSEMENT BOULING ALLEY, BILLARD. RACQUET BALL, TENNIS, INDOOR ARCHERY, OR SIMILAR FORMS OR INDOOR C094. RECREATION NIGHT CLUBS, DANCE HALLS CXJTDOOR C04HERCIAL ENTERPRISES (DEFINITIONS) SHIP'S STORE UITH RELATED SUPPLIES AND SERVICES THEATERS. INDOOR Is Is I Is I I I I I IP IP IP IP I I I I P I I I s I s I P I I Is Is Is I IP IP IP I P s s Is I I Is I I I Is IP Is IP I I Is I I s I I p I P I P I P I P P s P P P P Is I P IP I IP Is P IP Is IP I I IP Is I IP I IP I I I I I I I I I Is I I I IP I I I P P P P P P P P P P P I I I I I I I s s s I I Is I I I I I I I s P I I I I I I I I Is Is Is Is I I I �ARTICLE XI SECTION 11.04 SCHEDULE OF PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES P=PERMITTED USE S=SPECIAL USE* DISTRICT USE CATEGORY I R1 I R2 I R3 I C1 I C2 I C3 I OC 11 I 12 I INDUSTRIAL USES: MANUFACTURING ASSEMBLY. PROCESSING.cotPClJNOING FOCl) & KINDRED PROOUCTS - SIC 20 MEAT PROOUCTS (EXCLUDING SLAUGHTERING) DAIRY PRCDUCTS (EXCLUDING SLAUGHTERING) PRESERVED FRUITS ANO VEGETABLES GRAIN MILL PROOUCTS BAKERY PROOUCTS SUGAR & CONFECTIONERY PROOUCTS FATS & OILS BEVERAGES MISC. f()(l) PREPARATION & KINDRED PROOUCTS TOBACCO PROOUCTS - SIC 21 TEXTILE MILL PROOUCTS - SIC 22 \JEAVING COTTON. IJOOL. SYNTHETICS MILLS NARRCIJ FABRIC MILLS YARN & THREAD KNITTING MILLS TEXTILE DYEING & FINISHING FLCXlR COVERING MILLS MISC. TEXTILE GCXDS APPAREL & OTHER TEXTILE PROOUCTS - SIC 23 MEN'S/BOYS' SUITS/COATS/FURNISHINGS "°4EN 1 S/CHILOREN 1 S ClJTER\IEAR "°4£:N'S/CHILOREN'S UNDERGARMENTS HATS. CAPS. & MILLINERY FUR GCXDS{MISC. FABRICATED TEXTILE PROOUCTS MISC. APPAREL AND ACCESSORIES LIMBER & \IJCXl PROOUCTS - SIC 24 LOGGING COITRACTORS SA\MILLS & PLANING MILLS MILL~K. PLY\IJCXl & STRUCTURAL MEMBERS \IJCXl COITAINERS \IJCXl BUILDINGS MOBILE H04ES MISC . \IJCXl PROOUCTS I I I I I I s s I p I P P P P P I p I I s I I P I I s I I s I p I I P P I p I s s I s I I I I s I s IP I p I I P I I I s s I I I I p P P P P I I P I I p I I P P I I I p I s I I P I P P I I I I I I P P P I s I P P P I p I p I s I p I P P I I s I I OS I FP I �ARTICLE XI SECTION 11.04 SCHEDULE OF PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES P= PERMITTED USE S=SPECIAL USE* DISTRICT USE CATEGORY I R1 I R2 I R3 I C1 I C2 I C3 I OC I 11 I 12 INDUSTRIAL USES: I FURNITURE ANO FIXTURES - SIC 25 H<XJSEHOLD FURNITURE OFFICE FURNITURE. PARTITIONS/FIXTURES PUBLIC BUILDING & RELATED FURNITURE MISC. FURNITURE & FIXTURES I I I I I Is I p PAPER & ALLIED PRCDUCTS - SIC 26 PAPER.PAPERBOARD.BUILDING PAPER. & BOARD MILLS MISC. CONVERTED PAPER PROOUCTS PAPERBOARD CONTAINERS & BOXES I I I Is I Is P P PRINTING & PUBLISHING - SIC 27 NE\.ISPAPERS. PERIOOICALS. BOOKS MISC. PUBLISHING CCJ4MERCIAL PRINTING GREETING CARD PUBLISHING BLANICBOOKS AND BOOICBINDING PRINTING TRADE SERVICES I P P P I P P p I I I I I P I I p I I I I I p P P P P CHEMICALS AND ALLIED PROOUCTS - SIC 28 INDUSTRIAL INORGANIC CHEMICALS PLASTICS MATERIALS & SYNTHETICS PHARMACEUTICALS/DRUGS SOAP, CLEANERS. & TOILET GOCOS PAINTS. VARNISHES, LACQUERS, ENAMELS, & ALLIED PROOUCTS INDUSTRIAL ORGANIC & AGRIUJLTURAL CHEMICALS MISC. CHEMICAL PROOUCTS I I I I P p P P P P I I I I I I I I PETROLEUM & COAL PROOUCTS - SIC 'l9 PETROLEUM REFINING PAVING & ROOFING MATERIALS MISC. PETROLEUM & COAL PROOUCTS I I I P P P P P P P P P P p RUBBER & MISC. PLASTIC PROOUCTS - SIC 30 TIRES & INNER TUBES RUBBER & PLASTICS FOOTUEAR GASKETS, PACKING SEALING DEVICES & RUBBER/PLASTIC HOSES & BELTING FABRICATED RUBBER PROOUCTS/RECLAIMED RUBBER MISC. PLASTICS PROOUCTS I I I I I I I I I I P I P I I I P P P P P I OS I FP I �ARTICLE XI SECTION 11.04 SCHEDULE OF PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES P=PERMITTED USE S=SPECIAL USE* DISTRICT USE CATEGORY I R1 I R2 I R3 I C1 C2 I I C3 I OC 11 I 12 I INDUSTRIAL USES LEATHER & LEATHER PROOUCTS - SIC 31 LEATHER TANNING & FINISHING BOOT & SHOE OJT STOCK FOOTUEAR & LUGGAGE LEATHER GLOVES/MITTENS HANDBAGS/PERSONAL LEATHER GOCllS APPAREL MISC. LEATHER GOCllS I I I I I I I I I I P P P P I STONE. CLAY. AND GLASS PROOUCTS - SIC 32 FLAT GLASS & GLASS\IARE, PRESSED OR BLOolN PROOUCTS OF PURCHASED GLASS CEMENT, HYDRAULIC STRUCTURAL CLAY/POTTERY & RELATED PROOUCTS CONCRETE. GYPSUI. & PLASTER PROOUCTS UJT STONE & STONE PROOUCTS MISC. NONMETALLIC MINERAL PROOUCTS INDUSTRIAL/C04MERCIAL MACHINERY & C04PUTER EQUIPMENT -SIC 35 ENGINES & TURBINES FARM/GARDEN/CONST./MINING & MATERIAL HANDLING METAL UORICING & EQUIPMENT SPECIAL/GENERAL INDUSTRY MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT CCJ4PUTER & OFFICE EQUIPMENT REFRIGERATION & SERVICE MACHINERY MISC. MACHINERY, EXCEPT ELECTRICAL I I p I P I P I IP I I I I I I P P P P I I p I I I P P I I PRIMARY METAL INDUSTRIES - SIC 33 BLAST FURNACE & BASIC STEEL PROOUCTS IRON & STEEL FOUNDRIES PRIMARY & SECONDARY NONFERROUS METALS NONFERROJS ROLLING/DRA~ING/EXTRll>ING NONFERROJS FOUNDRIES MISC. PRIMARY METAL PROOUCTS FABRICATED METAL PROOUCTS - SIC 34 METAL CANS/UJTLERY/HAND TOOLS/HARD~ARE SHIPPING CONTAINERS PLLMBING & HEATING, EXCEPT ELECTRIC FABRICATED STRUCTURAL METAL PROOUCTS SCRE~ MACHINE PROOUCTS. BOLTS. ETC. METAL FORGINGS & STAMPINGS COATING, ENGRAVING/ALLIED SERVICES ORDINANCE & ACCESSORIES. NEC MISC. FABRICATED METAL PROOUCTS I P P P P I P I p I p I p I P P I I I I I p I I I I I I I I I P P P I ·I I I I s s I p I I I I s I I P P P P P I s I p I I I I p I I I I I I s P P I p I P P P I I I s I I OS I FP I �ARTICLE XI SECTION 11.04 SCHEDULE OF PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES S=SPECIAL USE* P=PERMITTED USE DISTRICT USE CATEGORY I R1 I R2 I R3 I C1 I C2 I C3 I OC 11 I 12 I INDUSTRIAL USES ELECTRIC & ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT - SIC 36 ELECTRIC TRAHSMISSION DISTRIBUTION EQUIPMENT ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIAL APPARATUS HOOSEHOLD APPLIANCES ELECTRIC LIGHTING/\JIRING EQUIPMENT AlDIO & VIDEO EQUIPMENT cnKJNICATIONS EQUIPMENT ELECTRONIC C04PONENTS & ACCESSORIES MISC. ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT & SUPPLIES TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT - SIC 37 MOTOR VEHICLES & EQUIP,IENT AIRCRAFT & PARTS SHIP & BOAT BUILDING & REPAJRING RAILROAD EQUIP,IENT MOTORCYCLES, BICYCLES. & PARTS GUIDED MISSILES, SPACE VEHICLES, MISC. TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT I I I I p I I P p I I p I p P I p Is I P I I I P I P I I I p P s I I s I P P p I I I KISCELLANEOOS MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES - SIC 39 JEUELRY, SILVERYARE, & PLATED YARE I I I MEASURING, ANALYZING & CONTROLLING INSTRUMENTS & PHOTOGRAPHIC.j MEDICAL, OPTICAL GOOOS - SIC 38 SEARCH,GUIDANCE,AERONAUTICAL.SYSTEMS,INSTRUMENT & EQUIP. LABORATORY APPARATUS.ANALYTICAL MEASURING/CONTROLLING DEVICES, OPTICAL INSTRUMENTS SURGICAL. DENTAL MEDICAL INSTRUMENTS & SUPPLIES OPHTHALMIC GOOOS PHOTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT & SUPPLIES YATCHES, CLOCKS, AND YATCHCASES P I I PARTS p I I I & I p I I I I s s I I P P I I I I I s I I p I I I s P I I P P P P I I I p I I p I I P I I p I I s I YAREHOOSING OPERATIONS/STORAGE I P I P INDUSTRIAL MATERIAL STORAGE (ENCLOSED SCREENED) I p I P TRUCK FREIGHT TERMINAL I P I p I p MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS TOYS & SPORTING GOOOS, COSTI.ME JE\JELRY & NOTIONS PENS, PENCILS, OFFICE & ART SUPPLIES KISC. MANUFACTURES PETROLErn TANK FARM p P P p p I OS I FP I �ARTICLE XI SECTION11.05: SCHEDULE OF PERMITTED AND SPECIAL USES P=PERMITTED USE S=SPECIAL USE* DISTRICT USE CATEGORY I R1 I R2 I R3 I C1 I C2 I C3 I OC I 11 I 12 I OS I FP PUBLIC & SEMI-PUBLIC USES: AIRPORT LANDING FIELD CEMETERY OR CREMATORY CHURCHES, TEMPLES & OTHER FACILITIES NORMALLY INCIDENTAL THERETO CITY a.lNED & OPERATED BUILDINGS CITY OUIIED & OPERATED FACILITIES COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY {PUBLIC[PRIVATE) CORRECTIONAL ANO REHABILITATIONAL SCHOOL COONTRY CLUB OR GOLF COORSE FIRE STATION OR POLICE STATION FISHING GARDENS GENERAL HOSPITALS LODGE OR PRIVATE CLUB INCLUDING FRATERNAL ORGANIZATIONS UITH NO SLEEPING QUARTERS MEDICAL HEALTH CENTER OR CL INIC NON CITY GOVERNMENTAL GARAGES, REPAIR OR STORAGE YARDS AND UAREHOJSES NON CITY a.lNED GOVERNMENT BUILDING FOR OFFICE OR PUBLIC USE NURSERY SCHOOL, DAY NURSERY, CHILD CARE CENTER {NOT INCLUOING DORMITORIES) PARKS, PUBLIC PICNIC AREAS PLAYGROONDS PRESERVATION OF SCENIC AND[OR HISTORIC AREAS PUBLIC FISH HATCHERIES PUBLIC LIBRARY OR JofJSEUH PUBLIC OR PRIVATE CAMP PUBLIC ROADS & RIGHT-OF-UAYS INCLUDING ROADS, BIKE PATHS AND FOOT PATHS RADIO AND TELEVISION TO\JERS RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-UAY AND USES RELATED THERETO RECREATION AREA, PUBLIC SANITARY LANDFILL SCHOOL, PAROCHIAL[PUBLIC SEUAGE AND UATER TREATMENT PLANTS STREAK BANK PROTECTION UATER RETENTION UILD LIFE PRESERVES I I Is I Is Is I I Is Is I IP I I I I I I I I I IP I I IP I Is I Ip I I Is I I Is I I I I I I Is I Is Is I I Is Is I Ip I I I I I I I Is I IP I I IP I Is I IP I I Is I I Is I I Is I I I Is I Ip IP I I Is Is I Ip I I I IP I I Is Is I Ip I I IP I Is I Ip I I s Is I I s Is I I s I I I I Is I Is Is Is I Is Is I IP I Is I I I I I Is I Ip I I IP I Is I Ip I I I I Is I IP IP Is I Is Is I IP I IP I Is I I Is Is I IP I I IP I Is I Ip I I Is I IP IP Is Is Is Is I I Is Ip I IP I I Is Is I IP I I IP I Is I Ip I Is s Is I I s Is I I I I I I Is I IP IP Is Is s p s s Ip I I Is Is I IP I I IP I Is I Ip I s s s Is I I I IP Ip I I I Is I I I I I I Is I Is Is I p I p I I p I P I s I I Ip Ip I Is s Is s I s I Is Is Is I I Is Is I I I I I I IP IP Is Is I Is I I Is I I Is Is I Is Is I·S Is I I Ip IP I I Is Is Is Ip I I I I I I Is I I IP IP IP Ip Is I Is Ip I I Is IP I I Is IP IP Ip I I I I Is Is I I I I Is Ip I I I p IP Ip IP Is I Is IP I I Is Ip I I Is IP Ip Ip I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I �ARTICLE XII OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING =Purpose Section 12.01 The purpose of this section is to alleviate or prevent the congestion of the public streets, and so promote the safety and welfare of the public by establishing minimum requirements for the off-street parking and loading and unloading of motor vehicles in accordance with the use to which property is put. Section 12.02 ;. =General Provision : Parking and Loading SCOPE OF REGULATIONS: The off-street parking and loading provision of this Ordinance shall apply as follows: a) For all buildings and structures erected and all uses of land within the City, accessory parking and loading facilities shall be provided as required by the regulations of the district in which such buildings or uses are located. However, where a building permit has been issued prior to the effective date of the Ordinance and provided that construction is begun within three (3) months of such effective date and diligently prosecuted to completion, parking and loading facilities, as required hereinafter, need not be provided; b) When the intensity of use of any building, structure or premises shall be increased through addition of dwelling units, gross floor area, seating capacity or other units of measurement specified herein for required parking or loading facilities, parking and loading facilities as required herein shall be provided for such increase in intensity of use. c) When the intensity of use of any building, structure, or premises shall be decreased through the reduction of dwelling units, gross of floor area, seating capacity or other units of measurement specified herein, and when such decrease would result in a requirement for fewer parking or loading facilities, said parking and for loading facilities, as provided for herein, may be reduced accordingly. d) Whenever the existing use of a building or structure shall hereafter be changed to a new use, parking or loading facilities shall be provided as required for such new use. However, if the said building or structure was erected prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, additional parking or loading facilities are mandatory only in the amount by which the requirements for the new use would exceed those for the existing use. 2. EXISTING PARKING AND LOADING FACILITIES: Accessory off-street parking or loading facilities which are located on the same lot as the building or use served which were in existence or before the effective date of this Ordinance shall not hereafter be reduced below the requirements of this Ordinance for a similar new building or use. 3. PERMISSIVE PARKING AND LOADING FACILITIES: Nothing in this Ordinance shall be deemed to prevent the voluntary establishment of off-street parking and loading facilities to serve any existing use of land or buildings provided that all regulations herein governing the location, design, improvement and operation of such facilities are adhered to. 1 �4. DAMAGE OR DESTRUCTION: For any conforming or legally non-conforming building or use which is in existence on the effective date of this Ordinance, which subsequent thereto is damaged or destroyed by fire, collapse, explosion or other cause and which reconstructed, reestablished or repaired, off-street parking or loading facilities shall be restored and/or rebuilt in accordance with the provision of this Ordinance. 5. CONTROL OF OFF-SITE PARKING AND FACILITIES: When required parking facilities are provided on land other than the zoning lot on which the building or use served by such facilities is located, they shall be and remain in the same possession or ownership as the zoning lot occupied by the building or use to which the parking facilities are accessory. No such off-site parking facilities shall be authorized and no occupancy permit shall be issued where the plans call for parking facilities other than on the same zoning lot until and unless the City Board of Appeals has reviewed the plans and heard the applicant and made findings that the common ownership or possession of the zoning lot and the site of the parking facilities are reasonably certain to continue and that the off-site parking facilities will be maintained at all times during the life of the proposed use or building. 6. SUBMISSION OF PLOT PLAN: Any application for a building permit or for a certificate of occupancy shall include therewith a plot plan, drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, showing any parking or loading facilities to be provided in compliance with this Ordinance. Section 12.03 = Off Street Parking Regulations 1. OFF STREET PARKING FACILITIES shall consist of a parking strip, driveway, garage, or combination thereof which provides parking spaces accessory to a principal use. Said parking facility shall be surfaced in accordance with the requirements of this Section, part 9-b. Said parking facility shall be located only as provided herein. 2. USE OF PARKING FACILITIES: a) Off-street parking facilities accessory to residential use and developed in any residential district in accordance with the requirements of this section shall be used for the parking of passenger automobiles owned by occupants of the dwelling structures to which such facilities are accessory or by guests of said occupants. Under no circumstances shall required parking facilities accessory to residential structures be used for the parking of automobiles belonging to the employees, owners, tenants, visitors or customers of business or manufacturing establishments. b) Recreational Vehicles and Trucks may be parked on off-street parking facilities in accordance with the regulations of each zoning district. (See Residential, Commercial or Industrial District Requirements). c) Unlicensed or Inoperable motor vehicles shall not be parked on any offstreet parking facility in any district unless expressly permitted by the ordinance, or unless stored in a completely enclosed building. d) Wheel Block: All off-street parking areas in commercial and industrial district shall be provided with wheel block or bumper guards so that no part of parked vehicles will extend beyond the provided parking area or property line. 2 �e) Repair and Service: No commercial, or for profit motor vehicle repair work of any kind shall be permitted in conjunction with accessory off-street parking facilities provided in a residential district. In addition, the sale of gasoline and motor oil in conjunction with accessory off-street parking facilities are not permitted in any residential district. 3. JOINT PARKING FACILITIES: Off-street parking facilities for different buildings, structures or uses, or for mixed uses, may be provided collectively in any zoning district in which separate parking faculties for each constituent use would be permitted, provided that the total number of spaces so located together shall not be less than the sum of the separate requirements for each use. 4. COMPUTATION: When determination of the number of off-street parking spaces required by this Ordinance results in a requirements of a fractional space, any fraction of one-half (1/2) shall be counted as one parking space. 5. SIZE: A required off-street parking space shall be at least ten (10) feet in width and at least twenty (20) feet in length, exclusive of access drives or aisles, ramps, columns or office or work areas. Such space shall have a vertical clearance of at least seven (7) feet. 6. ACCESS: Each required off-street parking space shall open directly upon an aisle or driveway of such width and design as to provide safe and efficient means of vehicular access to such parking space without having to pass over another space. All off-street parking facilities shall be designed with appropriate means of vehicular access to a street or alley in a manner which will. least interfere with traffic movements. No driveway across public property no curb cut shall exceed a width of thirty (30) feet. 7. IN YARDS: Parking in required front yards is prohibited. Off-street parking spaces may be located in any yard except the required front yard in residential and commercial districts, but shall not be closer than five (5) feet to the lot line and not less than twenty-five (25) feet in an industrial district where it abuts a residential district and shall be buffered as described in 9-b below. a) In residential districts, parking may be located on one (1) side of a residence, directly in front of an attached or detached garage, provided that the portion of the required front yard directly in front of the front face of the dwelling is not used for parking, and that parking is provided on an established parking facility as described herein. b) Parking may be located in front of multiple family dwellings, provided that no space is available on the side or rear of the multiple family dwelling, and that the required front yard be maintained between the parking facility and the street or the parking facility and the building line. 8. STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY: No person, firm or corporation shall park, deposit, leave or store any motor vehicle or tangible personal property of any type or description at any time within the right-of-way of any street within the city. 9. DESIGN AND MAINTENANCE: a) Open and Enclosed Parking Spaces: Accessory parking spaces located on the same lot as occupied by the use served may be open to the sky or enclosed in a building. Accessory parking spaces located elsewhere than on the same lot occupi ed by the use served shall be open to the sky except when otherwise allowed as a special use; 3 �b) Surfacing: All open off-street parking areas and driveways shall be improved with a compacted macadam base, not less than four (4) inches thick, surfaced with asphalt concrete or some comparable all weather dustless material; c) Setback: All residential parking spaces must be ten (1 O) feet from the front property line. All non-residential automobile parking facilities and spaces adjoining or fronting any property in a residential and spaces adjoining or fronting any property in a residential district shall be setback ten (10) feet from the front property line. All automobile parking facilities which abut rear property lines of a residential district shall be setback five (5) feet from said rear property line. Such setback, shall serve as a buffer and be screened and landscaped as specified herein. d) Screening and Landscaping: All non-residential automobile parking areas containing more than four (4) parking spaces shall be effectively screened on each side adjoining or fronting on any property situated in a residence district or any institutional premises by a wall, fence or densely planted compact hedge not less than four (4) feet nor more than six (6) feet in height. If a screen planting is not practical or reasonable, a continuous unpierced masonry wall of specified height and materials may be substituted for buffer strips if approved by the Commission with recommendation to, and approval of, the Board of Zoning Appeals. Such required screening shall conform with the front and side yard setback requirements of the district in which the parking area is located, or with the minimum setback requirements specified above; e) Lighting: Any lighting used to illuminate off-street parking areas shall be directed away from residential properties in such a way as not to create a nuisance; f) Signs: In commercial or industrial districts, accessory signs are permitted on parking areas according to the provisions of the SIGN ORDINANCE; g) Maintenance: All off-street parking area(s) required by this Ordinance shall be properly graded for drainage, surfaced in accordance with b) above, and maintained in good condition, free of dust, trash and debris. Section 12.04 = Location of Accessory Off-Street Parking Facilities The location of off-street parking spaces in relation to the use served shall be as prescribed hereinafter. All distances specified shall be walking distances between such parking spaces and a main entrance to the use served. 1. FOR USES IN A RESIDENCE DISTRICT: Parking facilities and spaces accessory to dwellings shall be located on the same zoning lot as the use served. 2. FOR USES IN BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS: All required parking spaces shall be within three hundred (300) feet of the use served. However, no parking spaces accessory to a use in a business or manufacturing district shall be located in a residential district. 4 �Section 12.05 = Schedule of Parking Requirements For the following uses, accessory off-street parking spaces shall be provided as required hereinafter. Parking spaces required on an employees on duty or residing or both, on the premises at any one time and shall be in addition to other parking requirements specified herein. 1. . RESIDENTIAL USES: As follows: a) One-Family Dwellings and Two-Family Dwellings: Two (2) parking spaces shall be provided for each dwelling unit; b) Multiple-Family Dwellings: (Including Apartment Hotels): Two (2) parking spaces shall be provided for every dwelling unit. For lodging rooms located in an apartment hotel, one (1) parking space shall be provided for each two (2) lodging rooms, One (1) parking space shall be provided for each employee. c) Motels, Inns, and Auto Courts: One (1) parking space shall be provided for each sleeping room or suite.plus one (1) space for the owner/manager and each employee; d) Hotel: One (1) parking space for each dwelling unit and/or lodging room shall be provided. One (1) parking space for each employee; e) Lodging, Rooming and Boarding Houses: One (1) parking space shall be provided for each lodging room plus one (1) space for the owner/manager and each employee; f) Private Clubs and Lodges: (With Sleeping Facilities for Guests): One (1) parking space shall be provided for each lodging room plus parking spaces equal in number to ten (10) percent of the capacity in person (exclusive of lodging room capacity) of such club or lodge. One (1) parking space shall be provided for each employee; g) Mobile Home Park: Two (2) parking spaces shall be provided for each mobile home space plus employee parking. (""'"'\ 2. RETAIL AND SERVICE USES: As follows: a) Retail Stores and Banks: One (1) parking space shall be provided for each three hundred (300) square feet of floor area. Drive-in banks or other similar drive-in establishments shall provide three (3) stacking spaces per teller or customer service window. One (1) parking space shall be provided for each employees; b) Automobile Service Stations: One (1) parking space shall be provided for each employee; c) Automobile-Laundry: Twenty (20) stacking spaces shall be provided for each wash rack. One (1) parking space for each employee; d) Bowling Alleys: Five (5) parking spaces shall be provided for each alley, plus such additional spaces as may be required herein for affiliated uses: bars, restaurants and the like . One (1) parking space shall be provided for each employee; 5 �e) Establishments Dispensing Food or Beverages for Consumption on the Premises: One (i) parking space shall be provided for each two hundred (200) square feet of floor area. One (i) parking space shall be provided for each employee; f) Furniture and Appliance Stores, Household Equipment or Furniture Repair Shops: One (i) parking space shall be provided for each six hundred (600) square feet of floor area. One (1) parking space for each employee; g) Motor Vehicle Sales and Machinery Sales: One (1) parking space shall be provided for each three hundred (300) square feet of floor area. One (1) parking space shall be provided for each employee; i) Undertaking Establishment, Funeral Parlors: One (i) parking space for each fifty (50) square feet of gross floor area or part thereof. One (i) space for each employee and funeral vehicle kept on the premises. 3. OFFICE--BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL AND GOVERNMENTAL: One (1) parking space shall be provided for each four hundred (400) square feet of floor area. Three (3) parking spaces shall be provided for each four (4) employees. 4. MEDICAL OR DENTAL CLINICS: One (1) parking space shall be provided for each two hundred (200) feet of gross floor area. One (1) parking space shall be provided for each employee. 5. WHOLESALE ESTABLISHMENTS (BUT NOT INCLUDING WAREHOUSES AND STORAGE BUILDINGS OTHER THAN ACCESSORY): One (1) parking space shall be provided for each one thousand (1,000) square feet of gross floor area. One (1) parking space shall be provided for each employee. 6. MANUFACTURING USES OR ANY ESTABLISHMENTS ENGAGED IN PRODUCTION, PROCESSING, CLEANING, SERVICING, TESTING OR REPAIR OF MATERIALS, GOODS OR PRODUCTS: Three (3) parking spaces shall be provided for each four (4) employees. One (1) parking space for each vehicle used in the conduct of the enterprise. 7. WAREHOUSES AND STORAGE BUILDINGS: Three (3) parking spaces shall be provided for each four (4) employees. One (1) space for each vehicle used in the conduct of the enterprise. 8. COMMUNITY SERVICE USES: As follows: a) Auditoriums: One (1) parking space shall be provided for each three (3) auditorium seats. Adequate space shall also be provided for buses used in connection with the activities of the institution, and all loading and unloading of passengers shall take place upon the premises; b) Colleges, Universities. and Business, Professional and Trade Schools: One (1) parking space shall be provided for each three (3) employees and one (1) parking space shall be provided for each four (4) students based on the maximum number of students attending classes on the premises at any one time during any twenty-four (24) hour period; c) Health Centers. Government Operated: Eight (8) parking spaces shall be provided for each doctor or professional person, in addition one (1) parking space shall be provided for each employee. 6 �d) Hospitals: One (1) parking space shall be provided for each two (2) hospital beds, plus one (1) parking space for each employee (other than staff doctors) plus one (1) parking space fore each doctor assigned to the staff; e) Libraries, Art Galleries and Museums = Public: One (1) parking space shall be provided for each one thousand (1000) square feet of gross floor area; f) Schools = Nursery and Elementary: One (1) parking space shall be provided for each employee; g) School High: Public or Private -- one (1) parking space for each seven (7) students based on the maximum number of students that can be accommodated with such design capacity of the building. = 9. PIJ\CES OF ASSEMBLY: As follows: Stadiums, Arenas, Auditoriums, (Other than Church, College or Institutional Schools, Convention Halls, Exhibition Halls, Skating Rinks and Other Similar Places of Assembly): Parking spaces equal in number to forty (40%) percent of the capacity in person shall be provided. One (1) parking space shall be provided for each employee. 10. MISCELIJ\NEOUS USES: As follows: a) Institutions for the Care of the Insane or Feeble Minded: One (1) parking space shall be provided for each staff doctor, plus spaces adequate in number -- as determined by the Zoning Administrator -- to serve the visiting public; b) Private Clubs, Lodges (Without Sleeping Facilities for Guest): Parking spaces equal in number to twenty-five (25%) percent of the capacity in persons shall be provided; c) Rest Homes and Nursing Homes: One (1) parking space shall be provided for each two (2) employees, plus one (1) parking space for each staff doctor; d) Sanitariums, Convalescent Homes or Institutions for the Aged or for Children: One (1) parking space shall be provided for each four (4) beds plus one (1) parking space each for employees and staff doctors; e) Theaters = Automobile Drive-In: Reservoir parking space equal to ten (10%) percent of the vehicle capacity of such theaters shall be provided. f) For the following uses -- parking spaces shall be provided in adequate number -- as determined by the Zoning Administrator, to serve person employed or residing on the premises as well as the visiting public: Airports or aircraft landing fields, heliports, Convents and monistaries, Crematories or mausoleums, Fraternal or religious institutions, 7 �Municipal or privately owned recreation buildings or community center, Outdoor amusement establishments: fairgrounds; permanent carnivals; kiddie parks; and other similar amusement centers, Rectories and parish houses, Swimming pools, Tennis Courts. 11. MIXED USES: When two (2) or more uses are located on the same zoning lot within the same building, parking spaces equal in number to the sum of the separate requirements for each such use shall be provided. No parking spaces or portion thereof shall serve as a required space for more than one (1) use unless otherwise authorized by the Zoning Administrator. 12. OTHER USES: For. uses not listed heretofore in this schedule of parking requirements, parking spaces shall be provided on the same basis as required for the most similar listed use, or as determined by the Zoning Administrator. Section 12.06 = Exclusions The area bounded by Broadway Street on the South, the St. Joseph River on the West, Cass Street on the North and Fifth Street on the East shall be excluded from the offstreet parking requirements of this Article, except that any off-street parking constructed in this area shall be subject to design requirements through the site plan review process. Section 12.07 = General Regulations = Off-Street Loading For every building or addition to an existing building hereafter erected to be occupied by manufacturing, storage, display of goods, retail stores or block of stores of over ten thousand (10,000} square feet, wholesale stores, markets, hotels, hospitals, funeral homes, laundromats, dry cleaners, restaurants or other similar uses requiring the receipt of distribution in vehicles of materials or merchandise, there shall be provided offstreet loading spaces. 1. LOCATION: All required loading spaces shall be located on the same zoning lot -as the use served. No loading space shall be located in required front, side or rear yards, but said yards may be used for maneuvering. No loading space for vehicles over two (2) tons capacity shall be closer than fifty (50) feet to any property in a residence district. No permitted or required loading space shall be located within twenty-five (25) feet of the nearest point of intersection of any two (2) streets. 2. NUMBER: Off-street loading spaces shall be required in relation to floor area as follows: a) Up to 20,000 square feet -- 1 space; b) 20,001 - 50,000 square feet -- 2 spaces; c) 50,001 - 100,000 square feet -- 3 spaces; d) One (i ) additional space for each additional 100,000 square feet or fraction thereof. 8 �3. SIZE: Loading spaces shall be required as follows: a) Small berth sizes: For retail and service commercial uses, financial and personal services, and multi-family uses that generally have small business floor areas, small berth sizes are permitted. These berths shall be 12 ft. wide, 30 ft. long, and have 14 ft. overhead clearance. b) Large berth sizes: For all industrial uses, large product commercial uses (such as automobile sales, major appliance and furniture sales), warehousing, shopping centers and large office buildings, etc., large berth sizes are required. Berth shall be 14 ft. wide and 60 ft. long, and have 15 ft. overhead clearance. c) Funeral homes: Berth shall be 8 ft. wide and 25 ft. long with 10 ft. over head clearance. 4. ACCESS: Each required off-street loading space shall be designed with appropriate means of vehicular access to a street or alley in a manner which will least interfere with traffic movement. One way access drives shall have a minimum width of 12 ft. Two way access drives shall have a minimum width of 22 ft. 5. SURFACING: All open off-street loading spaces shall be improved with a compacted macadam base or gravel, not less than eight (8) inches thick, surfaced with not less than three (3) inches of asphaltic concrete or some comparable all weather dustless material. 6. REPAIR AND SERVICE: No motor vehicle repair work or service of any kind shall be permitted in conjunction with loading facilities provided in any residence or business districts. 7. JOINT LOADING FACILITIES: are permitted for shopping centers and for multitenanted office and industrial buildings for commercial/industrial complexes containing several connected buildings, one or more central freight receiving points are allowed subject to approval through the site plan review process. The number of berths required for joint loading facilities is the sum of the separate floor area requirements. 8. SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING: Where loading spaces can be seen from a residential area or are located on the side of a building, screening and landscaping is required. The screen may be an opaque wall, berm or landscaping that matures quickly. Walls must have a finished surface and can be no higher than six (6) feet. Landscaping must be evergreens, opaque, and reach a height of six (6) feet within three (3) years of planting. 9. LIGHTING: If the loading area is illuminated, lighting shall be deflected away from abutting residential districts so as to cause no annoying glare. 10. NOT IN RIGHT-OF-WAY: All uses whether specified in this Zoning Ordinance or not, shall provide off-street loading areas sufficient for their requirements. Such space shall be adequate so that no vehicle being loaded or unloaded in connection with normal operations shall stand in or project into a public street, walk, alley or way. 1 i. Space allocated to any off-street loading space shall not, while so allocated, be used to satisfy the space requirements for any off-street parking facilities or portions thereof. 9 �12. For special uses other than prescribed for herein, loading spaces adequate in number and size to serve such uses as determined by the Zoning Administrator, shall be provided. 13. Uses for which off-street loading spaces are required herein but which are located in buildings of less floor area than the minimum prescribed for such required facilities, shall be provided with adequate receiving facilities off any adjacent alley, service drive, or open space on the same lot which is accessible by motor vehicle. 10 �ARTICLE XIII SPECIAL USES Section '13.01 : Purpose The development and execution of the Zoning Ordinance is based upon the division of the City into districts, within any one of which the use of land and buildings and the bulk and location of buildings or structures, as related to the land, are essentially which, because of their unique character cannot be properly classified in any particular district or districts without consideration, in each case of the impact of those uses upon neighboring lands and upon the public need for the particular use of the particular location. Such special uses fall into two (2) categories: '1. Uses operated by a public agency or publicly regulated utilities, or uses traditionally associated with a public interest. 2. Uses entirely private in character, but of such a nature that the operation may give rise to unique problems with respect to their impact upon neighboring property or public facilities. Section '13.02: Authority Special uses shall be authorized or denied by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance applicable to amendments of this Ordinance and the regulations and conditions set forth in this Ordinance for special uses. No application for a special uses shall be acted upon by the Council until after: ,,- '1 . A written report is prepared and forwarded to the City Council by the Planning Commission. 2. A public hearing has been held by the Planning Commission after due notice by publication as prescribed in Section .05 and the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission have been reported to the City Council. Section i 3.03 : Initiation An application for a special use may be made by any person, firm or corporation, or by any office, department, board, bureau or commission requesting or intending to request a building permit or occupancy certificate. Section i 3.04 : Application Applications for special use permits shall be submitted through the Planning Director to the City Council. Each application shall be accompanied by the payment of a fee in accordance with the schedule of fees adopted by the City Council to cover the costs of processing the application. No part of any fee shall be refundable. '1 . REQUIRED INFORMATION: Three (3) copies of an application for a special use permit shall be presented to the Planning Director and accompanied by the following documents and information: a) - - - -- A letter describing in detail the proposed special use and detailing why the location selected is appropriate. Such letter shall be considered the special use application; ------- �b) A site plan in conformation with Article XIV of this Ordinance, if necessary; c) A statement and other evidence or proof by the applicant of present and future compliance with the standards required for approval in Section .09 and other standards imposed by this Ordinance affecting the special use under consideration. 2. INCOMPLETE APPLICATION: An application which is incomplete or otherwise not in compliance with this Ordinance shall be returned to the applicant. No application shall be processed until properly prepared and submitted and all required fees paid in full. 3. COPY OF THE APPLICATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION: The Planning Director shall forward a copy of the application for the special use request to the Planning Commission within seven (7) days of receiving the request. The Planning Commission may review the application and make recommendations within thirty (30) days following the date of the public hearing of each application,. unless it is withdrawn by the petitioner. All comments or recommendations shall be advisory of the public hearing shall also be included in the report to the City Council. Section 13.05: Hearing ( After a preliminary review of the site plan and an application for a special use permit, the Planning Commission shall hold a hearing on the site plan and the special use request. Notice of the hearing shall be given by mail or personal delivery to the property owners for which special use permit approval is being considered, and all persons to whom real property is assessed within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property. Notice of the public hearing shall also be published in accordance with official City procedures. Section 13.06: Review and Approval The review of the special use application and site plan shall be made by the City Council in accordance with the procedures and standards specified herein. If a submitted application and site plan do not meet the requirements of this Ordinance, they may not be approved. However, if the applicant agrees to make changes to the site plan and application in order to bring them into compliance, such changes shall be allowed and shall be either noted on the application or site plan or attached to it, or these documents shall be resubmitted incorporating said changes. A site plan and application for a special use permit shall be approved if they comply in all respects with the requirements of this Ordinance and other applicable county, state or federal laws, rules or regulations. Approval and assurance of a special use permit shall signify approval of the application and site plan, including any modification and any conditions imposed where necessary to comply with this Ordinance. The site plan, as approved, and any statements of conditions and modifications enforceable as such. The decision to approve or deny a request for a special use permit shall be retained as a part of the record of action on the request and shall incorporate a statement of conclusion which specify the basis for the decision, any changes to the originally submitted application and site plan necessary to insure compliance with the Ordinance, and any conditions imposed with approval. Once a special use permit is issued, all site development and use of land on the property affected shall be consistent with the approved special use permit, unless a change conforming to the Ordinance requirements receives the mutual agreement of the landowner and the City Council is documented as such. �Section "13.07: Issuance of.§ Special Use Permit Upon approval by the City Council, the Zoning Administrator shall issue the special use permit. It shall be the responsibility of the Zoning Administrator to monitor compliance with the terms, conditions and restrictions of any special use permit and take any enforcement action necessary in the event of a violation of the Special Use Permit. Section "13.08: Appeal Appeal of a decision on a special use request may be taken to the Board of Zoning Appeals in accordance with Section "18.02. All decisions of the City Council and Board of Zoning Appeals relating to special use applications, including the findings supporting any decision, shall be recorded in written form and retained as permanent records on file with the Zoning Administrator and a copy in the office of the City Clerk. Section "13.09: Basis of Determinations Prior to approval of a special use application and required site plan, the City Council shall insure that the standards specified herein shall be satisfied by the completion and operation of the special use under consideration. 1. GENERAL STANDARDS: The City Council shall review the particular circumstances of the special use request under consideration in terms of the following standards, and shall approve a special use request only upon a finding of compliance with each of the following standards, as well as applicable standards established elsewhere in this Ordinance. a) The special use shall be designed, constructed, operated and maintained in a manner harmonious with the character of adjacent property and the surrounding area. b) The special use shall not inappropriately change the essential character of the surrounding area. c) The special use shall not interfere with the general enjoyment of adjacent property. d) The special use shall represent an improvement to the use or character of the property under consideration and the surrounding area in general, yet also be in keeping with the natural environment of the site. e) The special use shall not be hazardous to adjacent property, or involve uses, activities, materials or equipment which will be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of persons or property in any way. f) The special use shall be adequately served by essential public facilities and services, or it shall be demonstrated that the person responsible for the proposed special use shall be able to continually provide adequately for the services and facilities deemed essential to the special use under consideration. g) The special use shall not place demands on public services and facilities in excess of current capacity. h) The special use shall be consistent with the intent and purpose of this Ordinance and the objectives of the currently adopted Master Plan. �2. CONDITIONS: The City Council may impose conditions with the approval of a special use application and site plan which are necessary to insure compliance with the standards for approval stated in this section and any other applicable City ordinances and regulations. Such conditions shall be considered an integral part of the Special Use Permit and approved site plan and shall be enforced by the Zoning Administrator. The conditions may include conditions necessary to insure that public services and facilities affected will be capable of accommodating increased service and facility load caused by the land use or activity, to protect the natural environment and conserve natural resources, to insure compatibility with adjacent uses of land and to promote the use of land in a socially and economically desirable manner. 3. PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE: In authorizing a Special Use Permit, the City Council may require that a cash deposit, certified the applicant to insure compliance with an approved site plan and the Special Use Permit requirements. Such guarantee shall be deposited with the City Clerk at the time of the issuance of the Special Use Permit. In fixing the amount of such performance guarantee, the City Council shall limit it to reasonable improvement required to meet the standards of this Ordinance and to protect the natural resources of the City and future users or inhabitants of the proposed project or project area including, but not limited to roadway, lighting, utilities, sidewalks, screening and dr_ ainage. The term "improvements" does not include the entire project which is the subject of zoning approval nor to improvements for which a performance guarantee has be deposited pursuant to Act No. 288 of 1967, as amended. The City Council and the applicant shall establish an agreeable procedure for the rebate of any cash deposits required under this section, in reasonable proportion to the ratio of the work completed on the required improvements as work progresses. Said agreement shall be written as an element of the conditions surrounding the approval of the Special Use Permit. Section 13.10 : Effective Date The Special Use Permit shall become effective when the application has been approved by the City Council. 1. A building permit shall not be issued until approval of such Special Use Permit by the City Council. 2. Until a building permit has been granted pursuant to the Special Use Permit, there shall be no construction or excavation of said land, nor shall use of the land be made toward the intended purposes of the special use request. 3. Land subject to a Special Use Permit may not be used or occupied for purpose of such special use until after a certificate of occupancy for same has been issued pursuant to the provision of this Ordinance. Section 13.11 : Permit Validity 1. Approval of a Special Use Permit shall be valid regardless of change of ownership, provided that all terms and conditions of the permit are met by any subsequent owner. 2. In instances where development authorized by a Special Use Permit has not commenced within one (1) year from the date of issuance or the last date of review authorized by this subsection, the City Council shall review the permit in relation to the applicable standards and requirements of this Ordinance. Upon a finding that there has been a change in conditions on the property or the sur- �rounding area or in provision of this Ordinance applicable to the Special Use Permit under review, such that the permit is no longer in conformance with the requirements of this Ordinance, the permit shall become null and void. Where it is determined that such permits are in conformance with the provisions of this Ordinance and there has not been a change in conditions affecting the validity of the permit, the Special Use Permit shall remain valid, subject to periodic review in accordance with·the provisions of this Ordinance. Section 13.12: Requirements -for Compliance : Penalties It shall be the duty and obligation of the owner(s) and occupant(s) of land and uses subject to a Special Use Permit that the continued use of such land shall at all times be in compliance with the use requirements of this Ordinance. Failure thereof shall be a violation of this Ordinance and subject to the penalties and remedies provided in Section, 20.04 and the the continuance thereof is declared to be a nuisance per se. Section 13.13 : Once Granted g Special Use Permit, the Use is g Permitted Use Any use for which a Special Use Permit has been granted shall be deemed a conforming use permitted in the district in which such use is located provided: 1. Such permit was issued in conformity with the provisions of this Ordinance; and 2. Such permit shall be deemed to effect only the lot or portion thereof and uses thereupon for which the Special Use Permit shall have been explicitly granted; and 3. Such permit authorizes a use which is subsequently built, operated and maintained in compliance with the Ordinance, the Special Use Permit, and all conditions established with its approval. �ARTICLE XIV SITE PLAN Section 14.01 = Purpose The intent of requiring site plan submittal and review as specified herein is to facilitate determination of whether development proposals meet all applicable requirements and are in harmony with the purpose, intent and spirit of this Ordinance. It is further the intent to assist City officials in encouraging and assisting proposers of land development to design and implement land use proposals which foster orderly, efficient, compatible and aesthetic uses of land in the City of Niles. Section 14.02 =When Required A site plan shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with the requirements of this Ordinance with any application for a special land use permit, building permit for any residential, commercial or industrial building or project, and with any application for a planned unit development, provided that a site plan may not be required if the application involves the use, construction, alternation, enlargement, repair, placement, or replacement of only and individual single-family dwelling or any use or structure accessory to a permitted principal use. 1. The Planning Director may further require a site plan for applications otherwise exempted from a site plan requirement, where in his opinion a site plan is necessary to ensure compliance with this ordinance. 2. The Planning Director may upon written request of an applicant and after conversation with appropriate City staff, waive or mod ify the required contents of the Site Plan, provided, however, that all applicable requirements of this and other City ordinances and State laws are complied with . Section 14.03 = Contents A required site plan shall be drawn at a scale which is adequate to clearly portray the following information: 1. The boundary lines of the area included in the site plan, including angles, dimensions and reference to a section corner, quarter corner or point on a recorded plat, an arrow pointing north, and the individual lot areas and dimensions of the land included in the site plan . 2. Existing and proposed topography, existing and proposed drainage system and structures, with topographic contour intervals of not more than two (2) feet. 3. The shape, size and location of all structures that will remain on the lot including yard dimensions, height, floor area and ground coverage ratios and the finished ground and basement floor grades. Principal and accessory buildings shall be identified and their relationship to each other explained. 4. Front, side and rear elevations of all proposed buildings and structures. 5. Natural features such as woodlots, trees of more than one (1) foot in diameter, streams and lakes or ponds, and manmade features which are to be retained, and those which are to be removed or altered . Adjacent properties and their uses shall be identified. i �.. 6. Proposed streets, driveways, parking spaces, curb cuts, loading spaces and sidewalks, with indication of direction of travel for one-way streets and drives and the inside radius of all drives. The width of streets, driveways and sidewalks, and the total number and layout of parking spaces shall be shown. Vehicular traffic and pedestrian circulation patterns within and without the site shall be identified. 7. The size and location of all existing and proposed public and private utilities, including but not limited to water, sewer and solid waste disposal facilities. 8. The location of all proposed landscaping including fences and/or walls. 9. A vicinity sketch showing location of the site in relation to the surrounding street system. · 1O. The location, intensity and orientation of outdoor lighting. 11. The location, dimensions and lighting of all signs. 12. A legal description of the land and lots included in the site plan. 13. The name, signature, title, and mailing address of the person who prepared the site plan. The Planning Director shall require that this site plan be prepared and sealed by either a registered engineer, architect, and/or surveyor. 14. Any other information necessary to establish compliance with this and any other ordinances and the availability of adequate utility capacity. ' Section 14.04 = Application, Review Process, Approval All applicants are encouraged to confer informally with the Planning Commission before any documents for application are prepared. Five (5) copies of the site plan with five (5) copies of a covering letter signed by the owner of the land and/or prospective developer giying a general explanation of and background information on the proposed development shall be filed with the City Planning Director along with all necessary fees and documents required by this Ordinance. 1. The Planning Director shall examine the site plan as to proper form and content and particularly as to compliance with all applicable requirements of this Ordinance, and prepare a finding of fact. The Planning Director shall disseminate the Site Plan to appropriate City staff, including but not limited to City Engineer, Utilities, Building Inspector, Code Compliance Official, for their review and comment. The Site Plan shall be returned to the Planning Director within three (3) working days of receipt. 2. The site plan and any accompanying documents shall then by forwarded to the Planning Commission and the Property Committee for their joint consideration at the next regular application has been received by the City Planning Director at least fifteen (15) days prior to the regular meeting of the Planning Commission. If not received within this time schedule, the site plan will be considered at a special meeting called for that purpose, provided however, than the Planning Commission and property Committee shall meet not more and twice within a thirty (30) day period. 2 �3. The Planning Commission and the Property Committee shall examine the site plan and accompanying documents as to proper form and content and particularly as to compliance with all applicable requirements of this Ordinance. If the proposed development does not require the issuance of a variance, rezoning of land, special use permit or is not located in the Downtown Development District, the Planning Commission and Property Committee shall approve or disapprove the site plan. With ten (10) days of the decision of the Planning Commission and Property Committee, the Planning Director shall notify the proposer of the development of the approval or disapproval of the site plan. If the Site Plan is disapproved, the proposer of the development shall be notified in writing. 4. If the proposed development requires the issuance of a Special Use Permit, the Planning Commission shall transmit its findings to the City Council along with one (1) copy of the site plan and covering letter. The City Council shall follow the Special Use procedure as provided in Article XIII. The proposer of the development shall be notified of the status of his requested plan approval. 5. If the proposed development is located within the Downtown Development District, the site plan shall be reviewed by the Downtown Development Authority (ODA) at their regular meeting prior to final review by the Planning Commission. The Downtown Development Authority shall review the plan for conformance with its Downtown Development Plan and Building Rehabilitation/Renovation/Construction Standards. The DOA shall submit its findings and recommendation to the Planning Commission. 6. As approved, the site plan shall become part of the record of approval and subsequent actions relating to the activity authorized shall be consistent with the approved site plan, unless a change conforming to this Ordinance receives the mutual agreement of the landowner and the official or body which initially approved the site plan. 3 �ARTICLE XV PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Section 15.01 = Provisions and Requirements: The basic provisions and requirements concerning Planned Unit Development are as follows: the subdivision, development and use of land containing three (3) or more acres as an integral unit, combining more than one primary land use and which may provide for single-family residential, multi-family residential, education, business , commercial, industrial, recreations, park and common use areas may be described as a Planned Unit Development. 1. In its establishment and authorization as a special use, in addition to the foregoing provision, the following procedures, requirements, restrictions, standards and conditions shall be observed. 2. The Planned Unit Development may be excluded from the provisions of the Subdivision Regulations and of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Niles to the extent specified in the final authorization of the Planned Unit Development. Section 15.02 = Procedure 1. The applicant shall request the City Council by letter addressed to the Zoning Administrator with the appropriate fee, to call a meeting of the Planning Commission for a preliminary discussion of the proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD), and the Planning Commission shall call such meeting, which may be continued from time to time. The applicant shall present such exhibits and written information as may be necessary to fully acquaint the Planning Commission with the proposed development which shall include but not necessarily be limited to the following: a. A tentative sketch plan, which may be in freehand sketch form, showing1 the location and extent of the types of land uses proposed; b. The existing topography at five (5) foot contour intervals which may be taken from U.S.G.S. information; c. Existing streets surrounding the subject property; d. Existing utilities including storm drainage facilities. e. The following shall be provided by either graphic exhibits or written statements: the density of residential uses and the number of dwelling units by type; the ancillary and non-residential uses to be provided in a residential Planned Unit Development; the off-street parking and other service facilities proposed; the exceptions or variations to the City zoning or subdivision requirements being requested as part of the Planned Unit Development application. 1 �2. Within thirty (30) days after final adjournment of the meeting, the Planning Commission shall submit to the City Council its report in writing containing recommendations. 3. The formal petitions for a Planned Unit Development shall be addressed to the City Council and shall be filed with the City Clerk, attached to each copy shall be copies of the supporting documents and exhibits hereinafter provided for. · 4. A filing fee in an amount of Two Dollars ($2.00) per dwelling unit or Ten Dollars ($10.00) per gross acre, whichever is greater, shall be paid to the City Clerk at the time of such filing. 5. The City Council shall refer the petition to the Planning Commission who shall set a hearing date which shall be not less than thirty (30) nor more than sixty (60) days after the filing of the petition. The petitioner shall cause notice of the hearing to be published at least once, not more than fifteen (15) days nor less than five (5) days before said hearing date in one or more newspapers of general circulation in the City. 6. The City Clerk shall forward a copy of the petition to the Supervisor and each member of the City Council and members of the Planning Commission. 7. The petition shall be heard by the Planning Commission and its report to the City Council of its findings and recommendations shall be accompanied by such plats, exhibits and agreements as shall have been presented by the petitioner; each identified for reference by letter or number, together with any suggested changes therein. 8. The City Council may grant a special use for a Planned Unit Development which shall be by specific ordinance and which shall contain or to which shall be appended all terms and conditions of the grant, including covenants and agreements, guarantees, performance bonds, plats and the like. Section 15.03 = Content of Petition The formal petition shall contain, in addition to all other requirements, the following: 1. An outline plan of the Planned Unit Development. This plan will be at a scale of not less than 111 = 1001 which shall show all proposed streets (public and private) street classifications, rights-of-way, all principal an accessory buildings and their use, lot size, building lines, easements for utility services, off-street parking, service areas, open space, recreation facilities and any other information necessary to clearly show the proposed elements of the Planned Unit Development. 2. Preliminary architectural plans for all residential buildings shall be submitted in sufficient detail to show the basic building planning, the number of units per building and the number of bedrooms per dwelling unit. Preliminary architectural plans are not required for business or other non-residential buildings at the time of this application but must be submitted to the Planning Commission for its approval prior to filing an application for a building permit. 3. A topographic survey and boundary survey of the subject area, prepared and certified by a registered Michigan surveyor including a legal description. 4. A rendered plan of the Planned Unit Development area, showing in contrasting colors or by other means, the respective location of all categories of land use. 2 �5. A map of the City of Niles showing the Planned Unit Development area and its relation to existing roads and streets and use districts within and immediately adjacent to the City. 6. Preliminary plans and outline specifications of the following improvements: a. Roads, streets and alleys, including classifications, width of right-of-way, widths of paved surfaces and construction details; b. Sidewalks, including widths of paved surfaces and construction details; c. Sanitary and storm sewers systems (private); d. Water supply system (private); e. Street lighting and public area lighting system; f. Recommended installation for electric, gas and telephone faculties and distribution; g. Sequence of phases or stages of development of the Planned Unit Development. h. A general landscape planting plan shall be prepared by a landscape architect and shall meet the approval of the Planning Commission. 7. Estimates of cost of installation of all proposed improvements confirmed by a registered Michigan engineer. 8. Petitioner's proposed covenants, restrictions and conditions to be established as a part of the Planned Unit Development. Section 15.04 = Construction of Improvements The petitioner shall construct and install the required improvements and must post with the City the sum in cash or negotiable securities, or a surety bond running to the City in an amount sufficient to cover the full cost, including engineering and inspection fees and costs, plus ten (1 0) percent of such total, to assure the satisfactory installation of such improvements; the amount of such deposit or bond shall be based upon the confirmed estimate of cost hereinabove provided for; if a surety bond is submitted, it shall have good and sufficient surety thereupon and shall not be accepted until approved by the Mayor and City Council. If the Planned Unit Development is to be constructed and developed in stages or phases, the deposit of cash or securities or the bond posted shall be in an amount based upon the confirmed estimated cost of installation of improvements in the respective stage or phase as approved by the City Council. Section 15.05 = Street Classifications Street Classifications, definitions and specifications shall be according to regulations pertaining to sam~ as established in the Subdivision Regulations of the City of Niles as may be amended from time to time. Section 15.06 = Standards No Planned Unit Development shall be authorized unless the Planning Commission shall find and recommend, in addition to those standards established herein for special 3 �uses that the following standards will be met: 1. GENERAL: a. The uses permitted by such exceptions as may be requested or recommended are necessary for desirable and appropriate to the purpose of the development. b. The uses permitted in such development are not of such nature or so located as to exercise an undue detrimental influence or effect upon the surrounding neighborhood. c. That any industrial park areas established in the Planned Unit Development conform to all requirements therefore as set forth elsewhere in this Ordinance. d. That all minimum requirements pertaining to commercial, residential, institutional or other uses established in Planned Unit Development shall be subject to the requirements for each individual classification as established elsewhere in this Ordinance, except as may be specifically varied in the Ordinance granting and establishing a Planned Unit Development use. e. When private street and common driveways are made a part of the Planned Unit Development or private common open space or recreation facilities are provided, the applicant shall submit as part of the application the method and arrangement whereby these private facilities shall be operated and maintained. Such arrangements for operating and maintaining private facilities shall be subject to the approval of the City Council. f. Underground Installation of Utility Wires. Findings: The City Council hereby finds that overhead wires for electric, communication, or similar or associated services are hazardous to the public health and safety, adversely affect the value of property in the City of Niles, contribute to conditions of urban blight, are incompatible with major land use planning objectives and mar the natural beauty of the City. Intention: It is the intention of the City Council over a period of years to eliminate overhead utility wires through police power, and other appropriate means. New Plats and Sites: Within the area of a plat or site plan approved effective on adoption of this Ordinance, all distribution lines for electric communication or similar associated service shall be placed underground in accordance with Land Development Regulations adopted by the Planning Commission. Such regulations shall contain, among other things, reasonable exceptions for the authorized overhead main supply lines and overhead perimeter feed lines and necessary surface facilities. Those electric and communication facilities placed in dedicated public ways shall be planned so as not to conflict with other underground utilities. All communication facilities placed in dedicated public ways shall be planned so as not to conflict with other underground utilities. All communication and electrical facilities shall be constructed in accordance with standards of constructing approval by the Michigan Public Service Commission. All underground utility installations which traverse privately owned property shall be protected by easements granted by the owner of such property. 4 �Subsection Three: Subsection three of this section shall not apply to any plat or site plan which has received preliminary approval as of the effective date of this section. City Council May Modify: The City Council may, by resolution, waive or modify any of the above requirements for underground line installations with respect to a particular plat or city plan when the strict application of the above requirements would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship. Prior to any such waiver or modification, all interested parties shall be notified and given an opportunity to be heard. 2. RESIDENTIAL: a. Residential density for a Planned Unit Development shall not be greater than the recommended density, as shown on the Master Plan for the City nor shall any lot to be used for residential purposes be less in area or dimension than that required by the district regulations applicable to the district in which the planned development is located, except that the Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may grant a reduction in such lot area and dimension, but not more than fifteen ('15) percent when the Planned Unit Development provides common open space equal to not less than ten ('10) percent of the gross area of the Planned Unit Development. b. Business uses may be included as part of a planned residential development when the Planning Commission finds that such business uses are beneficial to the overall Planned Unit Development (PUD) and will not be injurious to adjacent or neighboring properties. Such business uses shall not be greater in area than ten (1 O) percent of the Planned Unit Development. c. The open areas provided in the part of a planned development containing only residential structures shall be preserved over the life of the PUD for use only by the residents of the planned development or dedicated to the City of Niles for school, playground or other public uses by an instrument or guarantee acceptable to the City Park Board. d. For that part of a planned development devoted to residential uses, the Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may approve access to a dwelling by a driveway or pedestrian walk easement, and spacing between buildings or lesser width or depth than required by district regulations for the district in which the planned development is located, provided: 1. That adequate provisions are made which perpetuate during the period of the special use, access easements and off-street parking spaces for use by the residents of the dwellings served; 2. The spacing between buildings shall be approved by the Planning Commission and shall be consistent with the application of recognized site planning principles for securing a unified development, and due consideration is given to the openness normally afforded by intervening streets and alleys. Minimum side yards between principal buildings within a part of a planned development where subsequent ·transfer of ownership is 5 �development where subsequent transfer of ownership is contemplated, shall be equivalent to side yards as would be required between buildings by district regulations for the district in which it is located; and 3. e. The yards for principal buildings along the periphery of the development shall be not less in width or depth than required for permitted uses in the district regulations applicable to the districts in which the planned development is located, and the plan is developed to afford adequate protection to neighboring properties as recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council. Variations of Minimum Requirements 1. Wherever the applicant proposes to provide and set out, by platting, deed, dedication, restriction or covenant, and land or space separate from single-family or multi-family residential districts to be used for parks, playgrounds, commons, greenways or open areas, the Planning Commission may consider and recommend to the City Council and the City Council may vary the applicable minimum requirements of he subdivision regulations and the Zoning Ordinance which may include but not necessarily be limited to the following: rear yard side yard lot area bulk off-street parking 3. intensity of use street width sidewalks public utilities BUSINESS a. Business uses shall be as prescribed by the Planning Commission. b. All business and storage of materials shall be conducted or stored within a completely enclosed building. C. Not more than thirty (30) percent of the lot area shall be covered by buildings or structures. d. At least ten (10) percent of the lot shall be provided for landscape and open space purposes. e. No building more than thirty-five (35) feet in height shall be approved by the Planning Commission. f. No dwellings shall be permitted in a planned business development. g. Off-street parking shall be provided and maintained on the same lot based upon three (3) square feet of parking space for each square foot of gross floor area unless the Planning Commission recommends and the City Council requires additional off-street parking space. h. Service and loading and unloading facilities shall be provided as recommended and approved by the Planning Commission. ~ 6 �4. i. No building shall be located nearer than fifty (50) feet to any street line. j. Business developments shall be adequately screened by fencing or/and scaping or both along the boundaries of adjacent residential, public open space, schools, churches or other similar uses. The screen planting shall be prepared by a landscape architect and shall meet the approval of the Planning Commission. k. Outside lighting shall be so designed and placed so as to not be disturbing to adjacent residential areas. I. Signs shall comply with the regulations of the B-1 Business Uses permitted in this Ordinance. INDUSTRIAL a. Minimum Area: The owner of a tract of undeveloped land or land cleared for ten ('10) acres or more which is designated for industrial development on the Land Use Plan, may submit to the City Planning Commission for its review, a preliminary plan for the use and development thereof for a planned industrial district, regardless of the zoning district in which such tract is located at the time said plan is filed. b. Permitted Uses: The following uses may be permitted in a Planned Industrial District: Any use permitted in the 1-1 Limited Industrial District, except retail and service business use, and except that there may be permitted the following attendant and accessory uses: Offices accessory or attendant to the principal use on a zoning lot; Accessory service uses which are necessary to conduct of the principal manufacturing use; Research facilities; Medical clinics; Any other attendant or accessory L!s e approved by the Planning Commission as part of the Planned Industrial Development which the Commission finds to be compatible with the plan and which will have no undue adverse effect upon surrounding properties. c. Conditions of Use: All permitted uses are subject to the following conditions: Any production, processing cleaning, servicing testing, repair or storage of goods, materials or products shall conform with the standards set forth herein; All business, production, servicing and processing shall take place within completely enclosed buildings unless otherwise specified; Within one hundred fifty ('150) feet of residence district, all storage shall be in completely enclosed buildings or structures and located elsewhere in this district, may be open to the sky but shall be 7 �enclosed by a solid wall or fence (including solid doors or gates thereto) at least eight (8) feet high, but in no case lower than the enclosed storage and suitable landscaped. However, open off-street loading facilities and open off-street parking of motor vehicles under one and one-half (1-1 /2) tons capacity may be unenclosed throughout the district, except for such screening of parking and loading facilities as may be required. Uses established on the effective date of this Ordinance and by its provision are rendered non-conforming shall be permitted to continue, subject to the regulations of Article V. d. Commission Findings: It shall be the duty of the Planning Commission to ascertain that the proposed project will comply with the following conditions: Integrated Design -- That the plan provides for an industrial district consisting of several buildings or groups of buildings of efficient and harmonious design, together with properly arranged trafficways, parking and loading facilities and landscaping, so arranged as to create an attractive project readily integrated with and having no undue adverse effect on adjoining or surrounding areas and development. Thoroughfare Access -- That the industrial district will abut a street on the Major Street Plan which is a part of the Official Land use Plan as a highway, primary or secondary thoroughfare or that direct access to such street is provided by means of an acceptable industrial service street. e. General Design Standards and Improvement Requirements: The following minimum design standards shall be observed and the owner or developer shall post with the City of Niles and adequate surety bond or furnish other kind of guarantee satisfactory to the Commission, assuring the installation at the expense of the owner or developer of improvements specified in the following: Right-of-Way and Pavements -- All interior streets shall have a rightof-way width of not less than sixty-six (66) feet, and all cul-de-sacs shall have a minimum radius of seventy (70) feet. Said streets shall be provided with pavement and concrete curb and gutter. Pavement shall be concrete or asphalt equal to the Michigan Division of Highway Specification. Utilities -- All necessary utilities shall be installed, meeting City specifications and the subdivision regulations of the City to include underground utilities in new construction. Off-Steet Parking -- Off-street parking shall be installed as required in Article XII except that for employee parking, one (1) space shall be provided for each two (2) employees on the maximum shift. Customer or visitor parking -- at least ten (1 O) spaces shall be provided per plant. Loading Facilities -- Loading facilities shall be installed in accord8 �ance with Article XII. Loading docks shall not be placed along building fronts. Plant Vehicle Storage --Such storage shall be sufficient to accommodate all plant vehicles off the street. Lot Area -- Minimun, of one (1) acre. Maximum Lot Coverage -- The maximum area occupied by all buildings on any lot shall not exceed forty-five (45) percent of the total area of the lot. Yard Requirements -- Same as permitted in 1-1 Limited Industrial District. Building Height limit -- Same as permitted in the 1-1 Limited Industrial District. --Distance Between Buildings -- Principal buildings - fifty (50) feet; accessory structures - twenty (20) feet. Distance of Buildings from Project or Tract Boundary -- If adjoining a residence district, one hundred (100) feet; if adjoining a B-1 District, fifty (50) feet; in all other cases, thirty-five (35) feet. Landscaping of Unsurfaced Areas -- All unpaved areas shall be landscaped subject to Commission approval. Greenbelts -- The project area shall be enclosed on all side adjacent to a residential district by a planted strip at least fifty (50) feet wide. The plant material, subject to Commission approval, shall have initially a height and compactness of not less than fifty (50) percent of the ultimately required height and compactness. Outdoor Advertising -- Each industry may have one (1) suitable identifying sign not to exceed two hundred fifty (250) square feet in area. One sign may be erected, designating the name of the industrial park and a directory to access. No sign shall be erected to exceed a height of twenty-five (25) feet. Illumination -- Exterior lighting fixtures shall be so installed as to reflect the light away from adjacent properties. f. Final Development Plan: Upon determination by the Planning Commission that the proposed planned industrial district, as shown in the preliminary plan, appears to conform to the requirements of this Ordinance, the proponents shall submit a final development plan which plan shall incorporates any changes or modifications required by the Commission, together with an application for the necessary appropriate changes in district classification of the site of the proposed planned industrial district. g. Recommendation to the City Council: If the final plan is found to be in compliance with the requirements herein, the Commission shall hold a public hearing on both the plan and the proposed change in zoning district classification and submit said plan with its report and 9 �recommendation to the City Council. ~ h. Rezoning: The City Council may modify the plan, consistent with the intent of this Ordinance and may change the zoning of the site to the appropriate zoning district classification. i. Adjustments Authorized by Commission: After the final development plan has been approved by the City Council and in the course of carrying out the plan, minor adjustments and rearrangements of buildings, service area and other features requested by the developers may be authorized by the Planning Commission. 10 �ARTICLE XVI AMENDMENTS Section 16.01 = Authority The regulations imposed and the districts created under the authority of this Ordinance may be amended from time to time, by ordinance in accordance with applicable statutes of the State of Michigan. An amendment shall be granted or denied by the City Council only after a public hearing before the Planning Commission and a report of its findings and recommendations has been submitted. Section 16.02 = Initiation of Amendment Amendments may be proposed by the City Council, by the Planning Commission, the Zoning Board of Appeals, other governmental bodies, or by any resident or owner of property within the jurisdictional limits of the Ordinance. Section 16.03 = Content All petitions for amendments to this Ordinance, without limiting the right to file additional material, shall contain the following: 1. The petitioner's name, address and interest in the petition as well as the name, address and interest of every person, firm or corporation having a legal or equitable interest in the land; 2. The nature and effect of the proposed amendment; 3. If the proposed amendment would require a change in the Zoning map, a location map of the parcel(s) proposed for rezoning; classification of the land, the zoning classification of all abutting districts, all public and private rights-of-way and easements bounding and intersecting the land under construction. 4. If the proposed amendment would require a change in the Zoning map, the names and addresses of the owners, according to the current tax roll, of all land within three hundred (300) feet of the perimeter of the area to be changed by the proposed amendment. 5. The changed or changing conditions in the area or in the municipality which make the proposed amendment reasonable and necessary to the promotion of the public health, safety and general welfare. 6. All other circumstances, factors and reasons which applicant offers in support of the proposed amendment. Section 16.04 • = Processing An application for an amendment shall be filed with the City Planning Director and thereafter reviewed by the City Council. Such an application shall be forwarded from the City Council to the Planning Commission, with a request to hold a public hearing. 1 �Section 16.05 = Public Hearing Before submitting its recommendations on the petition to amend, the Planning Commission shall hold at least one (1) public hearing notice of which shall be given by two (2) publications in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, the first to be printed not more than thirty (30) days before the date of such hearing. In addition, the following procedures shall be required: 1. Not less than twenty (20) days notice of the time and place of such hearing shall be given by mail to each electric, gas, pipeline and telephone public utility company which registers its name and mailing address with the City for the purpose of receiving such notice, and to each railroad operating within the district or zone affected. An affidavit of mailing shall be maintained. 2. If an individual property is proposed for rezoning, the Planning Commission shall give a notice of public hearing thereof to the owner of the property in question, to all persons to whom any real property within 300 feet of the premises in question is assessed, and to the occupants of all single and two-family dwellings within 300 feet. Such notice shall be given at least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. The notice shall be delivered personally or by mail to the respective owners and tenants at the address given in the last assessment roll. If the tenant's name is not known, an affidavit of mailing shall be filed with the Planning Commission prior to the hearing. 3. All notices of public hearing shall state the time, date, place and purpose of such public hearing. 4. Following the public hearing on behalf of the Planning Commission, the Planning Director shall: a. submit the proposed amendment to the County Planning Commission for approval. The approval of the County Planning Commission shall be conclusively presumed unless the County Planning Commission within thirty (30) days of receipt notifies the City Clerk of its disapproval. b. refer the proposed amendment to the City Council along with its summary of the public hearing and written recommendations for approval or disapproval and reasons therefore after receipt of the response from the County Planning Commission. 5. A public hearing conducted by the City Council shall not be necessary unless a request is made in writing by the property owner. If a hearing is requested, notice of the public hearing must be published not less than five (5) days or more than fifteen (15) days before the hearing. 6. Thereafter at any regular meeting or any special meeting called therefore, the City Council may adopt and enact the proposed amendment, in accordance with Act 207, P.A. 1921, as amended, being the City and Village Zoning Act. Section 16.06 = Protest Petition An amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which is the object of a protest petition shall be passed only by a 2/3 vote of the City Council. The protest petition must be received before final legislative action on the proposed amendment. The protest petition must be delivered personally, or mail, to the City Clerk, either at or before the hearing on the proposed amendment. The City Council may not act on a proposed zoning amendment protested pursuant to Section 4 of P.A. 207 of 1921, as amended, until after the 2 �,r,. protest petitions are examined and certified by the City Clerk. A valid petition shall include the signatures of either: 1. the owners of at least twenty (20) percent of the area of land included in the proposed change; or 2. the owners of at least twenty (20) percent of the area of land included within an area extending outward one hundred (100) feet from any point on the boundary of the land included in the proposed change. Section 16.07 = Enactment Upon enactment, the Zoning Ordinance, as well as subsequent amendments or supplements, shall be filed with the City Clerk, and one notice of ordinance adoption shall be published in a newspaper or general circulation in the City within fifteen (15) days after adoption. The notice shall include the following information: 1. In the case of a newly adopted zoning ordinance, the following statement: 11 A Zoning Ordinance regulating the development and use of land has been adopted by the City Council of the City of Niles"; 2. In the case of an amendment to an existing ordinance, a summary of the regulatory effect of the amendment including the geographic area affected; 3. The effective date of the Ordinance; 4. The place and time where a copy of the Ordinance may be purchased or inspected. Section 16.08 = Official Filing and Map Change Within seven (7) days after publication, the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance shall be filed in the Official Ordinance Book of the City with a certification of the City Clerk stating the vote on passage and when published and filed. If the amendment requires a change on the official zoning map, such change shall be made on the map in accordance with the provisions of Article VI of this Ordinance within ten (1 O) days after enactment of the amendment. • 3 - - -- - - �ARTICLE XVII ADMINISTRATION Section 17.01 = Zoning Administrator 1. An administrative official who shall be known as the Zoning Administrator shall be designated by the City Council to administer and enforce this Ordinance. He may be provided with the assistance of such other persons as the City Council may direct. 2. If the Zoning Administrator shall find that any of the provisions of this ordinance are being violated, he shall notify, in writing, the person responsible for such violation, indicating the nature of the violation and ordering the action necessary for correction. He shall order discontinuance of illegal uses of land, buildings, or stru_ctures; removal of illegal buildings or structures or of illegal addition, alterations, or structural changes; discontinuance of any illegal work being done; and shall take any other action authorized by this Ordinance or general law to ensure compliance with or to prevent violation of the provisions of this ordinance. Section 17.02 = Duties and Limitations of the Zoning Administrator 1. The Zoning Administrator shall have the authority to grant zoning compliance permits and to make inspections of buildings or premises necessary to carry out his duties in the enforcement of this Ordinance. It shall be unlawful for the Zoning Administrator to approve any plans or issue a Zoning Compliance Permit for any excavation or construction or use until he has inspected such plans in detail and has found them in compliance with this ordinance. To this end, the Zoning Administrator shall require that an application for a zoning compliance permit for excavation, construction, moving, alteration, or change in type of use or type of occupancy, shall, where required by this Ordinance, be accompanied by a site plan. (See Article XIV, Site Plan.) • 2. If the proposed excavation, construction, moving or alteration, or use of land as set forth in the application, and site plan when required is in conformity with the provisions of this Ordinance, the Zoning Administrator shall issue a Zoning Compliance Permit. If an application for such permit is not approved, the Zoning Administrator shall state in writing on an appropriate denial form the cause for such disapproval. 3. The Zoning Administrator may accept a preliminary application and a lesser number of submitted documents than those listed above in situations where a basic clarification is desired prior to proceeding with further technical work; and the Zoning Administrator may on such preliminary submittal take the formal action of tentative denial or tentative approval. 4. Issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit shall in no case be construed as waiving any provisions of this Ordinance. The Zoning Administrator is under no circumstances permitted to grant exceptions to the actual meaning of any clause, order, or regulation contained in this Ordinance to any person making application to excavate, construct, move, alter, or use buildings, structures, or land. The Zoning Administrator is under no circumstance permitted to make changes to this Ordinance or to vary the terms of this Ordinance in carrying out his duties. �5. The Zoning Administrator shall not refuse to issue a Zoning Compliance Permit when the applicant has complied with all applicable conditions required by this Ordinance. Violations of contracts such as covenants or private agreem~nts which may result upon the granting of said permit are not cause for refusal to issue a permit. Section 17.03 • =Zoning Compliance Permit 1. It shall be unlawful to commence the excavation for or the construction of any building or other structure, including an accessory building, or to commence the moving, or structural alteration, including an accessory building, costing more than one hundred dollars ($100.00) or exceeding one hundred (100) square feet in floor area, until the Zoning Administrator has issued for such work a Zoning Compliance Permit including a cerification of his opinion that plans, specifications, and intended use of such structure do in all respects conform to the provisions of this Ordinance. 2. It shall be unlawful to change the type of land, or to change the type of use or type of occupancy of any building, or to extend any use on any lot on which there is a nonconforming use, until the Zoning Administrator has issued for such intended use a Zoning Compliance Permit. 3. In all cases where a building permit is required, application for a Zoning Compliance Permit shall be made coincidentally with the application for a building permit and in all other cases shall be made not less than ten (10) days prior to the time when a new or enlarged use of a building or premises or part thereof is intended to begin. This application shall be made in writing to the Zoning Administrator and shall provide all relevant project information. A record of all such applications shall be kept on file by the Zoning Administrator. 4. Any Zoning Compliance Permit issued under the provisions of this Ordinance shall be valid only for a period of sixty (60) days following the date of issuance thereof. Any project which has not commenced within the sixty (60) day period will require the reissuance of extension of the Zoning Compliance Permit. 5. When the Zoning Administrator receives an application for a Zoning Compliance Permit, which requires a special land use permit, variance, or other approval, he shall so inform the applicant. 6. Before any Zoning Compliance Permit shall be issued, an inspection fee shall be paid in an amount fixed by a schedule established by resolution of the City Council. 7. No building or structure or use for which a Zoning Compliance Permit has been issued shall be used or occupied until after a final inspection has been performed which indicates that all the provisions of this Ordinance are being complied with and a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued by the Building Official. The issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy shall in no case be construed as waiving any provisions of this Ordinance . �ARTICLE XVIII ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Section 18.01 : Creation and Membership 1. A City Board of Appeals is hereby established. The word 11 Board 11 when used in this Section shall be construed to mean the Board of Appeals. The Board shall consist of five (5) members as provided by Section 18 of Act 184 of the Public Acts of 1943, as amended. The first member of such Board of Appeals shall be a member of the City Planning Commission. The remaining members of the Board of Appeals shall be selected from the electors of the City. The members selected shall be representative of the geographic population distribution of the City. An employee or contractor of the City Council may not serve as a member or an employee of the City Board of Appeals. Members of the Board of Appeals shall be removable by the City Council for nonperformance of duty or misconduct in office upon written charges and after public hearing. A member shall disqualify himself from a vote in which he has a conflict of interest. Failure of a member to disqualify himself from a vote in which he has a conflict of interest shall constitute misconduct in office. 2. The term of each member shall be for three (3) years, except that of the members first appointed, two (2) shall serve for two {2) years and the remaining members for three (3) years. A successor shall be appointed not more than one {1) month after the term of the preceding member has expired. All vacancies for unexpired terms shall be filled for the remainder of the term. 3. Meetings of the City Board of Appeals shall be held at the call of the Chairman and at such other times as the Board in its rules of procedure may specify. All meetings of the Board of Appeals shall be open to the public. The Board shall maintain a record of its proceedings which shall be a public record. Section 18.02: Jurisdiction and Authority The Board of Appeals shall have the following powers and duties and shall act upon all questions as they may arise in the administration of the Zoning Ordinance. 1. APPELLATE JURISDICTION: To hear and decide appeals from and review any order, requirements, decision or determination made by the Zoning Administrator in the enforcement of this Ordinance or by the City Council in the issuance, approval/disapproval of special use permits. Appeals: a. • Filing: Appeals to the Board of Appeals concerning interpretation or administration of this Ordinance may be taken by any person aggrieved or by any office, department, board or bureau of the City, County, or State affected by any decision of the Zoning Administrator. Such appeal shall be taken within sixty {60) days of the aggrieved action by filing with the Board of Appeals a Notice of Appeal specifying the grounds thereof. The Zoning Administrator from whom the appeal is taken shall forthwith transmit to the Planning Director for presentation to the Board all materials constituting the record upon which the action appealed from was taken. �2. b. Hearing: The Board of Appeals shall fix a reasonable time of the hearing of the appeal and give due notice to the parties in accordance with standard City procedures and decide the appeal within a reasonable time. At the hearing, any party may appear in person or by agent or attorney. c. Stay of Proceedings: An appeal stays all proceedings in furtherance of the action appeased from,unless the Zoning Administrator from whom the appeal is taken certifies to the Board of Appeals after the Notice of Appeals is filled with him, that by reason of facts stated in the Certificate, a stay would, in his opinion, cause imminent peril to life and property. In such case, proceedings shall not be stayed other than by a restraining order which may be granted by a court record. VARIANCES: The Board of Appeals shall decide variances from the provisions of this Ordinance in harmony with its general purpose and intent, and shall vary then only in the specific instances hereinafter set forth where the Board shall have made a finding of fact based upon the standards hereinafter prescribed that here are practical difficulties or particular hardship in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of this Ordinance. a. Initiation - An application for a variation may be made by any person, firm or corporation, office, department, boards, bureau or commission requesting or intending to request application for a building permit, zoning certificate or occupancy certificate. b. Processing - An application for a variance shall be filed with the Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator shall forward the application to the Planning Director for processing and presentation to the Board in accordance with applicable statutes of the State of Michigan and the provisions of this Ordinance. No variances shall be made by the Board except after a public hearing, of which there shall be a given due notice in accordance with standard City procedures in a newspaper of general circulation. C. Decisions - All final decisions of the Board of Appeals on variances arrived at after the hearing shall be accompanied by findings of facts specifying the reasons for approval/disapproval of the variance. Said decision shall be final and subject to judicial review only in accordance with applicable statutes of the State of Michigan. All variances granted will be the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. d. Standards 1. The Board of Appeals shall not vary the provisions of this Ordinance unless it shall have made findings based as follows: (a) That the property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations governing the district in which its located; (b) That the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances ; and �(c) 2. A variance shall be permitted only if the evidence in the judgment of the Board of Appeals sustains each of the three (3) conditions enumerated above. 3. For the purpose of supplementing the above standards, the Board, in making this determination, whenever there are practical difficulties or particular hardships, shall also take into consideration the extent to which the following facts, favorable to the applicant, have been established by the evidence: 4. e. That the variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. (a) That the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the specific property involved will bring a particular hardship upon the owner as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out; (b) That the conditions upon which the petition for variance is based would not be applicable generally to other property within the same zoned classification; (c) That the purpose of the variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to make more money out of the property; (d) That the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property; (e) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or unduly injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, or; (f) That the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the danger, the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The Board may require each condition and restriction upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards set forth in this section to reduce or minimize the effect of such variation upon other property in the neighborhood, and to implement the general purpose and intent of this Ordinance. Authorized Variations 1. Variations from the regulations of this Zoning Ordinance shall be granted by the Board of Appeals only in accordance with the standards set out in this section. 2. No conforming use of neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district, and no permitted or nonconforming use of lands, structures or buildings· in other districts shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance. �3. BOARD OF APPEALS HAS POWERS OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ON APPEALS; REVERSALS: a. In exercising the above mentioned powers, the Board of Appeals may, so long as such action is in conformity with the terms of this Ordinance, reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the order, requirement, decision or determination appealed from. The Board may make such order, requirement, decision or determination as ought to be made, and to that end shall have the powers of the Zoning Administrator or City Council in reference to special use decision from whom the appeal is taken under appellate jurisdiction. b. The concurring vote ·of three (3) members of the Board shall be necessary to reverse any order, requirement, decision or determination of the Zoning Administrator, or to decide in favor of the applicant on any mater upon which it is required to pass under this Ordinance or to effect any variance in the application of this Ordinance. Section 18.03: Appeals from the Board of Appeals Any person, firm, corporation or department, board or bureau of the City aggrieved by any decision of the Board of Appeals may seek review by a court of record of such decision in the manner prescribed by the laws of the State of Michigan. Section 18.04: Duties of Zoning Administrator, Board of Appeals, City Council, and Courts on Matters of Appeal 1. It is the intent of this Ordinance that all questions under appellate jurisdiction shall be presented to the Board of Appeals only on appeal from the decision of the Zoning Administrator. Requests for Variances, constituting matters under original jurisdiction of the Board shall be filed with the Board via the Zoning Administrator and shall not be construed as an appeal from the decision of the Zoning Administrator. Recourse from the decisions of the Board of Appeals shall be to the courts as provided by the laws of the State or Michigan. 2. It is further the intent of this Ordinance that the duties of the City Council in connection with this Ordinance shall not include hearing and deciding questions of interpretation and enforcement that may arise. The procedure for deciding such questions shall be as stated in this Ordinance. Under this Ordinance, the City Council shall have only the duties of; a. considering and adopting or rejecting proposed amendments, considering the approval or rejection of Special Use Permits, or the repeal of this Ordinance, as provided by law, b. establishing a schedule of fees and charges as stated in Article 19.02, and c. appointing members of the Board of Appeals and the Zoning Administrator. �ARTICLE IXX SCHEDULE OF FEES Section 19.01 = Fees The City Council shall establish fees for occupancy certificates, appeals, application for amendments or special uses, and other matters pertaining to this Ordinance. The schedule of fees shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk and may be altered or amended only by the City Commission. Until all applicable fees, charges and expenses have been paid in full, no action shall be taken on any application or appeal. Section 19-02 =Fee Schedule 1. Land split or combine property: $50.00 residential/single family; $100.00 other 2. Site Plan Review: $100.00 3. Rezoning: $100.00/residential $200.00 all others 4. Special Use: $100.00 5. Zoning Board of Appeals: $50.00 Variance Request 6. Zoning Compliance Permit: $25.00 7. Antenna: $10.00 �ARTICLE XX GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 20.01 = Interpretation 1. Minimum Requirements: The provisions herein shall be held to be the minimum requirements for the promotion of public health, morals and welfare or as set by law. 2. Relationship with other laws: When the conditions imposed by any provision herein upon the use of land or building or upon the bulk of buildings are either more restrictive or less restrictive than comparable conditions imposed by any other provision herein or any other law, ordinance, resolution, rule or regulation of any kind, the regulations which are more restrictive (or which impose higher standards or requirements) shall govern. 3. Effect of Existing Agreements: This Ordinance is not intended to abrogate any easement, covenant or another private agreement, provided that where the regulatlons of the Ordinance are more restrictive, (or impose higher standards or requirements), than such easements, covenants or other private agreements, the requirements herein shall govern. Section 20.02 = Separability It is hereby declared to be the intent of the City of Niles that several provisions of this Ordinance are separable in accordance with the following: 1. If any court of competent jurisdiction shall adjudge any provision of this Ordinance to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect any other provisions not specifically included is said judgment. 2. If any court of competent jurisdiction shall adjudge invalid the application of any provisions of this Ordinance to a particular property, building or other structure, such judgment shall not affect the application of said provisions to any other property, building or structure not specifically included in said judgment. Section 20.03 = Abatement of Nuisance Any use of land, dwelling, buildings or structures, including tents and trailer coaches, used, erected, altered, razed or converted in violation of any provisions of this Ordinance, or regulation lawfully adopted hereunder, is hereby declared to be a nuisance and the City Commission, after resolution duly adopted, or any private citizen, may take action in any court of competent jurisdiction to cause the abatement of such nuisance and such remedy shall be in addition to the imposition of penalty for violation of the terms hereof as provided in Section 20.04. Section 20.04 = Violation, Penalty, Enforcement Any person, firm or corporation who violates, disobeys, omits, neglects or refuses to comply with any of the provisions of this Ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined not less than Ten Dollars ($10.00) nor more than One Hundred Dollars ($100.00), and upon failure to pay such fine such person shall be imprisoned in the County Jail of Berrien County, Michigan, for a period not exceeding ninety (90) days. The continued violation of any provision of this Ordinance shall be deemed to constitute a separate offense each and every day such violation shall continue. �-----------• ARTICLEXXI REPEAL OF PREVIOUS ORDINANCE: EFFECTIVE DATE Section 21.01 = Repeal of Previous Ordinance The revised City of Niles Zoning Ordinance effective (date) and revised Article XI, Signs, effective (date) are hereby repealed; provided, however, that such Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect to the extend necessary to initiate or sustain any proper action for the enforcement or prosecution of any liability or penalty thereunder. Section 21.02 = Effective Date This Ordinance shall take effect on the - . - - - - day of .------,----,.,--...-..,...' 19 -....--..· This Ordinance shall not be deemed to alter, change, or amend any existing Ordinance of the City of Niles except insofar as it may place more restrictive standards than those set forth in other Ordinances and to the extent that other Ordinances are more restrictive, such more restrictive Ordinances shall control. • • � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Wyckoff Planning and Zoning Collection Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Planning & Zoning Center (Lansing, Mich.) (Organization) Wyckoff, Mark A. Description An account of the resource Municipal master plans and zoning ordinances from across the state of Michigan, spanning from the 1960s to the early 2020s. The bulk of the collection was compiled by urban planner Mark Wyckoff over the course of his career as the founder and principal planner of the Planning and Zoning Center in Lansing, Michigan. Some additions have been made to the collection by municipalities since it was transferred to Grand Valley State University. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Michigan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1960/2023 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Subject The topic of the resource Michigan Comprehensive plan publications Master plan reports Zoning--Michigan Zoning--Maps Maps Land use--planning Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-240 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Niles_Comprehensive-Plan_1990 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1990 Title A name given to the resource A Comprehensive Plan for the City of Niles, Michigan Description An account of the resource A Comprehensive Plan for the City of Niles, Michigan was prepared in 1990 and contains city ordinances. Subject The topic of the resource Comprehensive plan publications Ordinances, municipal Niles (Mich.) Cass County (Mich.) Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/39ad0e7adbdefaf3954a6e0719263218.pdf f9dc71c437ecf052b4299c2697bd9a84 PDF Text Text �Washtenaw County Department of Planning and Environment 705 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 8645 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48107-8645 P: 734-222-6808 F: 734-994-2459 http:/ /planning.ewashtenaw.org 11 .\ Sense of Place, ,\ Sustainable Fururc �A Comprehensive Plan for Washtenaw County Land Use, Infrastructure, Natural Resources September 2004 Current Washtenaw County Planning Advisory Board Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners Leah Gunn, Chair Barbara Lev1n Bergman, Vice-Chair Patrioa Kelly, Chau Vivienne Armentrout, Past Cha1r \7i\'ienne Armentrout Robert Brackenbury Heather . \nne \X'ilhams, Second Vice Chair Jeff Irwin Martha Kern Jarus Bobnn Catlue Dnes Ronrue Peterson \'\'esley Prater Kathleen Knol \X 'ilham [cf<arlanc \'<'esley Prater Da\'id Rutledge Stephen Solowczuk t\Iona \'\ alz tephen olowczuk Rolland Sizemore Jr. Joseph Yekulis,Jr. orthway, First Vice Chair Past Washtenaw County Plannmg Advisory Board Members (2002-2003) Woody I Iolman John Gawlas County Administration Robert E. Gucnzel, County Administrator Frank Cambria, Deputy County Administrator Department of Planning and Environment Director \nthony VanDcrworp, ,\ICP Staff Terry Brinkman, AICP Patncia Derug Stacy Ebron Jessica Eiserunan Janet Gilkey .Amy Goike, AICP Mechelle I lardy Jason Kaplan \ Compn:hcns1n.: Plan for Washu:naw Count ~ Jeff Krcmank Marshall Labadie Bo Mah Dan Myers Margaret Paulus Mark Roby 1\nnette Rook Damon Thompson Chns \X'atkins Interns I leather Bacon Alison D' Anuco Ina Ilancl Kathleen I Ioltz Anne K.reykes Angela Oetam.a UI �Acknowledgements Washtenaw County would like to thank the following orgaruzations who offered their knowledge and shared their expertise in the development of its Comprehens1\'e Plan. Boards, Committees, and Authorities Ann Arbor Historic District Commission Ann Arbor Transportation Authority Huron Clinton Metroparks Authority Saline Historic District Commission Urban County Executive Committee Washtenaw County: Board of Public Works Brownfield Redevelopment Authority Washtenaw County Consortium of Solid Waste Management Washtenaw County Historic District Commission Washtenaw County Office of the Drain Commissioner \'v'ashtenaw County Parks & Recreation Commission Washtenaw County Road Commission Washtenaw Housing Alliance Western Washtenaw Recycling Authority \'v'ashtenaw Area Transportation Study Ypsilanti Historic District Commission Expert Groups and Agencies American Institutes of .Architects - Huron Valley Chapter Ann Arbor Area Board of Realtors Chelsea Area Transit City of Ann Arbor Parks and Recreation Department City of Ann Arbor Community Development Department Eastern Michigan University Ecology Center Greenway Collaborative Huron River Watershed Council Michigan Department of Agriculture, Farmland Preservation Program Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Michigan Department of Transportation Michigan Freedom Trail Commission Michigan I Iistoric Preservation Network Michigan Land Use Institute Michigan Society of Planning l'vfichigan State Uruversity fichigan State University Extension Onyx Services Inc., Arbor Hills Landfill Recycle Ann Arbor State Historic Preservation Office, Department of I listory, Arts and Libraries Southeast I\fichigan Council of Governments US Soil Conservation Services Washtenaw County Consortium of Historical Societies \'v'ashtenaw County Farm Bureau Washtenaw County Soil Conservation District Washtenaw Development Council University of Michigan Special Thanks A special thank you to the Residents and Local Units of Government who partiapated to provide input from which this plan emerged. 1\ddmonal thanks to Comn11ss1oner Vivienne Armentrout, who served as the Plan Editor. \ Sense of Place, J\ Sustainable l·uture �Resolution \','AS~ I :.NIN;' C:JUN";Y BOARD OF CC\l\t,SSIG ~(RS ~~f.'""1t)PI 2} llJV4 v\ 111:Rl:AS. 0 WliERE,\S. an=pes ard t·,~ WHEr~CAS W:,~ht.,,r:H._ (;ounl'f 10 .aulh0'1Zt?0 unt►.:, Coun1·, P~,11 119 ,i\ct 282 lo Ci't.-lJ,31~ J LuIr,.,~~11(:!I.::. ~·!: :;l~n 1:Y ► Jflj'~~t' of 6Jtll I~ 1:U1!J 1:t.1,.;:orr-ahsht1Q a cooroino~cd ac,;itw1..t1 to de-.·~loi1mcr.t lh.1I prvfT'!olnr, -r~ c.urr6nt anct IIJl e he-alU'l. sa~ety ariJ V\'8IIare "ef'js or COJI,Iv resident:,. arxi 11,~ Co.inly 11~• r.rc-µ,nOd ta~kgrcurd r,ia'.eoa s irel'J0'lQ maps <.rarts descr,:it·,,. , .Jt~r-al 1','H~HtAS 'lfr~~lrvcIure ant, ns:L,,:al It~;.:tm.:~ .ir d ha.1, ht!.d O','t:tr rony rivr. put:hr. rrmo I1n;r an<J v,rv•,top, a11c ar.Jl•1 , ot c..no .,an, a,i:1 h~ru, r~1a11r•:i lo land u~e dr1tIC<Hi for li1n ctnu,..,.:;pment of lrie lo ob1otn pubic cornrnC?nl ar<i recornm ..;Cfrpreher1~11e1r, pl;an . ..1n:J lh~ Co1.11l-, t1a~ u,o~·<J~(I up~(JIIUI \'l'lt[Rr AS , s ra, rul'l~I C:D'rn,cnl!; fre>m cn:;JI unII:; or 9;t•,(!rnm("lr·· en lhc pliL,1 .a~ fA'C-:Otlltcd n lhr.: Cotrllf Cao,:f·naied Pl,;mf riy J!,ct I rubltc AL1 28:1) ;,rd W;i[R[ A$ G&1iL11 tlf 1t'.:tl.>l\rt' The 1A1as.1lena,._ Count•, P1a01'1n9 Ai:t• •~'f O(JJt<l al ti~, AulrJs' JO , 2004 puthc mechn:t re-:.:o-r;-1lefloed :t-..al 11.lan for ~ 1;1.oJ11r•rm~, Cc,..1.n,.'y t..-1~ V'iiF. (11f1asrNChJ~ 'il3h.Jra.' Hesoorce.s L·1c Bo:ird 1L•' ~ or Co·1vn l!u ~OW TH RF..;ORE Bl: Rt50LVE.D Ul.:il ll1~ Wo.:H,l 1e~i;s;y Co1,nly Ooo111d ci Co1,11111:-;:-;10cm!i tmrcby :-id:~I5 A Cr11.ip. ,1•f•N1.w.n P'l,1,·1 lt.v '.,A',1.!,;,.l1(cnJ•,1· h ,r, a~hudure i'.'01rur;11 .G'ro;Q11n:r.s ;:u, i11ached nerelo ar.a made p.31 t 'lerec,f Cui.,·,t ► .:HJOt>t A LJ1-d (J:)L' RE IT FURTHE:"< RC.SO.. V::.lJ !hat the b-~.11:J o1 Coru-11~!ilDnc1:. \\1:U1es lo 1h.anK ct-c rc:;1dr.ri ls. loc:.:al 9::.·1Crrrrc-:r:~:; t1gc:rcic, ;i,d olht"f' p.ullc1pants 1n Ill".! p ••mrmg µr;.;f,,,;~~$ fvr ,rQTm1trrent to pi omc,:,nQ a s.eri:>e ~ PdCt:' an<l ~9ta,nat:il~ rulu1~ fl.I" 'Jut 1~':.11.Ji::, 1b H•cu 1.kdK:;r,cm IQ ~no tu1 .ire an:J ,, \'\I ,.._ ,11\.I 1 ,< ' ' \ lT:lll. 111111, l ll..:1~11 1.111 \ l ♦ ra.. 4--~1 !1,,Jn \ 1°,11111 \ 4 l I IC!\ l\ ► l , hl : 11\l\1 ... , I, , • \ '\ '-11\:fT'lllf(" .... ,.,111 . \ \ H l< llt ll 111 l)I'\ ,,, I ,lN, \I ·• --•cu"' t ... .. u 11to i, ,.,.,, , , V. lt ll -I I 11• h ,_,.11, u lw, ~ , • • , .. ," l t lll • ll ru.1<l 1<l l1•11T• • - · ~ • . · - ·· " ' · JII , .. tr-o.<t 11101 \ Comprchcnsl\·c Plan for Washtenaw Counn \ 'dh'I• , , R u l.Lt \ l.L\U I L. l ll l \ L, \ . ~,,._, ,,,,. ti•• 7 I \ ~',."Tl\ l'\·h;r\111· ,,,.,J " " ' ' ~ - \ \ 1'1,111•1 I H. ''"' ( l 1~111 ll \II ,, Ir-.,,, lu'8 1• Hll f '1'11 , I \ Ji111" II\ I 1• 1 ~ .. aJ'1 J 11 I hi.to. .. 1 ,1..-1 •• ' " ' " • " OUl,II I.I TK :.lJ _ , .. I \ 11., I ... ,,i, p • t c1• cttlo,1 , r .. r- 111•1 ,1.rio•.,. I , ,. , ,\.~ �Table of Contents Cha ter 1: Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 11.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Purpose of the Comprehensive Plan .............................................................................................................................................. Resident Comments on Issues and Opportunities ........................................................................................................................ Vision for the Future ....................................................................................................................................................................... Plan Contents .................................................................................................................................................................................. Additional Plan Documents ........................................................................................................................................................... Implementing the Plan ................................................................................................................................................................... 1-3 1-3 1-4 1-6 1-6 1-7 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 Regional Context ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2-3 Population ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 2-4 Demographics ................................................................................................................................................................................ 2-5 Economy ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2-6 Land Use ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2-7 Housing Units ................................................................................................................................................................................ 2-9 Transportation Network ................................................................................................................................................................ 2-10 Water and Sewer Services .............................................................................................................................................................. 2-14 Chapter 3: Landscapes ........................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3. 7 3.8 3.9 n Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 3-3 Resident Comments ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3-3 Condition and Trends ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3-5 An Alternative Future Land Use ................................................................................................................................................... 3-9 Infill Development ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3-11 Secondary Development Concept: Activity Centers .................................................................................................................... 3-16 Rural Landscape ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3-18 Open Space ................................................................................................................................................................................... 3-22 Summary ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 3-26 ,\ Sense of Place, J\ Sustainable l' ururc �Table of Contents (continued) 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 4-3 Resident Comments ....................................................................................................................................................................... 4-3 Conditions & Trends ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4-5 New Agriculture Markets ............................................................................................................................................................... 4-6 Agricultural Land Preservation Programs ..................................................................................................................................... 4-7 Agricultural Preservation Techniques ............................................................................................................................................ 4-9 Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 4-10 Chapter 5: Natural Resources ................................................................................................................................ 5-1 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 5-3 Resident Comments ........................................................................................................................................................................ 5-3 Condition and Trends ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5-4 Water Resources .............................................................................................................................................................................. 5-5 Wetlands, Woodlands and Floodplains ........................................................................................................................................... 5-9 Air Quality ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 5-11 Natural Resources Education ........................................................................................................................................................ 5-12 Summary ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 5-13 Chapter 6: Economic Development ....................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 6-3 6.2 Resident Comments ........................................................................................................................................................................ 6-3 6.3 Conditions and Trends .................................................................................................................................................................... 6-4 6.4 Target Industries ............................................................................................................................................................................. 6-6 6.5 Job Training .................................................................................................................................................................................... 6-8 6.6 Available Sites ................................................................................................................................................................................. 6-9 6.7 Workforce Housing ....................................................................................................................................................................... 6-10 6.8 Agricultural Economy ................................................................................................................................................................... 6-11 6.9 Ecotourism and Heritage Tourism ............................................................................................................................................... 6-13 6.10 Summary ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 6-14 \ Com p rchcns1n.- Plan for Was htcna\\ C:oum~ \'U �Table of Contents (continued) 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 7-3 Resident Comments ....................................................................................................................................................................... 7-3 Condition and Trends ..................................................................................................................................................................... 7-4 Current Housing Stock .................................................................................................................................................................. 7-8 Private Sector Residential Developments ...................................................................................................................................... 7-9 Assistance for Lower Income Residents ....................................................................................................................................... 7-10 Special Populations and Homeless ............................................................................................................................................... 7-11 Coordinate County Resources ........................................................................................................................................................ 7-13 Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 7-14 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 8-3 Resident Comments ........................................................................................................................................................................ 8-3 Conditions and Trends .................................................................................................................................................................... 8-4 Adequacy of Parklands .................................................................................................................................................................. 8-6 Open Space, Greenways and Trails ................................................................................................................................................. 8-8 Land Preservation Programs .......................................................................................................................................................... 8-9 Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 8-10 Chapter 9: Historic Preservation ............................................................................................................................ 9-1 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 ,·ui Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 9-3 Resident Comments ....................................................................................................................................................................... 9-4 Condition and Trends ..................................................................................................................................................................... 9-5 Historic Districts ............................................................................................................................................................................ 9-6 Unique Resources ........................................................................................................................................................................... 9-7 Historic Resource Education ......................................................................................................................................................... 9-9 Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 9-10 ,\ Sense of Place, ,\ Sustainable Future �Table of Contents (continued) 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8 10.9 10.10 10.11 10.12 10.13 Purpose ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 10-3 Resident Comments ..................................................................................................................................................................... 10-3 Conditions and Trends ................................................................................................................................................................ 10-4 Freeways and Interchanges ........................................................................................................................................................ 10-5 Urban Road Network .................................................................................................................................................................. 10-7 Rural Network ............................................................................................................................................................................. 10-8 Gravel Roads ............................................................................................................................................................................... 10-9 Bridges ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 10-10 Public and Private Road Connectivity ..................................................................................................................................... 10-11 Natural Beauty Roads .............................................................................................................................................................. 10-12 Transit ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 10-13 Non-Motorized Network .......................................................................................................................................................... 10-17 Summary ................................................................................................................................................................................... 10-18 Chapter 11: Sewer and Water Services ................................................................................................................... 1111.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 Purpose ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 11-3 Resident Comments ...................................................................................................................................................................... 11-3 Condition and Trends .................................................................................................................................................................. 11-4 Planning for New Development .................................................................................................................................................. 11-4 Protecting Public Health and the Environment .......................................................................................................................... 11-6 11.6 Summary ...................................................................................................................................................................... 11-11 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 Purpose ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 12-3 Resident Comments ..................................................................................................................................................................... 12-3 Condition & Trends ..................................................................................................................................................................... 12-4 Waste Reduction and Recycling .................................................................................................................................................. 12-6 Summary .................................................................................................................................................................................... 12-10 \ Comprc henstn: Plan for \Xi'ashtena,,· Coum·\ IX �Table of Contents (continued) Chapter 13: Intergovernmental Cooperation .................................................................................................. ....... 13-1 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 X Purpose ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 13-3 Resident Comments ..................................................................................................................................................................... 13-3 Promoting Formal Regional Initiatives ....................................................................................................................................... 13-4 Coordinating Resources through Public/Private Partnerships .................................................................................................. 13-6 A Heightened Role for the County in Facilitating Planning and Service Delivery .................................................................... 13-7 ,\ Sense of Place, t\ Sustamablc Future �Chapter 1 Introduction A Comprehensive Plan for Washtenaw County �Washtenaw County \ \ Lyndon Township Dexter Township Webster Township 1 Salem Township Northfield Township \ \ \ Ann Arbor / Township _ ,,,, ( - - -- - --- Sylvan Township Lima Township Superior Township --Scio Township -· Ypsilanti City Sharon Township Freedom Township Lodi Township Pittsfield Township 1 York 1 Township , Manchester Township Bridgewater Township Saline Township Ypsilanti Township Augusta Township A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future • �. - ' In_troquction 1.1 Pllt'pose of the Comprehensive Plan The purpose of comprehensive planrung 1s to identify a clear and compelling vision for the future and to develop a comprehensive set of goals and actions to reach that vision. The process of developing a plan starts with a careful analysis of existing conditions and trends regarding the physical, environmental, social and economic aspects of the county. Existing conditions arc projected into the future based on current trends and the adopted long range plans of the local units of government in the county. Through an extensive public participation process, residents and local officials were asked what they felt are the most important qualities to preserve in our com.muruty and what kind of future they desire. Based on this citizen input, a vision for the County's future is identified in this plan along with a comprehensive set of goals and actions. Throughout this plan, comments from residents have been quoted in order to form a basis for the issues and opportunities addressed. The goals and actions are intended to provide guidance to local and county officials in making policy decisions while implementing numerous public improvement programs. Implementation progress will be monitored annually to gauge progress toward the County's vision and periodic updates to the plan will be made to address future issues and opportunities. The purpose of comprehensive plann ing is to identify a clear and compelling vision for the future and to develop a comprehensive set of goals and actions to reach that vision . Kerrytown , City of Ann Arbo r 1.2 Resident Comments on Issues and Opportunities In preparing the plan, over fifteen public meetings were held and several surveys conducted i1wolving over 200 county residents and local officials. During this public partiopation process, residents were asked what they felt contributes most to their quality of life and, looking ahead 20 years, what could threaten that quality of life. Residents felt that our County offers a unique sense of place. Factors that contribute to tlus quality include our unique landscapes and living environments ranging from the di,-erse urban centers of _\no Arbor and Ypsilanti to the quaint villages and hamlets of Dexter and Bridgewater; the abundance of natural resources including over 175 lakes, three ma1or 1wers including the I Iuron Riwr, a State-designated atural River; plentiful recreation in over 350 state, reg10nal, county and local park and recreation areas, which provide year round recreational opportunities; arts and culture opportunities including theaters uwiting local, nanonal, and internanonal films, musicians, and theater product10ns; and our education systems including the Cni,-ersity of T\liclugan, Eastern i\1iclugan Cmvers1ty and four higher education colleges. A Comprehensive Plan For \"v'ashtenaw County Downtown , City of Chelsea Page 1-3 �Chapter 1 County residents recognized that it is this same quality of life that will attract new residents and businesses to our community and have concerns over the pace of growth and the associated impacts of growth. Over the next 20 years, the County's population is expected to increase by 27 percent, adding an additional 88,000 residents and reaching a population of 410,000 by 2020. Under our currently adopted local unit of government master plans, residents identified threats to our quality of life. These threats include the loss of a clear demarcation between urban and rural areas as suburban development around our existing urban areas continues, new low density subdivisions surrounding our villages, and scattered large lot subdivisions and road side homes change tl1e character of our rural areas. In addition, residents identified congestion on our road system, deterioration of rural roads, higher costs needed to keep up \vith an ever increasing demand to provide public services and the need to protect our valuable natural resources. 1.3 Vision for the Future Throughout the public participation process, it became clear tl1at the residents of the County desire a future where our current landscapes and sense of place are preserved and our high quality of life is sustained. Based on this idea, residents have identified a clear and compelling vision for Washtenaw County: County residents recognized that our high quality of life will attract new residents and businesses to our community. However, they also voiced concerns over the pace of growth and its associated impacts. • In 2020, Washtenaw County will have a sense of place. Residents will have the opportunity to enjoy diverse landscapes including vibrant and diverse urban centers, livable suburban areas, historic and unique villages, and our rural character and lifestyle. • In 2020, Washtenaw County will have a sustainable future. Our important natural and historic resources will be preserved; housing, economic and leisure opportunities will be provided for all walks of life; and we will have efficient transportation, solid waste and public utility systems that do not overburden the environment or future generations. To achieve our vision, we will need to change the way we currently operate and address land use and service delivery opportunities on a regional and county-wide basis. Key recommendations to maintain our sense of place and a sustainable future are in Table 1-1. Page 1-4 A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �• - .. --,- -· - - · ... •. "Pj""";-T -~...., Introduction Table 1-1: Key Plan Recommendations to Promote a Sense of Place and a Sustainable Future Sense of Place • Channeling future development to infill sites in already urban and suburban areas making the best use of existing infrastructure and providing the tax base needed to continue to provide public services . • Development of new activity centers located at select interchanges that provide a higher density mix of housing, work and leisure opportunities and fixed route transit service to cities and villages . • Infill development surrounding our small cities and villages that act and feel like traditional village neighborhoods with interconnected streets , walking and bicycle access to "Main Street. " • Maintaining the economic viability of farms through an aggressive program of developing new markets for locally grown food products , supporting infrastructure and public policy. • Developing regional open space systems that define our communities , preserve our natural resources and provide recreation and non-motorized transportation . Sustainable Future • Setting development levels based on the carrying capacity on gravel roads to maintain their function and safety, reduce erosion and maintenance costs . • Forming transit consortiums , locally and with adjacent counties, to increase services and spread the cost among benefiting jurisdictions. • A system of north/south and east/west access for residents on a select set of roadways designed to provide alternate traffic routes through villages while limiting local development access to maintain through traffic movements. • Border-to-Border Trail providing both hiking opportunities and non-motorized transportation to work and leisure activities. • Consistent environmental regulations with each local government adopting an important natural lands overlay zoning classification to protect our resources . • Watershed plans for all basins in the county identifying actions to restore hydrologic functioning and improve water quality. • Appropriate level of rural residential development that does not overburden the rural road network and is sensitive to rural character in location and design . • Annual public and private affordable housing targets ensuring decent affordable housing to all income levels and residents with special needs. • Local governments finding new ways to work together, forming Urban Service Districts to promote infill development, regional open space systems and public services through revenue sharing arrangements. • Regional solid waste initiatives to achieve efficiencies in solid waste collection , reduce the impact of trucks on local roads and provide the revenues needed for recycling programs. • Unique historic resources remain a visible part of our heritage including one-room schoolhouses , centennial farms , champion trees , bridges and farmsteads . ,\ Comprehensive Plan For \v'ashtenaw Coun~ • A public-private partnership of economic actors , governments and universities to grow and attract emerging target industries providing higher paying jobs and raising the standard of living for all residents . Page 1-5 �Chapter 1 1.4 Plan Contents i The plan represents a comprehensive approach to planning for the future. ,\s such it contains important background information, discussion of issues and opportunities and a comprehensive set of goals, objectives and recommendations to achieve our vision. In addition to the overview information provided in this Introduction, the plan contains the following chapters: ,. Chapter 2: Community Profile - Description of the social, physical and economic aspects of the County today and projections through the year 2020. Chapter 3: Landscapes - This chapter is similar to a traditional land use element of many comprehensive plans and includes a description of the County's landscapes, issues and opportunities, goals, objectives and recommendations for land use at the county-wide level as well as for our cities, villages, hamlets, suburban and rural areas. Scenic landscapes Chapters 4 through 12: A Sustainable Future - ummary of the current condition and trends, issues, opportunities, goals, objectives and recommendations for the following plan elements: Chapter 4: Chapter 5: Chapter 6: Chapter 7: Chapter 8: Chapter 9: Chapter 10: Chapter 11: Chapter 12: Agriculture Natural Resources Economic Development Housing Parks and Recreation Historic Preservation Transportation Sewer and Water Services Solid Waste Agricultural Operations Chapter 13: Intergovernmental Cooperation - D iscussion of the actors involved in implementing this plan and how we can work together to achieve our vision. 1.5 Additional Plan Resources Comprehensive Plan Support Document: A companion document providing detailed informauon of the public partiapation process and data used to develop each plan element. Toolkit Website: A compilation of recommended growth management techniques and sample ordinances. Recreation on the Huron River Page 1-6 A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �• "'f - r ..,..,. Introduction 1.6 Implementing the Plan Readung the vision 111 the plan is a community effort. While the heaviest burden falls on local units of government to carefully consider how land is developed and the commuruty impacts of that development, this plan is also intended to provide guidance to the County and numerous agencies as they make decisions about public facilities and service programs. Coordinating our Resources: The plan recommends several actions that require local governments and agencies to combine their resources including such efforts as regional solid waste and transit consortiums, regional open space plans and combining program delivery strengths to address affordable housmg needs. Guidelines for Land Use Decisions: In addition to encouraging local governments to implement the land use recommendations, the goals, objectives and recommendations in the plan will be used by the Cow1ty in reviewing and commenting on local government plan amendments, PA 116 applications, Purchase of Development Rights, a rural , \reas Program acqU1sitions, Brownfield Plan amendments and Full Faith and Credit approvals. The Plan requires local governments and agencies to combine their resources to realize residents' vision . Guidelines for Public Programs: The goals, objectives and recommendatlons ,vill be used as a guide for developmg and implementing current and future public programs and makmg funding decisions for programs such as housing, parks and recreation, transportation and economic development. Educational/Technical Tools: The Toolkit is a resource providing information on growth management techniques and sample ordinances facilitating discussion at the local level and adoption of these techniques. Monitoring Progress Toward Meeting the Vision: .\nnual plan status reports will be prepared to assess progress made toward the plan's goals. , \nnual reviews also afford the opportunity to identify problems encountered in implementing the plan and consideration of additional planning activities such as public safety, public health or education components. ,\s the County is committed to updatmg the plan at least every five years to reflect changmg circumstances and community needs, the plan will also serve as a benchmark for updating the plan 111 2009 ,\ Comprehensive Plan For \Vashtcnaw County Page 1-7 �Chapter 2 Community Profile :\ Comprehensive Plan for Washtenaw County �Washtenaw County ( \ Lyndon Township Dexter Township Webster Township Salem Northfield Township 1 Township \ \ I Barton Hill, Ann Arbor Village\ Sylvan Township Lima Township To~n_~P-.1---Superior Township - - -Scio Townsh-ip~ Ypsilanti Cit9 Lodi Sharon Township Freedom Township Township Pittsfield Township I I I I York Township , Manchester Township Bridgewater Township Saline Township Ypsilanti Township Augusta Township A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future -- �2.1 Regional Context Washtenaw County is located in southeast l\ficlugan, approximately 30 miles west of Detroit (Figure 2-1). \X'ithin Washtenaw County's 721 square miles are 28 local units of government including five a ties, three villages, and twenty townships (Figure 2-2). Borders are shared with six other counties and 22 local units of government. Washtenaw County is the 6 th largest county in population in the State of l\fichigan (2000 U.S. Census). It 1s also one of the fastest growing. \\'ashtenaw is one of seven counties 10 the Southeast I\1ichigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG), the regional planning organization for Llvingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair, Washtenaw, and Wayne counties. The pace of growth of counties to the north and east has been increasing steadily over recent years. Over the next 20 years as the inner ring of Detroit's suburbs approach capacity, the wave of development is expected to continue westward into Washtenaw, Monroe and Llvingston counties. Figure 2-3 presents the change in population for southeast l\1ichigan counties from 1980 through 2020. Lyndon Township Dexter Township Web ster Township orthfteld Township Salem T ownship INGHAM LIV INGSTON JACKSON WASHTENAW Superloc Township Sylvan Township OAKLAND ' LENAWEE Sharon Township Freedom Township Lodi Figure 2-1 : Washtenaw County, Michigan Manchester Township Bridgewater T ownship Saline Township York Township Augusta Township Figure 2-2 : Local Units of Government in Washtenaw County -\ Comprehensive Plan For \'('ashrcnaw County Page 2-3 �~Ch . ap~~r l ,,1. 2 •. - ... _~ . .• • C . • • -1J.-1._&..~~l.------._ ... ,..,..... ..._ • ....___....._,.• ... L , - .J.",,. , .;.i .. -.1o.l.i,\_ , ._ ...... -..'..E.....'.. • ~ ' • 1,_.,..,-.1..i _ ' • .-, • • _. • ' • ~I , ... .:....:..,-4:-.,____.,,_~.,,__'\.,.\a..i • , - •• • r • J,.• , _., 2.2 Population As of the 2000 U.S. Census, the Washtenaw County population totaled 322,895 people. The City of Ann Arbor's population of 114,024 accounts for the greatest share at 35 percent of the total, followed by Ypsilanti and Pittsfield Townships at 15 percent and 9.3 percent, respectively. The City of Ypsilanti accounts for nearly seven percent of the total population. \'X'ashtenaw County's population has steadily increased over the past several decades, and is proiected to do so through 2020 (fable 2-1). By 2020, the population is projected to be 410,748 persons, a 27 percent increase since 2000. While all communities in Washtenaw County are expecting population increases, townships surrounding the urban areas - Pittsfield, Ypsilanti and Scio are e},_-pected to carry the larger share of the County's population increase. I Iowever, in terms of proportional population mcreases within their borders, \X'ebster and Sylvan Townships and Dexter Village populations should more than double. The City of Ann Arbor, currently a large population center of the County, is projected to increase only by two percent. 1\nn Arbor will then comprise only slightly over 26 percent of the total County population. The City of Ypsilanti's population is expected to remain constant. Community Ann Arbor Ann Arbor Twp Augusta Twp Barton Hills Bridoewater Twp Chelsea Dexter Dexter Twp Freedom Twp Lima Twp Lodi Twp Lvndon Twp Manchester Manchester Twp 1990 111 ,801 2,292 4,415 320 1,304 3,772 1,497 4,407 1,486 2,132 3,902 2,228 1,753 1,739 2000 115,012 3,763 4 ,813 335 1,646 4,398 2,338 5,248 1,562 2,517 5,710 2,728 2,160 1,942 2020 116,933 4,676 6,605 375 2 ,538 6,652 5,216 5,791 1,849 3,828 7,435 3,230 3,326 2,715 1.,;nange 2000 to 2020 1,921 913 1,792 40 892 2,254 2,878 543 287 1,311 1,725 502 1,166 773 Community Milan City (Wash Co.) Northfield Twp Pittsfield Twp Salem Twp Saline Saline Twp Scio Twp Sharon Twp Superior Twp Sylvan Twp Webster Twp York Twp Ypsilanti Ypsilanti Twp County Total : 1-~ _..,,.,., ~ l ~;,. 1990-2000 I l u.,:i.:-,,, "" r ........ "' Change 2000to 2020 1990 2000 2020 3,060 6,732 17,120 3,734 6,660 1,276 9,097 1,366 8,720 2,508 3,235 6,225 24,846 45,307 3,065 8,252 29,801 5,562 8,034 1,302 13,421 1,678 10,740 2,734 5,198 7,392 22,362 49,182 3,768 10,717 52 ,918 9,940 9,871 2,332 19,618 2,506 15,958 6,527 9,852 9,536 22,908 63,128 703 2,465 23,117 4,378 1,837 1,030 6,197 828 5,218 3,793 4,654 2,144 546 13,946 282,934 322, 895 410,748 87,853 Figure 2-3: Regional Population Trend s Sources: US Census, SEMCOG, Ml Demographer: Jackson, Lenawee;Tn-County Region : Ingham County. Table 2-1 : Washtenaw County Local Un its of Government 2000 Population and 2020 Projections Source: 2000 US Census and SEMCOG 2030 Regional Development Forecast Page 2-4 1\ Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �2.3 Demographics Age The greatest percentage of the current population, 36 percent, is within the 35 to 64 age group (Figure 2-4). This age group will continue to hold the largest percentage of the population through 2020. Currently, there is an even proportion of the population four years and younger, and 65 years and older. This percentage is expected to change in tl1e future, children under four years is projected to comprise seven percent, whereas the population greater than 65 is expected to increase to 13 percent (51,529 residents) of the total County population (SEMCOG 2020 Regional Development Forecast). This trend is due to the aging baby-boomer generation, and will be common to most communities nationwide. Educational Attainment and College Enrollment The educational level of Washtenaw County residents falls above the average for the State of l\fichigan. In 2000, 48.1 percent of Washtenaw County's population above age 25 held a bachelor's degree or higher. This exceeds the State of 11ichigan with 21.8 percent of its population holding a bachelor's degree or higher. Washtenaw County is also home to a number of colleges and universities. The County has seven postsecondary institutions that have a combined approxin1ate enrollment of 80,000 students. The six institutions consist of four public institutions (The University of l\1ichigan, Eastern Michigan Cmversity, and Washtenaw Community College), and three private institutions (Concordia University, Cleary Umversity, Ave Maria College and Ave Mana School of Law). Diversity \X'ashtenaw County has a diverse populaoon. The latest census (2000) reveals that \\·ashtenaw County has 12.3 percent of its population who consider themselves as "\frican "\merican, and 6.3 percent who consider themselves as Asian. Less than three percent of the population consider themselves as two or more races. People who consider themsclve, as I Iispamc or Latino, who can be of any race, compnse 2.7 percent of the population. Table 2-2 provides the number of persons 111 Washtenaw County by race, as well as the percent of total County population by race . •-\ Comprehensive Plan For \X'ashrenaw County 180,000 , 160,000 [■2oool ~ 140,000 C: .!2 120,000 ~ 100,000 g- 80,000 a.. 60,000 84 009 7 40.000 1 20.000 1 0 +--'- --'L...,..._._,_.___,__~ 0-17 18-34 - L--IL...,.----""..._--'----, 3~ 65• Age Group Figure 2-4: County Population by Age Source: 2000 US Census and SEMCOG Race People % White African American American Indian and Alaskan Native Asian Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Some other race Tw o or more races 249 ,916 39 ,697 77.4% 12.3% 1,161 20,338 0.4% 6.3% 126 3,364 8,293 0.0% 1.0% 2.6% Total County Popu lation 322,895 100.0% Hispanic or Latino/ Not Hispanic or Latino People % Hispanic or Latino* Not Hispanic or Latino 8,839 314,056 2.7% 97.3% Total County Population 322,895 100 .0% • Hispanic or Latino can be of any race . Table 2-2 : Race and Hispanic Origin, Washtenaw County, 2000 Source: 2000 US Census Page 2-5 �•• .. • · ... ·.·.,_ ~-,•_.:.!_t.:~ ...-·"'•-·-· • • > ·-·~-:....._·:'_•. _ ....... _.~• ,~' I - - • ' 't • • ~'~.1~""~~ '-~~ ··- -. _· .- - . .... 2.4 Economy Labor Force The labor pool is defined as residents over the age of 16. The number of residents in the labor pool that are employed comprise the labor force. \X'ashtenaw County's 2000 labor pool consisted of 259,162 people (Table 2-3). Of these, 69 percent are in the labor force either in the armed forces Qess than 1° o), an employed civilian (96°-o), or an unemployed civilian (3.8%). Compared to the State of fichigan, Washtenaw County has a greater percentage of residents in the labor pool and the same percentage of employed labor force. Four percent of the County's workforce population is currently unemployed. This is lower than tl1e unemployment rate for the State of i\fichigan (5.8%) (Figure 2-5) . Within the County, most local units of government have unemployment rates between one and four percent. The female labor force participation rate is at a level comparable to the male participation rate (over 80%), which mdicates that most households are supported by two incomes. Given the high education levels of our work force, this 1s unlikely to change. 2000 Emclovrnent Sector Agnculture, Mining, and Natural Resources Manufactunng Commun,cation and Persons Employed 2020 Percent Persons Employed Percent 4,549 2% 4,751 2% 34 ,517 15% 44.292 16% Utlil1ty 8.916 4% 10,411 4% Wholesale Trade 6,618 3% 9,172 3% Retail Trade Finance, Insurance, anc 38,888 17% 47,211 17% Real Estate 10,729 5% 13,163 5% Services Public Administration 119.998 52% 140,323 50% 7,960 3% 10,418 4% Total Employed 232,175 100% 279,741 100% Table 2•3: Labor Force Employment in Michigan and Washtenaw County Source: 2000 US Census The percentage of population in me labor force cohort of 18 to 64 years old is expected to decrease slightly from 70 percent to 67 percent between 2000 and 2020. Given the general aging of me population 111 Michigan and tl1roughout the nation, Washtenaw County's workforce position is not projected to worsen over the next two decades. The number of college students in mis population balances this negative trend. Reg10nal Share of Jobs and Ratio of Population to Jobs A net migration of workers indicates strong job formation compared to tl1e region. Washtenaw County has a large amount of workers commuting into me County to work. ,\ccording to the 2000 U.S. Census, over 70,000 people commute mto the County, compared to 40,000 County residents commuting out of the County for work. In 1990, the ratio of residents (16 years and older) in the labor force to jobs was 10:7. In 2000, this ratio is nearly 10:8. Over the next twenty years, job growm is projected to increase by 20.5 percent, from the current 232,175 jobs in the County to 279,741 by 2020 (an increase of 47,566 jobs). [i WashleMW County --- Mchigan Unled Stales Figure 2-5: Unemployment Rates . 2000-2004: National. State and Washtenaw County Source: Michigan Department of Economic Development Median Income Washtenaw County's median household income is $51,990 (2000 U.S. Census) . This far exceeds the median household income of the state, at $44,667. Similarly, the per capita income for Washtenaw County of $27,173, is also higher man the $22,168 state per capita income. Page 2-6 A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �-, ----. ·· . , - - --,,. · -- , - • -.,.. . ·-· , 1 • · - - • .. -, , --., Employment Sectors Employment is divided into eight industries (fable 2-3). The service industry 1s the largest, employing over half (52%) of the workers. Other industrial classes for which many people arc employed include the retail industry (17%) and the manufacturing industry (15%) . Only five percent were found to be working in the F.I.R.E. Sector (Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate), closely followed by the Transportation, Communication and Utility Industry (4°·o). The industries that employ the fewest workers are Public Administration (3%) and Agriculture, Mining, and atural Resources (2° o). Transportation, Communication and Utility play a relatively high role in Ypsilanti Township while the Agriculture, Mining and Natural Resource industry employs only two percent of the County population. This industrial sector is important for Bridgewater and Saline Township where up to 55 percent of the workers are employed by this industry. 2.5 Land Use There are approximately 462,325 acres of land in \v'a shtenaw County. In 2000, most of the land (82%) was in use as active agriculture or was in an undeveloped state. The built environment accounts for the remaining 18 percent. Figure 2-6 shows the land uses categories as of 2000 for Washtenaw County. Between 1990 and 2000, developed land categories 111creased while active agricultural lands, wetlands and woodlands decreased (fable 2-4). During this same period, cultivated grass lands and shrub lands increased by 19 percent. This indicates that the loss of agricultural land has not only been due to development pressure but also economic forces. Continued decrease in agricultural lands and wetlands and woodlands is expected through 2020 given the current preservation policies and residential densities allowed under local unit of gO\·ernment master plans and zoning ordinances. Parkland is an important resource for County residents. The Pinckney and \'{'aterloo State Recreation areas are located in tl1e northwest portion of the County, comprising nearly 14,000 acres of land 111 Lyndon, Sylvan and Dexter Townships. Other contributors of parkland 111 the County 111clude the I luron-Clinton Metropark ,\uthority (1,700 acres), \Yashtenaw County Department of Parks and Recreation (1,378 acres), and local urnts of go\·ernmcnt (4,557 acres). .Ji•• l >--- •- r CommuJ;lity, .Profile ' - . 2000 2020 Persons Persons Employed Percent Employed Percent Em olovm e nt Sector Agriculture , Mining, and Natural Resources 4,549 2% 4,751 2% Manufacturing Transportat10n , Conm.,nicat1on and Utlilrty 34 ,517 15% 44 .292 16% 8.916 4% 10.411 4% Wholesale Trade 6,618 3% 9 ,172 3% Retail Trade Finance, Insurance , and Real Estate 38 ,888 17% 47 ,211 17% 10,729 5% 13,163 5% Services Public Adrnirnstral1on 119,998 52% 140,323 50% 7.960 3% 10.418 4% Total Employed 232,175 100% 279,741 100% Table 2-3 : Number of Jobs by Employment Sectors, 2000 and 2020 Source: SEMCOG Regional Development Forecasts 1990 Land Use Cateaorv Active Agriculture Commercial & Office Cultura l. Outdoor Recreation & Cemetery Extractive & Barren Cultivated Grassland , & Shrub 2000 1990-2000 Percent Acres o/, Total Acres % Total Chanae 221 ,290 48% 191145 41% -14% 3.936 1% 4,607 1% 17% 6 ,319 1% 7,783 2% 23% 1,339 0% 1,617 0% 21% 49.774 11% 59,056 13% 19% Industrial 7 528 2% 8658 15% Institutional Mult1-Fam1ly Res1dent1al Single-Family Residential Transport Comm . & Utility Under Development 4,721 1% 5.359 2% 1% 2,703 1% 3.480 1% 29% 51 .960 11% 67.421 15% 30% 4,819 1% 4.866 1% 1% 2.836 1% 2% 4.818 1% 70% 10,134 2% 1% -2% Water !Woodland & Wetland Total 10,063 95,036 21% 93 .381 20% 462,324 100% 462,325 100% 14% Table 2-4: Land Uses m Washtenaw County, 1990 - 2000 Source: SEMCOG Land Use/Land Cover ,\ Comprehensive Plan Por Washtenaw County Page 2-7 �Figure 2-6: Land Uses in Washtenaw County, 2000 t o I ,4 • . a• ·-.-,4~·~ , .. .... . ...-- ~ D N ' + -~~~i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Jurisdictional Boundary Highway SEMCOG 2000 Land Use/Land Cover CategorieCJ CJ .Active Agriculture Commercial and Office Cultural, Outdoor Recreation and CemeteryCJ Extractive and Barren Grassland and Shrub Industrial Institutional Multiple-Family Residential D D Single Family Residential Transport, Communication and Utility D Under Development □ Water Woodland and Wetland Source: SEMCOG Land Use/Land Cover Page 2-8 A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �2.6 Housing Units There are 131,069 housing units available in \'{'a shtenaw County (2000 U.S. Census) . These units are spread throughout the County, however, similar to the population, most are located in the urban centers and surrounding townships. Sixty percent of the units are owner-occupied, an increase from 1990 to 2000 (fable 2-5) . This trend is expected to continue. The City of Ann Arbor and the City of Ypsilanti, both college towns, are below the County average for percent owner-occupied units. The highest amount of owner occupied units within Washtenaw County is found in Lodi Township at 95 percent. 1990 2000 Units 'lo Units 'lo Rent 46.743 45% Own 57.785 55% 50.481 74.846 40% 60% Table 2-5 : Housing Unit Types in Washtenaw County, 1990 - 2000 Source: US Census By 2020, the County 1s expected to total 169,613 households, requiring an additional 38,544 housing mi.its, an increase of 29 percent. All local governments are expecting rncreases, with the greatest increases occurnng in communities projected to experience the greatest increase in population (Pittsfield, Ypsilanti, and Scio Townships). J\ variety of housing unit types are found in \X'ashtenaw County: apartments, condominiums, townhouses, historic homes, farmsteads, suburban and lakeside residences, and manufactured housing, to name a few. The majority of units are single family residential. Projecting 1998 to 2002 housing trends to 2020, single-family residential is expected to increase at a greater rate than multiple family residential or manufactured housing units (Figure 2-7). 120.000 1 104-t1S 1 00 .000 80.000 ■ 2000 ~ 0 i 2020 16 820 60 000 40 .000 20,000 9 oe, '> ~38 0 ~ S1ngl• Fam11v Oetacned Mult,ple Family Manulactureo Home Housing Type Figure 2-7 : Number of Housing Units in Washtenaw County, 2000-2020 Sources: US Census and SEMCOG Regional Development Forecasts .\ Comprehensive Plan For \X'ashtcnaw Counn Page 2-9 �' •• :!!IIL•-; -:, ,.:.' ' ~ ' ! -"-~:..J..-_1.,,.: -L~~I .J.!.....a,,~ I I ~~- L- , , ~.... j I~ F I• I • ;·...:__!.L.~-~-- ..... _ --'~•- •- 2.7 Transportation Network A transportation network allows people and goods to move about safely and efficiently. The network services those with destinations in tl1e County, as well as those needing to pass through the Cow1ty to get to a final destination point. The County's network is used by people and businesses throughout the midwest as the County is in close proximity to major cities. In Washtenaw County, highways and roads, railroads and air are the available transportation modes. Table 2-6 presents tl1e major modes of transportation available and Figure 2-8 shows their locations in the County. Michigan Public Act 51 of 19 51 defines how the state spends nearly $3 billion annually to support local roads, state highways, bridges, buses, trains, on-road bicycling, sidewalks and other transportation options. These funds come from the gasoline tax; registration fees on cars, trucks, and aircraft; and a tax on the sale of motor vehicles and their parts. Key organizations involved with planning, monitoring, maintaining and improving the transpor tation network in \Vashtenaw County include: • • Local City and Village Governments Washtenaw County Road Commission (WCRC) Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS) Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) Ann Arbor Transportation Autl1ority (AATA) Type of Transportation Availability in Washtenaw County Main Highways 1-94, US-23, US-12, M-52 , M-153, M- 14 Rail lines Amtrak; Ann Arbor Railroad ; Norfolk Southern ; and Tu scola Saginaw Bay Ra ilway Airports Ann Arbor Municipal Airport; Willow Run Airport (owned and operated by Wayn e County) Table 2-6: Summary of Transportation Modes in Washtenaw County, 2000 Source: Washtenaw County Department of Planning and Environment Road improvements (federal-aid eligible roads only) planned for the future are identified in the 2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan for \Vashtenaw County. Of the 555 transportation improvements necessary to support projected growth through the year 2030, funding is available for only 429 projects (17%). To ensure that funds are used in the most effective manner, the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) refocused its investment strategy as "Fix It First - Fix It Right far Michigan. " This strategy focuses on existing roads rather than constructing new roads. In addition limited resources also limit local units of government with maintaining and rehabilitating local roads. Page 2-10 A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �Figure 2-8: Transportation in Washtenaw County ----- --- - 2 □ Junsd1ct1onal Boundary N H1ghway N MaJor Road Road -v Railroad X, Public Airport Public or Private A1rf1eld or Landing Stnp 0 2 4 Miles + N Source: Washtenaw County Department of Planning and Env,ronment ;\ Comprehensive Plan For \v'ashtenaw County Page 2-11 �l Ch~pter 2 ,._ ..._ ._ .._ - -:: - T ',_. I "II • _t._ • •- • ~ Transit Transit is available in urban areas and some smaller cities and villages (Figure 2-9). Providers include: • Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA) provides fixed-route and paratransit services, a ible door-to-door service for the elderly, disabled or economically disadvantaged flex- • Chelsea Area Transportation System provides small bus transportation that transports residents from Chelsea and Dexter to the AATA line in Ann Arbor • Manchester Senior Citizens provides small bus transportation to seniors within the Village of Manchester • Manchester Community Resource Center provides demand-response service to residents within the Manchester School District • Milan Public Transit provides demand-response service to seniors, disabled and economically disadvantaged persons in Milan City, and Saline and York Townships • Neighborhood Senior Services provides demand-response service to elderly and disabled residents in Washtenaw County • Northfield Human Services tailors transit packages to meet specific needs of \'(Tashtenaw County residents Page 2-12 A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �,,,....-T' - ·_ , · _. 1 -~~~~~,~.---- ·.. ··.. ' . : -. ' . ,. , . . - : - .s-.., - ·· .- . . -, , - - - . ·-. '; • . - • •~~ ,,. ~ .--- .... .-,,.. • ~ - - • • 1 -~ '~Communihr'P.rofile ;~:J i' • • • ", I ~\, Figure 2-9: Fixed Transit Routes Available in Washtenaw County - 2 D Jurisdictional Boundary TRANSIT PROVIDER N N Highway Major Road Road N CATS N MTA 0 2 4Miles+ University of Michigan Source. Washtenaw Area Transportation Study .-\ Comprehensive Plan For \X'ashtcnaw CountY Page 2- 13 �Chapter 2 • • • I _ ~ ... , • ~ - I I i / _ > ~ • l , • I 2.8 Water and Sewer Services All cities and villages in \"'v'ashtenaw County have both water and wastewater service. There are two primary water and/ or sewer service providers in the County: Ypsilanti Community Utilities 1\uthority (YCUA) and the City of Ann Arbor. YCUA serves communities with.in Washtenaw and Wayne counties including Washtenaw County communities of the City of Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township, I\ugusta Township, and portions of Superior, Pittsfield and York Townships. Ann A.rbor Water Utilities serves the City of Ann Arbor and portions of Ann Arbor Township, Scio Township and Pittsfield Township. Other water and sewer providers include the cities of Saline, Chelsea and Milan, the villages of Dexter and Manchester, Salem and Northfield Townships, Sylvan Township Water and Sewer Authority, Multilakes Water and Sewer Authority, Portage/Baseline Lake Water and Sewer Authority and other small service providers. Sources for public water systems include the Detroit River (YCUA), the Huron River and groundwater. In general, the water service areas mirror the sewer service areas, the locations of which are shown in Figure 2-10. In recent years, sewer extensions to lakeside residential communities have been necessary. Aging infrastructure of private systems have led to septic failures, which in turn cause contamination to the lakes. To date, most of the lakeside communities with sewer services are in the northwest portion of the County. Page 2-14 A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �Figure 2-9 : Current and Future Sewer Service Areas , 2000 s D Jurisdictional Boundary N Roads D Lake Sewer Service Status D Current D D Potential (per LUG Master Plans) Projected (per Planned Construction) --- - 2 0 2 4 MIies Source: Washtenaw County Dept. of Planning and Environment A Comprehensive Plan For \Xlashtenaw County Page 2-15 �Chapter 3 Landscapes A Comprehensive Plan For Washtenaw County �L Washtenaw County Lyndon Township Dexter Township Webster Township Salem Township Northfield Township I I I Sylvan Township Sharon To'Wnship Lima Township Freedom Township I Barton Hilh. Ann Arbor Village Township Ypsilanti City Lodi Township Pittsfield Township Manchester Township Saline Township / / Superior Township Scio Township York Township Bridgewater Township / Ypsilanti Township Augusta Township .-\ Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future ----..- �Landscapes 3.1 Purpose Land use is a primary element in creating a sense of place. Land use decisions impact transportation patterns, proximity of homes to work, amoun t and location of nature preserves and spaces for social interaction. Currently our rural and urban areas each have a sense of place with distinct characteristics and defined boundanes. Development patterns that consume land and resources and promote auto dependency are not sustamable. As one-dimensional subdivis10ns and roadside residential developments appear between communities and within the rural countryside, our sense of place diminishes. 3.2 Resident Comments Many residents find Washtenaw County a desirable place to live because of clearly defined communities, sense of community, and small towns separated by rural landscapes. Residents recognize that current trends are unsustainable and threaten this sense of place. Their comments identify many land use challenges for the County to address over the next 20 years. Landscapes Goal The followtng goal of the landscapes element is based on resident input and analysis of conditions and trends: Highlights of Resident Comments from Regional Workshops For a complete list of resident comments see the Public Parncipaaon Support Document. • Commuruty character 1s being destroyed by development patterns. Townships are becorrungAnpvhere USA, suburban developmen ts are absent of commuruty, and the uruque identity of small towns and hamlets must be maintained. Recent developments are not designed to foster commuruty and are detracung from our current sense of place, and strip developments weaken clear boundaries between communmes. Opporturuties to promote commuruues 111clude increas111g residenual densHJes where seffices and relauvely large populauons already exist, encouraging rruxed-111come developments, and integraung de,,elopment with ex1st111g villages, rather than building new developments without connecuons to existmg commuruues. GOAL Promote an efficient pattern of development that maintains our sense of place, preserves our natural resources and reduces the effects of sprawl. H igh density, rruxed-use development 111 urban areas, c1t1es, and villages may mvoke a negat1ve percepuon. T here 1s an opporturuty to change percept1ons by devclopmg well-designed prototypes that promote high-density, nuxcd-use de,·elopment as an attractwe alternauve. Co11/11111ed 011 next page .-\ Comprehensive Plan For \'<fashtenaw County Page 3-3 �Chapter 3 Highlights of Resident Comments from Regional Workshops (Continued) • Planrung tools are either lackmg or antiquated. Some residents do not see a plan for development, but sporadic development occurring across the county. Local governments may lack tools to change undesirable development pattern . Communities need innovative planning and s1te design techruques, updated zorung regulations for nurumum lot sizes, setbacks, road widths, parking, and legally defensible master plans and ordinances. Also, site design has not kept pace with best management practices for watershed management. • Rural character is being ruined by rural subdivisions and roadside homes. Opporturuties to counter the erosion of our rural areas mclude mcreased densities 111 cmes to relieve pressure on rural areas, reduced densities 111 the rural areas (40 to 50 acre nurumum lot sizes), and site design techruques such as clustermg and planned urut developments. • Agricultural land should be retamed for lustoric and educational value. • Open space and connections between residences are lacking. There are opportunities to preserve open spaces durmg land development by preservmg a portion of the site in its natural state and preventing residences as a by-right use in conservation/ open space districts. • Tax base is limited for cmes that cannot easily expand their boundaries and townships that have a great deal of non-taxable public land. Local uruts must balance land use with revenue and service delivery in the next twenty years. • Neighborhoods and communities should be designed to reduce traffic congestion and provide diverse opportunities for access to community activities • Cooperation with regard to land use decisions is a maJor challenge. The Comprehensive Plan for \'\'ashtenaw County is an opportunity for all local uruts to be uruted in one vision and agree upon and 111tegrate the goals, objectives, and recommendations rnto their plans. Sustainable settlements require m aking cities more urban and making the countryside more rural. - Peter Ne111ma11, Toivard Suslainable Co,mm111ities Page 3-4 A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �Landscapes 3.3 Condition and Trends Landscapes describe a culmination of characteristics including transportation systems, land uses, densities, intensities, open spaces and architectural design. The combination of these characteristics produces vibrancy, personality and sense of place. The locations of the landscapes in 2000 are presented in Figure 3-1. \Vashtenaw County can be described in terms of five landscapes, listed below. Urban: Vibrant centers consisting of a variety of land uses, from historic downtowns and neighborhoods to higher density development and employment centers. A range of housing options are available, along \,vith transit, bike paths, and pocket parks. Streets generally follow a traditional grid pattern. Our urban landscapes are known for their cultural and ethnic diversity, natural features, educational opportunities, the arts and sporting venues and world-class health care systems. Urban areas include the City of Ann Arbor, the City of Ypsilanti and higher density uses surrounding them. Urban Landscape Small City and Village: Quaint and functional downtown main streets, aligned with historic and architecturally appealing buildings. Generally mixed-use developments have first floor retail, office/ service uses and second story residences. Other features include relics from the past, such as mills, churches, civic buildings or a community park. Established higher density residential typically surrounds the center (six dwelling units per acre), and streets are on a grid pattern. Villages are walkable and public transit may or may not be available. The cities of Chelsea, Milan and Saline, and the villages of Dexter and Manchester are included in this landscape type. Small City and Village Landscape Suburban Landscape Suburban: Single-family subdivisions and commercial and office uses frequently located in strip centers along major roadways. They offer a housing choice not available in otl1er landscapes: single family residential units, with private yards and garages, and neighbors in close proximity but not so close as to be sharing walls. The lack of local employment centers results in heavy peak hour traffic conditions as residents commute to work. Rural-Residential: Large-lot subdivisions and roadside residences scattered along the two-lane rural collector and gravel roads. Lower construction costs, large homes, a desire to live in the country may be influences that attract new residents to rural areas. Rural: Recognized for agriculture operations, park.lands and vast open spaces. The transportation network generally consists of the County and State roads, paved and gravel. Scenic vistas of open space, agricultural fields, barns and farmsteads and historic resources are enjoyed by visitors and residents alike. Hamlets, lakeside residential communities and most of the southwest and nortl1west townships consist of the rural landscape. A Comprehensive Plan For \'(/ashtenaw County Rural Residential Landscape Rural Landscape Page 3-5 �Chapter 3 Figure 3-1: Landscapes 2000 Quaint, smaller cities and villages clearly separated by the Rural landscape promotes a strong sense of place. Urban centers offer access to world-class health care facilities and unique cultural and recreational resources Agriculture and rural character are prevalent in western communities Suburban development in close proximity to urban areas 1---jy~-f:::f'._.{-.lLl_ W.-.L--WJ..;.,.:J;;:;::::;i.:::i Source : N Page 3-6 N Primaiy Reads - Park • l.Jrmn D &lbuban (1/4 -1 acre lots) - VillqJe Harrie: D • Rural Residertia Rural (5+ acre lots) 2 0 2 4 Mies+ \'Vashtcnaw County Department of Planning & Ennronment A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �Landscapes Trends \v'ashtenaw County's populat1on 1s projected to mcrease by 87,853 people 111 the next 20 years, a 27 percent increase. The number of households is expected to increase to 169,613 by 2020, a 35 percent increase (Figure 3-2). The increase in households is greater than the increase in population because the number of people per household is steadily decreasing and this trend is projected to continue through 2020. Growth is projected to occur in every local unit of government. Only slight population increases are expected in the urban areas (4.1 %) and smaller cities and villages (10%). Townships surrounding the urban areas, particularly in Pittsfield and Ypsilanti, will increase the most (44%), and the northwest and northeast townships are pro1ected to have the highest percent 111creases 111 2000-2020 population, with a 30 percent population increase. Lyndon Township in the northwest is the exception, as over half of its land 1s State parkland and therefore not available for development. 450,000 +27 .2% 400 ,000 350 ,000 300 ,000 250 ,000 +22 .6% 200 ,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 Popuabon [_§ ---~== Land consumption per household is rising. In 1990, the average household consumed slightly less than 0.5 acres. By 2020, the average household will consume 0.78 acres (Figure 3-3), a 56 percent increase. The consequence is more land consumed at a faster rate than population mcrease. Growtl1 will change our landscapes. Households expected by 2020 were calculated using a GIS model that allocated growth by Traffic Analysis Zone (fAZ) and densities from local government master plans. Residents identified several issues regarding this projection: increased suburban expansion, loss oo¾ of community character, increased so% I 0 2000 congestion, poor opportunities for ■ 2020 transit due to low density residential 70% development. figure 3-4 shows the 60% pro1ected change 111 acres for each land50% scape between 2000 and 2020, based 40% 1 on current local government master 30% 1 plans. uburban development 11120% 1 creases by 140 percent, rural roadside 10% or subdivision homes by 47 percent, CIIII~ 0% while rural lands decrease by 16 perSuburban U-ban ~ra1 Otes and Hamets Resident,al Villages cent. Figure 3-5 depicts landscapes in Figure 3-4: Change in Acreage for Landscape Types, 2000-2020 the County 111 2020. cl Households ■ 2020 Figure 3-2 : Washtenaw County Trends, 2000-2020 Source. SEMCOG 1fill..Q 2.04 Households/ Acre 1.Q.!!_Q_ 1.85 Households/ Acre 2020 1.29 Households/ Acre Figure 3-3 : Residential Land Consumption Source. SEMCOG ell . _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _....::,__ _ _ _____J Based on Loca l Government Master Plans Source: Washtenaw County Department of Planning and Environment , \ Comprehensive Plan For \'v'ashtenaw County Page 3-7 �Chapter 3 Figure 3-5: Landscapes 2020 Based on Local Unit of Government Future Land Use Plans Loss of sense of place due to increased low density suburban development around smaller cities and villages Loss of agricultural lands due to economic and rural development pressure Loss of rural character and scenic vistas to roadside residences , lot splits and rural subdivisions Loss of community identity from continued expansion of suburbs outward from urban centers N Page 3-8 N Primary Roods • Parks • - Url:En Vlllcge Hania D Subl.J"ban (1/4 -1 acre lots) • Rural Residertia D Rural (5+ acre lots) ~~~~4 Mies+ Source: Washtenaw County Department of l'lanning & Em·ironmcnt and Local Umr of Government 1\ laster Plans 1\ Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �Landscapes 3.4 An Alternative Future Land Use Communities of \'v'ashtenaw County are at a crossroads. \'v'e can continue m our present sprawling development pattern or we can adopt strategies to develop in a sustainable fashion that will retain sense of place. The proposed Future Land Use pattern for Washtenaw County is an alternative growth scenario which captures the desires and sentiments of residents expressed during the regional planning workshops (Figure 3-6). Key recommendations to maintain our sense of place include: • Channeling future development to infill sites in already urban and suburban areas, making the best use of existing infrastructure and providing the tax base needed to continue to provide public services. • Development of new Activity Centers, located at select interchanges, that provide a higherdensity mix of housing, work, and leisure opportunities and fi.-xed route transit service to cities and villages. • Infill development surrounding our villages that acts and feels like traditional village neighborhoods with interconnected streets that allow walking and bicycle access to "Main Street." • Maintaining the economic viability of farms through an aggressive program of developing new markets for locally grown food products, sustaining supporting infrastructure, and promoting public policy in families of farms. • Developing regional open space systems that define our communities, preserve our natural resources, and provide recreation and non-motonzed transportation. • Appropriate level of rural residential development that does not overburden the rural road network and is sensitive to rural character in location and design. • Local governments finding new ways to work together, forming Urban Service Districts to promote infill development, regional open space systems, and public services through revenue sharing arrangements. Unique historic resources remain a visible part of our hentage including one-room schoolhouses, centennial farms, and champion trees . .A Comprehensive Plan For \Xlashtenaw County Page 3-9 �Chapter 3 Figure 3-6: Recommended Potential Future Landscapes Sense of place maintained by preserving open spaces around activity centers Small city and village development is sustainable: encouraging social interaction and environmental health New activity centers promote mixed-use, pedestrian friendly development, homes in close proximity to work and densities that support transit Infill and redevelopment in urban areas results in an efficient use of existing infrastructure and needed tax base Limited development of ural roadside homes and subdivisions in rural areas due to infill development in smaller cities Infill development in suburban areas at higher densities reduces greenfield development and supports transit Agriculture remains viable through new markets and reduced development pressure Connected system of open space provides recreation and wildlife benefits Q • Primary Reads • uroon D Page 3-10 Subtrban (1/4 -1 acre lots) - Small Oties ard Villages • Haniet D Rural (5+ acre lots) • ~ n Space Poter1ial Pctivity C.enter 1/2-Mile Buffer Around Small Qty/Village □ Lake D + Source: \Vashtcnaw County Department of Planning & Ennronmcnt A Sense of Place, A Sustamable Future �Landscapes 3.5 Infill Development By 2020, an additional 38,544 housmg units are projected to accommodate 87,853 new residents. Promoting residenb.al growth 10 10fill sites can accommodate nearly double the amount of residential uruts designated in current master plans. Approximately 12,950 acres of vacant, developable land planned for residential use exists in urban centers, existing suburban areas, and smaller ob.es and villages and areas surrounding them (Figure 3- 7). At current densib.es, these areas allow for approximately 25,960 units. I Iowever, at proposed densities (Table 3-1 ), approximately 48,630 units can be provided if infill development is promoted, a 22,670 unit 10crease. This number does not take mto account redevelopment projects or the development of new activity centers (See Section 3.6). New acb.vity centers could accommodate an additional 21,385 units if planned according to recommended guidelines. Together, these two land use strategies could accommodate 70,015 units, which is 182 percent of the new housing units projected to be needed by 2020. The projected 38,544 housing units needed by 2020 can be added to our County with less impact to the rural landscape or expansion of suburban landscapes. Infill areas in existing cities and suburban areas and new activity centers can accommodate 182 percent of our future housing needs. Methodology for Calculating Infill Development Figure 3- 7 and Table 3-1 present the results of the infill development analysis. Areas of vacant, developable lands planned for residential uses were identified withm the urban, suburban and smaller c1b.es and villages landscapes. Master plan densities were applied to the vacant, developable residential areas, and the number of hous1ng uruts calculated. Densities were 10creased according to the following development standards for residential infill development: • Urban Areas: Range of residential from smgle- to multi-family developments (average 12 uruts / acre) • Small Cities and Villages: 12 units / acre average in downtown areas, 6 uruts / acre average 10 areas onehalf mile surrounding the city or village core • Suburban redevelopment: 4 to 8 units 7acre average • ew activity centers: 50 percent of total lands for residential at 8 uruts / acre average The following rules were used for the analysis: Landscape Potential Amount of units allowed vacant, Housing units under developed land allowed compact planned for under current development residential use densities densities Difference • Greater densities were used when plans specified ranges of residenual densities Urban 1,025 5,069 8,616 3,547 Suburban 5,526 13,475 21 ,925 8,450 • Suburban mfill areas were increased to the next greatest density. For example, areas of one unit/ acre were 10creased to 4 units / acre; areas of 4 uruts / acre were increased to 6 uruts / acre. Small Cities and Villages Areas Around Small Otes and Villages 748 2,775 3,598 823 5,649 4,645 14,491 9,846 Total: 12,948 25,964 48,630 22,666 • r\gncultural and conservab.on land use denslb.es were left unaltered. A. Comprehensive Plan For \Vashtenaw County Table 3-1 : Summary of Residential Infill Development (Units Acres) Source: Washtenaw County Department of Planning and Env,ronment Page 3-11 �Chapter 3 I Figure 3-7: Vacant, Developable Land Within Existing Urban, Suburban and Smaller City and Village Landscapes and Potential Future Activity Centers N D N Page 3-12 Jurisdiction Boundary Roa:! D Urb:ln, Slburban, Smal Oty or Viii a:ie, and New Jldivity Center D Vacant. ~velopat:fo lands V>lith Residential Future Land Use 7000 0 7000 14000 Feet !!!liiil~iiiiiiil ·yA • .• Source. Washtenaw County Department of Planning & Env,ronment, SEMCOG s A Sense of Place, .A Sustainable Future �Landscapes Urban Infill and Redevelopment In addition to reducing development pressure in rural areas, infill and redevelopment have significant benefits for existing urban areas. Vacant parcels and underutilized properties are burdens to communities as these prop erties are often not properly maintained or unsightly, giving a negative social and economic image to the area. Cities are limited with regards to annexing land for tax base; infill development and redevelopment are the primary strategies to generate new tax base revenue. In addition to the acres of vacant available land, opportunities exist for residential and non-residential development. For example, within the City of Ypsilanti, a former paper plant at LeForge and Huron River Drive is currently being redeveloped into a 186-unit high-density residential development. Urban areas provide opportunities for walking, biking and fixed transit services. However, there are land uses within urban areas that encourage transportation by car. Vacant properties once occupied by businesses that promoted use of cars - like hotels or restaurants - have tremendous redevelopment potential. Redeveloping once auto-dependent uses into mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly developments at densities that support transit contribute to a vibrant urban core. Brownfield funds may facilitate tl1e reuse of infill properties. Urban infill and redevelopment projects can have a wide range of uses and residential densities but must be sensitive to surrounding existing uses in terms of uses and scale of development. DETECTIVE 1 Prom o te higher density in fill d evelopment and redevelopm ent within exis ting cities, s ub urban areas, and sm aller cities and villages and areas surrounding them . Recommendation 1.1 Urban Infill Developmen t Ch aracter and Design Encourage infill development within urban centers, mixed-use developments and residential developments that provide a variety of housing options - srngle family, townhouses, apartments and condomimums. New development should be sensitive to the scale and architecture of surrounding properties and natural fea tures, incorporate eyes-on-the-street design and safe pedestrian connections. Recommendation 1.2 Urban Infill Incentives Provide Brownfield Redevelopment r\uthority funds to facilitate redevelopment when appropriate. Recommendation 1.3 Urban Auto-Dependent Uses Target auto-dependent uses within the urban centers as potential redevelopment opportunities for conversion to mixed-use or high-den sity residential uses that are transit dependent. A redevelopment project in the City of Ypsilanti: former paper plant (left) converted into a multi-family development ,-\ Comprehensive Plan For \'v'ashtenaw County Page 3-13 �Chapter 3 Suburban Infill and Redevelopment Existing suburban areas are viable places to live at present. They offer a housing choice not available in other landscapes: large-lot single family residential dwelling units, with private yards and garages, and neighbors in close proximity, but not so close as to be sharing walls. This is a residential option preferred by some County residents. However, as suburban areas expand, increasing traffic congestion, increasing cost for public services, and a loss of sense of place greatly reduces the livability of suburban areas. Infill development of suburban areas should be at densities greater than densities designated by existing local unit of government master plans to reduce development pressure in rural areas, accommodate transit and connect residents with shopping, education and leisure activities. Suburban infill development should be increased from the existing designations of one to six dwelling units per acre to a minimum of four to eight units per acre based on location and compatibility to adjacent uses. The trend of suburban strip centers is uncertain as consumer preferences change to pedestrian-oriented settings, or on-line shopping via the internet. The Urban Land Institute identifies critical challenges and principles for creative redevelopment so that commercial corridors may maintain a competitive edge in the retail market over the next twenty years. Among the opportunities are conversions to mixed-use, creating a sense of place by including public gatl1ering and/ or recreational spaces, attractive architecture, incorporating patios and balconies in housing units, and shops, restaurants that offer a more livable environment that adds to the convenience of daily life. Transit stops should also be part of tl1e overall design. Page 3-14 Recommendation 1.4 Suburban Residential In.ill Encourage infill development in suburban areas to develop at higher densities (4 to 8 dwelling uruts per acre). Recommendation 1.5 Suburban In.ill Design Develop model ordinances to ensure des1.red character of community is retained: architectural guidelines, landscaping, signs, lighting, parking, access management, cellular towers, utility lines, etc. so that infill development contributes to commuruty character Recommendation 1.6 Suburban Strip Centers Work with suburban communities to identify struggling strip centers for conversion into communities. Example of a commercial strip center conversion Source: UL/ Ten Principles fo r Reinve nting America's Suburban Stri ps A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �Landscapes Small City and Village Infill and Redevelopment Small cities and villages are pnmary activity centers for the rural townships surrounding them. T hey have reta111ed significant histonc character, though because of this ambience, they have attracted a considerable amount of suburban development. As more low density development surrounds these places, negative impacts 10cluding traffic congestion on main streets, and use of village amenities by surrounding commumties results in a heavy cost burden for city and village residents, which are expected to 10crease. Reducing negative impacts to villages and smaller cities and making future development more livable can be aclueved by changing the existing land use patterns in areas planned for residential uses surrounding our villages. The density of development within a ½ mile of the existing village limits should be developed at higher densities (e.g. six dwelling units per acre average that currently exists 10 neighborhoods surrounding the villages) and a grid system of roads with sidewalks should be required to provide convenient and alternative vehicle and pedestrian access to down town main streets. Although infill and new activity center development eliminates the need for dwelling units to be built in rural areas, dense, 10ward growth will not occur on its own. One technique for encouraging infill growth is an urban service district (USD). A USD establishes a boundary between densities that support transit and efficient provision of schools, parks and public safety services, and large-lot residential development serviced by well and septic tanks. Development inside the boundary must be lugher than typ ical suburban Existing Village development to achieve infrastructure Open Space Systems • Dehneates urban and efficiencies and tax base needed to rural areas • Passive recreatt0n provide necessary public services such as opportun1t1es fire, police, parks and recreation. Figure 3-8 depicts the USD Concept. Recommendation 1.7 Small City and Villag e Residential Infill Encourage infill developmcnr w1thrn villages and surrounding villages at traditional village densities (e.g., six dwcllrng units per acre). Recommendation 1.8 Small City and Village Infrastructure Planning Encourage Yillages and surrounding townships to develop Urban ~erY1ce D1stncts surroundmg villages to plan for the water, sewer and transportation services needed for higher density deYelopment. Recommendation 1.9 Small City and Village Road Network Require mfill deYelopment to have a gnd system of roads to reduce traffic congesuon and provide pedestnan access to mam streets. Recommendation 1.10 Small City and Village Infill D esign Develop model ordmances to ensure des ired character of communJty ts rera111ed such as architectural gu1delrnes, landscapmg, signs, l.tght111g and parkmg standards. Higher Density Residential Inside the District • Increased tax base • Reduced cost of prov,dmg road . utllrt1es and pubhc serv1ces • Tax shanng proV1des v,llage and township revenue stream for pubhc services Agriculture and Low-Density Rural Residential • Attracts development into the USO • Ma1nta1ns rural character Figure 3-8 : Urban Service District Diagram A Comprehensive Plan For Washtenaw County Page 3-15 �Chapter 3 3.6 Secondary Development Concept: Activity Centers Activity Centers are areas that have a concentration of residential, employment, retail, commercial and public uses. By concentrating othenvise sprawled development, new centers reduce development pressures in rural areas. Planned correctly, new centers will provide a mix of housing types including apartments and townhomes within walking distance to jobs, shopping and recreation, have larger development sites needed for target industries. Located at major interchanges, activity centers represent an efficient use of existing road infrastructure and have a critical mass of activity needed for transit (Figure 3-9). Examples of activity centers are shown in Figure 3-10. D evelopment of new activity centers can accommodate approximately 21,385 more housing units than provided by current master plans. There are approximately 5,570 acres of vacant, developable land in new activity centers. If 40 percent is developed for residential at an 80 percent efficiency rate, these areas could accommodate 21,385 residential units. Current plan densities allow only for 2,070 units. Some townships have planned large areas of mixed-use activity tl1.rough "Sp ecial Study Areas" (Salem Township), or direct classification of land uses (Northfield Township). Potential activity centers location include the areas immediately surrounding the following interchanges: I-94 and Fletcher; US-23 an d Willis, US-23 and Arkona; US-23 and Nortl1 Territorial, and M-14 and Gotfredson Road. New activity center development requires extensive public discussion regarding the location of these activity centers, infrastructure improvements, intergovernmental arrangements regarding sharing tax base and design standards to ensure that higher density development is contained at intersections and not allowed to sim 1 s rawl outward. OBTECTIVE2 Promote the development of new, compact, mixed-use, transit-oriented activity centers. Recommendation 2.1 Activity Center Uses Ensure a balance of uses with activity centers. Encourage mixed-use transit-oriented development, pedestrian connections and streetscape, a variety of housing options (such as townhomes and apartments at densities of 8 to 25 dwelling units per acre), and minimum t1oor area ratios for non-residential uses, requiring above-store residential units. Recommendation 2.2 Activity Center Locations \X'ork with local governments to identify new activity center locations and interchange improvement funding options and to develop model ordinances. Recommendation 2.3 Activity Center Infrastructure Coordinate the provision of water, sewer and road infrastructure to provide the serv1ees needed to develop activity centers, discourage the sprawl of activity centers and provide tax base revenue shanng where needed. Recommendation 2.4 Activity Center Buffers Discourage activity centers from sprawling into surrounding areas by updating local master plans to provide a clear separation of uses between activity centers and surrounding low density residential uses. [right]) . Recommendation 2.5 Activity Center Model Ordinances Develop model design standards for building heights, setbacks, architectural standards, landscaping, bus shelters, pedestrian pathways, pedestnan parks and / or public gathering spaces, s1gnage, lighting and transit reqwrements. Page 3-16 A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future Figure 3-10 : New activity centers have direct access to freeways , mixed-use developments, a commercial center surrounded by compact residential development (Sources: The Next American Metropolis [left], Seminole County. Florida HIP �Landscapes Figure 3-9 : Potential A~c~t~iv~it~y~C~e:n:te~r~s~-r-----~-,--------rT~- - - - - - T - - - - - - 7 ~ D 2 Jurisdictional Boundary Primary Reads - A::tivity Cente- A Comprehensive Plan For Washtenaw County 0 2 4 Mies =::::==~ + Source: Washtenaw County Department of Planning & Environment Page 3-17 �Chapter 3 3.7 Rural Landscape In recent years an increase in roadside lots and suburban developments in the rural landscape, have compromed the character of these areas. Under current master plans, it is projected that 13,100 homes will be built in rural areas, representing 37 percent of the total new units projected by 2020. Scattered housing along rural roads destroys priceless viewsheds, decreases the function and safety of our roads by creating too many access points and increases maintenance costs. Roadside development resulting from lot splits of one to ten acre lot sizes allows farmland and open spaces to be carved into small pieces that no longer support a viable farm operation. Rural subdivisions pose conflicts to existing agricultural operations and to the residents who are many times unprepared for rural living with its fertilizer smells and traffic delays caused by tractors on the road. Manufactured housing communities are another major concern for rural areas. Not only do these have urban densities and characteristics, they can easily overburden rural roads and the local unit of government's ability to provide services, due to a lower tax base. Even if infill development is encouraged, development will not stop in the rural areas. Without a strategy to reduce overall development in rural areas, infill, redevelopment and new activity center strategies will simply provide opportunities for additional growth in the county. In other words, we will just grow bigger, not better. Channeling growth to infill areas and decreasing overall growth in rural areas requires a comprehensive set of strategies, all of which must be used to be successful. USDs should also be explored by small cities, villages and townships. The majority of regional growth is allocated to infill development within these areas. A USD will ensure that water and sewer is planned in an efficient manner, and tax revenue sharing arrangements are agreed upon prior to the influx of new development. A major challenge to maintaining rural character is the need for rural townships to increase their tax base to provide services for existing and new residents. \Xi'hile promoting infill and new activity center development will decrease development pressures (and new resident services) in rural areas, these communities will still need additional revenues. Therefore, revenue enhancement programs should be developed as follows: • OBTECTIVE3 Maintain our rural sense of place through land use techniques, economic viability of agriculture and alternatives that provide rural tax base for local governments. Recommendation 3.1 Manufactured Housing Communities Encourage commurutJes to plan cooperatively, providing for regional shares of manufactured housing. Recommendation 3.2 State Legislation Pursue opportunities to change current legislation restricting local unit involvement with regard to manufactured housing community site design and location, and maintaining relatively low reqwrements for contributions to the tax base. Recommendation 3.3 Urban Service Districts Encourage villages and surrounding townships to develop Urban Service Districts surrounding villages to plan for the water, sewer and transportation services needed for higher density development. Supporting Recommendations Economic Development 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 Agriculture 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2 Transporation 3.3, 3.4, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 Existing vacant or underutilized manufacturing buildings should be actively marketed to target industries that do not depend on urban locations to do business Page 3-18 A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �-Landscapes • If successful in developing new agricultural product markets, there is an opportunity for additional food processing facilities to locate in rural areas • Urban Service Districts could be used for tax sharing arrangements between townships and villages. The following rural landscape strategies are discussed extensively in the Agriculture, Economic Development and Transportation Elements of this plan. • Agncultural Viability: maintaining the infrastructure that supports agricultural operations and promoting new markets for agricultural products. • Agricultural Preservation: Preserving a critical mass of land devoted to agriculture. • Agricultural Zorung: Tools and techruques available to local units of government for the preservation of agricultural lands. • Rural Road Capacities: Limiting development along rural roads to ensure a safe and efficient transportation system. • Rural Character: Views of the countryside from Natural Beauty Roads and roads with scenic Vlstas are part of the rural landscape and should be preserved. A Comprehensive Plan For Washtenaw County Page 3-19 �Chapter 3 Recommendation 3.4 Hamlet Plans Develop and implement plans for hamlets to ensure that growth 1s appropriate and sensitive to the existing built environment. Hamlets Hamlets are older residential and commercial centers in the Rural Landscape where a small number of uses have clustered in largely rural areas. The size of a hamlet is much smaller than a village. Typically the hamlet center is located where, historically, major roads crossed, at a time when there were relatively few roads traversing the County. Hamlets tend to have historic or traditional single-family homes, and a mix of non-residential uses, such as a church, a restaurant or other commercial or industrial service facilities. Salem Hamlet, Salem Township There are many hamlets in Washtenaw County, though the degree of establishment varies widely (Figure 3-11). For example, Bridgewater, Mooreville, Salem, Whitaker and Willis, have commercial and residential uses, and public sewer available, whereas Delhi Mills has a historic mill in addition to residential developments such as Sharon Hollow and Sylvan Center. Regardless of current size, sewer status or uses, hamlets are existing centers and should be regarded as potential future development nodes. The threat facing hamlets is the loss of their character. As the County population increases, hamlets may be targeted for new development. Certain land uses may not be compatible with existing uses. Similarly, the design of new buildings may not be compatible with the existing buildings. 7 Hamlets are not a jmisdiction unto themselves, but are under the jurisdiction of the townships in which they are located. Township governments should plan for these area, and consider the following in developing hamlet master plans: 8 11 • Land uses and densities • Infrastructure improvements 10 Figure 3-11 : Hamlets in Washtenaw County Traffic flow and parking needs (eg. allow on-street parking) • Parks and pedestrian pathways • Method for maintaining a distinct buffer between the hamlet and surrounding development nodes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Bridgewater Hamlet 7. Delhi Mills 8. Dixboro 9. Lima Center 10. Mooreville 11 . Pleasant Lake (Fredonia) Salem Hamlet Sharon Hollow Sylvan Center Whitaker Willis • Design guidelines for new development (scale, setbacks, lighting and streetscape) Page 3-20 A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �Landscapes Lakeside Residential Recommendation 3.5 Lak eside Residential Sewer Service Lakeside residences are part of the Rural Landscape. Such areas historically featured clusters of small houses and cottages at very high residential densities compared to the surrounding area. The occasional bait or convenience store mixed with the residential use was common. The lake amenity and the rural character surrounding the lake community provided an ideal summer retreat as seasonal residences for county and out-ofcounty residents. Pnor to providing sewer service extensions to lakeside residences, ensure that master plan goals, objectives and strategies and zorung ordinance regulations do not encourage expans10n of higher density development in surrounding areas. Recommendation 3.6 L akeside Residential D esign Standards Lakeside residence in the County The sleepy lakeside community has changed over the years. With the growth of the population and jobs, smaller lakes in rural areas are now within commutable distances and attract year-round residents. The result is a change in character and service needs. Yearround residents have converted or demolished older homes and rebuilt larger homes on much larger lots and are demanding more public services. Larger homes and year-round living has resulted in failure of aging sept:1.c systems, causing damage to the water quality of lakes. Townships in the northwest, such as Dexter, Lyndon and Sylvan have responded by creating sewer districts specifically for lakeside residences with failing septic systems. A Comprehensive Plan For Washtenaw County Encourage local governments to adopt height, bulk, setback and other design standards to promote compatibility between existing and new development. Page 3-21 �Chapter 3 3.8 Open Space Open space is perhaps the single most important feature of Washtenaw County in the public mind. Open space can refer to grasslands, stands of trees, a swampy lowland or a park. There are as many benefits of open space as there are types. Open space between communities defines them, allowing each to maintain its character. Open space provides habitat for plant and animals and affords our residents with passive recreation opportunities. It is also a litmus test. Retention of open space means our development is going to the right places and is not eroding our precious resources. Undeveloped natural areas and parks also provide a peaceful retreat from the built environment, allowing for mental refreshment. Figure 3-12 shows the currently protected park lands and potential connections for Washtenaw County. OBTECTIVE4 Develop a system of open spaces throughout the county to delineate communities, maintaining our sense of place and to preserve our natural lands. Recommendation 4.1 Regional Open Space Plans Develop regional open space plans to delineate communities, provide recreation opportunities and preserve natural resources. Agricultural land is not considered open space, however, agricultural lands do provide a type of buffer between urban areas, smaller cities and villages so that they retain their character. Not all local governments have adopted ordinances protecting wetlands, woodlands or a natural features. For those that have, there may be a great deal of variation in terms and definitions, requirements and types of resources protected. Current ordinances should be reviewed and changes suggested to ensure productive preservation efforts. There are three important ways in which open space may be used to maintain a sense of place and to promote a sustainable future. Open space as a buffer around a community retains its distinct character and prevents communities from blending into one anotl1er. Open space as a network of public and privately owned land maintains ecological healtl1. Open space as a trails system provides passive recreation opportunities and alternatives to the auto for transportation. Page 3-22 A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �....... Landscapes Buffers Around Communities Maintaining distinct communities is a strong desire of County residents. Communities with their own identity project a sense of place and foster a sense of pride. One method to achieve distinct communities is to preserve open space buffers around them. Without protection of boundaries, undirected development will result in the blending of one community into another with little more than a welcome sign to let the traveler know that they are going from one to the next. The importance of having open space benveen communities has resulted in several recent open space acquisition initiatives: the City of Ann Arbor Parks and Greenbelt Program targets land purchases within a delineated area and Ann Arbor Township's recent millage for purchases of open spaces and agricultural land. Some of the regional planning teams, like Southwest Washtenaw Council of Governments, have identified the value of an open space network in their regional planning efforts. The Washtenaw Metro Alliance is in the process of developing a regional open space plan that will not only delineate the urban and rural areas, but has the opportunity to connect preserved lands with recreation and natural features for recreation and wildlife benefits. Recommendation 4.2 Buffers Encourage local governments of urban, suburban, smaller cities and villages and the areas surrounding them to 111corporate open space buffers around their communities in their mas ter plans. Buffers are to be part of their open space plan. Supporting Recommendations Transportation 8.1, 8.2, 8.4, 8.5 Natural Resources 2.1, 2.2 Preservation of Important Natural Features Over 16,000 acres of land are preserved in the County by the State of Michigan's Waterloo and Pinckney Recreation Areas. Preserving large tracts of natural ecosystems and linkages between these ecosystems are an important part of developing an open space plan. Preserving these areas has positive impacts on air quality, ecological systems, habitats, natural corridors, scenic vistas and water quality. Corridors and natural connections between ecosystems provides for a natural flow that stands in stark contrast to small, isolated pockets of open space leftover from developments that disrupt natural water systems or trap wildlife. Preserving existing natural linkages will also promote wildlife and plant health and diversity. ,-\ Comprehensive Plan For \Vashtenaw County Page 3-23 �Chapter 3 - Existing Parkland, Buffers Around Activity Centers and Potential Trails Sources: Potential Trails by the Greenways Collaborat,ve Inc. and Rails to Trails. Parkland and Buffers by Washtenaw County Department of Planning and Environment Page 3-24 A Sense of Place, A Susta.tnable Future �Landscapes Lakes, rivers, creeks and drains, wetlands, woodlands, steep slopes, soils, topography, groundwater recharge areas, floodplains, native species and Champion Trees are types of local resources that can serve as natural connections. There may be other local resources important to a community for which data is not available. An inventory of resources at the local or regional scale is necessary to prepare a useful open space plan tl1at could be used as an overlay for local government preservation efforts. After natural areas are inventoried and mapped, programs must be instituted so that these features may be preserved. Programs exist for direct land purchases, such as land trusts, State Department of Parks and Recreation grants and Washtenaw County's Natural Area Preservation Program (NAPP). In addition, other techniques may be implemented by local governments such as: • Establishing a regional wetlands mitigation bank allowing development on small isolated wetlands in exchange for the purchase and preservation of larger regional wetlands systems, and • A transfer of development rights programs allowing higher density infill areas with open space transferred to the regional open space system. Green ways Open space systems can be used for passive recreation and trails. Both of these activities promote a healthy environment by providing access to physical activity where residents can enjoy the exerose without driving to a gym or smaller public recreation area. Existing trails, resources and new connections should be considered when planning an open space system. Examples include: • Existing: Huron River Border-to-Border Trail, coordinated by the Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation Department. Segments of tl1e planned trail have been completed. • Potential: Natural Beauty Roads, former railroad routes and those offering scenic views could be incorporated into a trail system. A Comprehensive Plan For \'v'ashtenaw County Page 3-25 �Chapter 3 3.9 Summary GOAL Promote an efficient pattern of development that maintains our sense of place, preserves our natural resources and reduces the effects of sprawl. OBTECTIVE 1 Promote hig her density in.ill development and redevelopment within exi s ting cities, suburban areas, and smaller cities and villages and areas surrounding them . Recommendation 1.6 Suburban Strip Centers \Vork with suburban communities to identify struggling strip centers for conversion into communities. Recommendation 1.1 Urban In.ill Development Character and Design Encourage infill development within urban centers, mixed-use developments and residential developments that provide a variery of housing options - single family, townhouses, apartments and condomrniums. New development should be sensitive to the scale and architecture of surrounding properties and natural features, incorporate eyes-on-the-street design and safe pedestrian connections. Recommendation 1. 7 Small City and Village Residential Infill Encourage infill development within villages and surrounding villages at traditional village densities (e.g., six dwelling mi.its per acre) . Recommendation 1.2 Urban Infill Incentives Provide Brownfield Redevelopment 1\uthority funds to facilitate redevelopment when appropriate. Recommendation 1.3 Urban Auto-Dependent Uses Target auto-dependent uses within the urban centers as potential redevelopment opportunities for conversion to mixed-use or high-density residential uses that are transit dependent. Recommendation 1.4 Suburban Residential In.ill Encourage infill development in suburban areas to develop at higher densities (4 dwelling units per acre). to Recommendation 1.8 Small City and Village Infrastructure Planning Encourage villages and surrounding townships to develop Urban Service Districts surrounding villages to plan for the water, sewer and transportation services needed for higher density development. Recommendation 1.9 Small City and Village Road Network Require infill development to have a grid system of roads to reduce traffic conges tion and provide pedestrian access to mam streets. Recommendation 1.10 Small City and Village Infill Design Develop model ordinances to ensure desired character of community 1s retarned such as architectural guidelines, landscaping, signs, lighting and parking standards. .. 8 Recommendation 1.5 Suburban Infill Design Develop model ordinances to ensure desired character of community is retained: architectural guidelines, landscaping, signs, lighting, parking, access management, cellular towers, utility lines, etc. so that infill development contributes to community character Page 3-26 A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �Landscapes OBTECTIVE2 Promote the development o f ne,v, compact, mixed-use, transit-oriented activi ty centers. Recommendation 2.1 Activity Center Uses Ensure a balance of uses with activity centers. Encourage mixed-use tra nsit-on ented development, pedestnan connections and streetscape, a variety of housmg options (such as townho mes and apartments at densities of 8 to 25 dwelling units per acre), and rrummum floor area ratios for non-residential uses, reqwring above-store residential units. Recommendation 2.2 Activity Center Locations \Xlork with local governments to identify new activity center locations and in terchange improvement funding options and to develop model ordinances. Recommendation 3.2 State Legislation Pursue opportumtles to change current legislation restricting local unit 111volvement with regard to manufactured hous111g commumtv site des ign and location, and mamtaming relatively low requirements for contributions to the tax base. Recommendation 3.3 Urban Service Districts E ncourage villages and surrou nding townships to develop Urban Service Districts surrounding villages to p lan for the water, sewer and tra nsportation services needed for higher density development. Recommendation 3.4 Hamlet Plans Develop and im plement plans for hamlets to ensure that growth 1s appropnate and sens1t1ve to the existmg built enviro nmen t. Recommendation 2.3 Activity Center Infrastructure Coordinate th e prov1s10n of water, sewer and road m frastructure to provide the services needed to develop activity centers, discourage the sprawl of activity centers and provide tax base revenue shanng where needed. Recommendation 3.5 Lakeside Residential Sewer Service Prior to providing sewer service extens10ns to lakeside residences, ensure that master plan goals, ob1ect1ves and strategies and zon111g ord111ance regulations do not encourage expans10n of higher density development 111 surrounding ar eas. Recommendation 2.4 Activity Center Buffers D iscourage activity centers fro m sprawling into surrounding areas by updating local master plans to provide a clear separation of uses between activity centers and surrounding low density residential uses. Recommendation 3.6 Lakeside Residential Design Standards Encourage local governmen ts to adopt height, bulk, setback and other design standards to promote compatibility between existing and new development. Recommendation 2.5 Activity Center Model Ordinances D evelop model design standards for building heights, setbacks, ardutectural standards, landscaping, bus shelters, pedestrian pathways, pedestrian parks and / or public gathering sp aces, signage, ligh ting and transit requirements. OBTECTIVEJ Maintain our rural sens e of place through land use techniques, economic viability of agriculture and alternatives that provide rural tax base for local governments. Recommendation 3.1 Manufactured Housing Communities Encourage communities to plan cooperatively, providing for regional shares of manufactured ho us111g. A Comprehensive Plan For Was htenaw County Recommendation 3.7 Designation of Natural Beauty Roads Encourage local umts of governments to work with the \X/CRC to designate addiuonal Natural Beauty roads. Recommendation 3.8 Residential Design Standards Encourage local governments to adopt roads ide residential design standards 111clud111g canopy tree preservation , residential building setbacks and road access hrrutatlons. Recommendation 3.9 Scenic Vista Identification \'(/ork with local governme nts and res idents to identify sceruc vistas and local, County, and state funds to acqwre scenic vista properties and easemen ts Page 3-27 �Chapter 3 Supporting Recommendations Economi c Development Element Chapter 6: Recommendation 4.1 Supporting Network Recommendation 4.2 Ag1it11/t11re Indwtry Strategy Recommendation 4.3 Ed11cation and Marketing Recommendation 4.4 'J11111p Start" the Ag,imlt11ral Economy Agriculture Element Chapter 4: Recommendation 2.1 Farmland Preseruation Funding Recommendation 2.2 PDR and Far111/anrl Preservation Recommendation 3.1 Model Agrimltural Ordinances Recommendation 3.2 Agric11l1t1ral Enabling Legislation Transportation Element Chapter 10: Recommendation 3.3 Access Ma11age111ent in Ritral Areas Recommendation 3.4 Proper Planning of Expanded Cooridors Recommendation 7.1 Designation of Natural Beauty Roads Recommendation 7.2 R.esidential Design Standards Recommendation 7.3 Scenic Vistas Identijimtion Page 3-28 OBTECTIVE4 Develop a system of open spaces throughout the county to delineate communities, maintaining our sense of place and to preserve our natural lands. Recommendation 4.1 Regional Open Space Plans Develop regional open space plans to delineate communities, provide recreation opportunities and p reserve natural resources. Recommendation 4.2 Buffers Encourage local governments of urban, suburban, smaller cities and villages and the areas surro unding them to incorporate open space buffers aro und their communities rn their master plans. Buffers are to be part of their open space plan. Supporting Recommendations Transportation Element Chapter 10: Recommendation 9.1 Non-Motorized Transporlatio11 Plan Recommendation 9.2 I,ifrastmcture far Birycle Travel Recommendation 9.4 Pedestrian and Birycfe I11frastmct11re at Facilities Recommendation 9.5 County-wide Trail System Natural Resources Element Chapter 5: Recommendation 2.1 Model Ordi11a11ces Recommendation 2.2 Natural Feat11res Ouerlays A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �...... Chapter 4 Agriculture A Comprehensive Plan.For Washtenaw County �Washtenaw County Lyndon Township Dexter Township Webster Township Salem Township Northfield Township I ; I \ I / Ann Arbor / Township_ --------- Sylvan Township Lima Township - _.. -✓-- ; Superior Township - - __ Scio Township Ypsilanti City Sharon Township Freedom Township Lodi Township Pittsfield Township) Ypsilanti Township I I York Township Manchester Township Bridgewater Township Saline Township I Augusta Township A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future • �Agriculture 4.1 Purpose Agriculture is an important part of the County's economy. In addition to jobs and contributing food and fiber production to society, agriculture preserves our heritage, provides a buffer between our unique landscapes and adds value to the quality of life for County residents. 4.2 Resident Comments Residents recognize the importance of agricultural land not only for its addition to the County's economic viability, but also for the beauty and sense of place that it provides. As farm land diminishes wildlife habitats are lost, the potential for locally grown food declines and fragmented development occurs. Resident comments on issues and opportunities include: Farm in northeast Bridgewater Township Agriculture Goal Highlights of Resident Comments from Regional Workshops For a complete list of resident comments see the Public Participation Support Document. • There is a need for the preservation of farmland as well as supporting farm infrastructure and markets. • Lack of oversight in the conversion of agricultural land to commercial and/ or industrial use even when 1t is not wanted. • Preserve farmland, open space, and road viewsheds through the use of PDR, funding issues, transfer development rights, green corridors parks and wild animals. • We still have sufficient agricultural business 1n southwest \Vashtenaw to keep it economically viable. We need small agricultural business growth ideas and support to keep th1s mdustry economically viable and farmland will stay farmland . The following goal of the agriculture element is based on resident input and analysis of conditions and trends: GOAL Encourage and support programs that maintain the viability of Washtenaw County's agricultural sector. I • Southeast Michigan is a changing area for farming. We need to get beyond the idea that we need to preserve all farmland. Farm in Freedom Township A Comprehensive Plan For \v'ashtenaw County Page 4-3 �Chapter 4 Figure 4-1 : Agricultural Lands Map Agricultural Lands Map Criteria The Agricultural Lands .Map illustrates agricultural lands that meet one of the follow111g criteria: • Contain Class II Soils, which are the best soils available for farming in \Vashtenaw County • Classified as agricultural land according to the latest SEl\ fCOG lan d use inventory • Under Farmland Preservation Agreements (Pi\ 116) over 20 years • Areas within local units of government's master plans that are designated as ''Agriculture" 111 their respective future land use plans NOTE: J\11 areas identified wi th current, planned, and potential sanitary sewer service areas arc omitted from the Agricultural Lands designation - Page 4-4 Active Agriculture, 2000 All Other Agricultural Lands Criteria (Not Included in Active Agricultural Lands) Source: Washtena w County Department of Planning & Environment, SEMCOG, Local Unit of Government Master Plans A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �Agriculture 4.3 Conditions & Trends The County has a relatively strong agricultural economy despite a continued decline in active agriculture operations and a reduction in suppporting infrastructure. In 1997, Washtenaw County's farm economy ranked 24th out of 83 Michigan counties and ranked third, behind Lenawee and Monroe Counties, out of 10 southeastern Michigan counties. These rankings speak to the importance of Washtenaw County's agricultural sector in the region and in Michigan. Over the past 10 years, agricultural operations have decreased dramatically due to economic conditions and development pressures: • Between 1990 and 2000, Washtenaw County has lost 30,145 acres, or an average of 1.4 percent of its total farmland per year. The total farmland acreage for Washtenaw County in 2000 was 191,145 acres. Between 1987 and 1997 0atest agricultural census available), the number of active farms has also been decreasing (Figure 4-3). By the year 2020, it is projected that Washtenaw County will lose approximately 51,145 acres of farmland if the current annual rate of loss continues. In looking at the locations where agricultural lands have been converted to other uses, conversion is not only occurring in the urban and suburban fringe areas, but also throughout the County. "#27 #39 '1137 #24 #34 - #41 #11 #8 Figure 4-2 : Rank of Washtenaw County 's Farm Economy in Michigan (83 counties) Source: U.S. Census of Agriculture I~ _• _To_ta_lF_,_,m_,_ _ s_ e 1e_c1 F a~ • Between 1987 and 1997, when adjusting figures to 2002 dollars, the market value of agricultural products sold in Washtenaw County decreased from $7 5.5 million to $63.3 million, a 16 percent decrease. Despite the recent loss of farmland, Washtenaw County remains a viable agricultural County. A critical mass of farmland for a local County farm economy is described as: • 75,000 acres of farmland; or • $40 million annually of agricultural production of marketable products sold. Figure 4-3: Total Number of Active Farms, 1987 vs. 1997 Source: U. S Census of Agr,culture \Vashtenaw County currently meets both of these two criteria: • 191,145 acres of farmland (2000 SEl\ICOG figures) • $63.3 million in market value of agricultural products sold (1997 Census of .,\griculture converted to 2002 $) SOllrce: Daniels, Tom a11d Deborah Bo1vers, Holdi11g O11r Cro1111d; Protecting A111erica sFar111s and Far/JI/and, p 110 .A Comprehensive Plan For Washtenaw County Page 4-5 �Chapter 4 4.4 New Agriculture Markets Washtenaw County's agricultural sector is changing. While the County has experienced a loss of farmland and its supporting infrastructure, new markets for agricultural products such as corn, wheat, oats and soybeans provide opportunities for local farmers to be successful. New markets also have the potential for job creation at new local processing facilities. Supporting Infrastructure: Farm economies, like all sectors of an economy, do not cease at county boundaries. Goods and services, and those seeking those goods and services commonly cross county boundaries to conduct business. D ata from regional telephone directories reveal that while the total number of agricultural support businesses has declined in Washtenaw County and the five neighboring counties of Ingham, Livingston, Jackson, Lenawee and Monroe, there still remains a significant base of agricultural support businesses and markets. New Markets: Washtenaw County grain producers will have the availability of selling their products in the future to a planned ethanol plant located in adjacent Lenawee County. According to MSU Extension, it is projected that approximately 25 percent of all the combined grain production in the five southeastern and south central Michigan counties (Washtenaw, Monroe, Lenawee,Jackson and Hillsdale) will be sold to this newly planned ethanol plant providing an economic opportunity to the agricultural sector. There has been an expansion of producers selling farm products directly to consumers. A number of these opportunities are being made available by word-of-mouth marketing. This direct producer-toconsumer delivery minimizes costs for both the p roducer and the consumer, and increases profits for the producer. For produce and nursery producers, many farmer's markets exist in the area that allow producers to sell many of their products. A number of produce-oriented farms include hobby and family entertainment aspects of their operations. These include farms that allow customers on their property for "u-pick" operations as well as hayrides, pumpkin patches, etc. These operations are providing multifaceted products and services to the growing urban market. OBTECTIVE1 Encourage and suppor t program s that will m aintain th e via bility of agriculture through new and exp anding markets for locally g rown products Recommendation 1.1 New Market Opportunities Develop a collaborative effort between Washtenaw County, MSU E xtension, UM Business School, local governments, surrounding counties, state government and agncultural organizations to find new market opportunities for Washtenaw County and the region's agncultural sector. Opportunities include ethanol production, direct producer-to-consumer marketing of farm products, local food distribution network, grain elevators and lives tock markets. Recommendation 1.2 New Market Zoning Develop model zoning ordinance language that allows small agri-business acuviues, such as processing, in agricultural zoning districts to add value to the products generated on \'(/ashtenm.v County farms. Recommendation 1.3 N ew M arket Education Support ex1st111g programs th at encourage and educate producers on new entrepreneurial opportumties in the agricultural sector. Example of direct producer to consumer product Photo Courtesy of Bur Oak Farm LLC Page 4-6 A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �Agriculture A number of Community Supported Agriculture organizations exist in Washtenaw County. The purpose of these organizations is to provide an opportunity for consumers to purchase the rights to food before it is available on the market. A newsletter provides the announcement and availability of the produce. Growers come together in this effort to promote their products to consumers. Agriculture as a Target Industry: The plan contains an extensive discussion of the agriculture economy located in Section 6.8 of the Economic Development Chapter (6). Objective 5 of Economic Development proposes maintaining the viability of the agricultural sector of the County's economy through development and support of new and enhanced markets for locally grown food. The accompanying recommendations identify efforts to build social capital among an alliance of stakeholders, elevate locally grown food as a target industry with supporting infrastructure requirements, educate the public on the value of a localized food system and "jump-start" the locally grown food economy by identifying and promoting markets in the short term. 4.5 Agricultural Land Preservation Programs State of Michigan The State of Michigan programs available to farmers, landowners, townships, local governments and counties include: Farmland Development Rights Agreements A temporary restriction on the land between the State and a landowner, voluntarily entered into by a landowner, preserving their land for agriculture in exchange for certain tax benefits and exemptions for various special assessments. (PA 116). There are 636 properties totaling 34,630 acres in Washtenaw County with PA 116 agreements that extend over 20 years. OBTECTIVE2 Encourage and support agricultural operations through farmland preservation programs. Recommendation 2.1 Farmland Preservation Funding Encourage landowners to apply for local, state and federal programs and encourage local governments to identify funding methods for farmland preservation. Recommendation 2.2 PDR and Farmland Preservation For the Purchase of Development Rights program at the state, county and local unit of government level, use the c\gnculrural Lands l\Iap (Figure 4-1) as a guide for farmland preservauon programs. Recommendation 2.3 Model PDR/TDR Ordinances Develop model Purchase of Development Rights and Transfer of Development Rights ordinances for local commuruties 111 \."v'ashtenaw County. Supporting Recommendations Economic Development 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 Purchase of Development Rights Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) is a permanent restriction on the land between the state and a landowner. The restriction is voluntarily entered into by a landowner, preserving their land for agriculture in exchange for a cash payment for those rights. Currently this program is being restructured, as it will sen'e as a 75 percent matching grant fund to townships, counties, and other local governments who have local PDR programs. The state currently has no provisions for funding tlus program. There are six PDR properties in Washtenaw County totaling approximately 1,100 acres. A Comprehensive Plan For Washtenaw County Page 4-7 �The Federal Program - The Farmland Protection Program (FPP) The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Commodity Credit Corporation provides matching dollars to Indian tribes, states, local units of government, and nongovernmental organizations to cooperate in the acquisition of conservation easements or other interests in farms and ranches. Selected eligible entitles may receive no more than 50 percent of the appraised fair market value for each conservation easement from FPP. Land Trusts In Washtenaw County there are three non-profit land trust organizations that actively preserve land by working with interested land owners who wish to donate or sell conservation easements on their land in exchange for a tax credit. These three land trusts include the Washtenaw Land Trust, which operates countywide; the Superior Land Conservancy (a branch of the Southeast ~1ichigan Land Conservancy) which operates primarily in Superior Township; and the Raisin Valley Land Trust, which operates primarily in the southern portion of Washtenaw County within the River Raisin Watershed. There are 15 parcels ill Washtenaw County that have conservatJon easements held by land trusts, totaling approximately 700 acres. Ann Arbor Township Purchase of Development Rights Programs Ordinance and Funding in Place: • Ann Arbor Township • Ann Arbor City (Greenbelt Initiative)* *Note: City of Ann Arbor Greenbelt Program is not limited to agricultural lands, but they can be considered fo r purchase. Purchase of Development Right Programs Adopted Ordinance (No Dedicated Funding Source): • Washtenaw County • Bridgewater Township • Freedom Township • Manchester Township • Pittsfi eld Township • Scio Townsh ip • Sharon Township • Superior Township • York Township On November 4, 2003, voters living in Ann Arbor Township approved a tax millage proposal to preserve farmland within the Township. The proposal provides funding for the purchase of development rights for the permanent preservation of farmland and open space throughout the Township. Figure 4-4: Summary of Agricultural Preservation Programs in Washtenaw County City of Ann Arbor's Parks & Greenbelt Program Source: Washtenaw County Department of Planning and Environment Voters in the City of Ann Arbor renewed a property tax millage on November 4, 2003 to fund the Parks and Greenbelt Program. The tax revenues will be used to purchase land and conservation easements both within the City limits and inside a greenbelt boundary line outside of the City for the preservation of open space. \'qhile not strictly a farmland preservation program, Greenbelt funds could be used to purchase farmland. Washtenaw County's Purchase of Development Rights Ordinance In 1998, Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners approved by resolution a County Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) Ordinance and a Proposal 1 Ballot Measure went before the voters of Washtenaw County. The voters did not approve the proposal which included a tax millage that would help fund a countywide Purchase of Development Rights program; however the PDR Ordinance, Page 4-8 "The m osr s uccessful farmland protection p rograms employ several techniques in a coordinated p ackage an d enjoy long- rerm commitment from landowners, politicians, an d the community. Any one technique alone canno t achieve p ro tection for more than rhe short run. And some techniques, if used alone, can actually encourage develop men t." Fom Ot1111el, and Oehort1h /3011·,r,, I lold111~ Our (,round. Pro/Min!!, Amen,'tl 'r l 'tirmr 11111/ l ul'111!1111d, pf!,. 2 l ;, A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �Agriculture rema.ins an approved ordinance and has been updated to include recen t changes that have been enacted at the State and Federal levels since the initial adoption of the ordinance in 1998. 4.6 Agricultural Preservation Techniques Currently, 19 out of 20 townships in Wash tenaw County have an agriculture component or element in their local master plans. I Iowever, there are only two townships (Saline and Freedom) with agricultural preservation zoning tools 1n place to meet their land use goals. These townships use sliding-scale zoning to keep large agncultural parcels intact (Figure 4-4). Other zoning techniques available to support the preserva tion of agriculture include: • Sliding Scale Zoning • Q uarter/ Quarter Zoning • Large Lot Zoning (greater than 20 acre minimum lot size) • Cluster development and planned unit development with appropriate design standards to provide open space buffer between residennal and agricultural use • Voluntary Agncultural Security Areas (enables agricul tural operators to have large blocks of land dedicated to farming operations) Many effective and necessary farmland preservation tools exist in other states that are not available to County and local governments in Michigan. In order to complement and support an effective agricultural preservation program, several policy changes reqmre advocacy at the state and federal levels including: • Changes in the state tax structure to utilize a use-value taxing system • E nabling legislation that allows local jurisdictions and counties to use alternative sources of funding for purchase of development rights programs (i.e. sales taxes, excise taxes, impact fees, real estate transfer taxes, etc) • Enabling legislation for local agricultural security area programs OBTECTIVE3 En co urage and s upp ort p la nning and zoning tools, along with s tate and federal policies that promote th e viability of th e Co un ty's and region 's agricultural sector. Recommendation 3.1 Model Agricultural Ordinances Develop model ordinances and encourage the use of consistent land use and zoning tools at the township level. Recommendation 3.2 Agricultural Enabling Legislation Advocate changes at the state level to promote farrrung including dedicated funding for PDR, agricultural tax 111cent1ves, tax111g agncultural land for its use versus potential use. local revenue sources and land d1v1s1on act reform. Recommendation 3.3 Agricultural Impact Statement Encourage local uruts of government to consider impacts on agncultural operations dunng the land use and development decision making Jrocess. Large-Lot Agricultural Zoning: (20+ acre minimum) • There are no agricultural districts in any Townsh ip that have 20+ acre zoning . • The greatest minimum lot size for agricultural districts is 10 acres (Sharon, Lima, and Ann Arbor Townships) • Dedicated funding of the State Purchase of Development Rights matching grant program Sliding-Scale Zoning : • Changes in the Land D1v1sion Act tl1at will rmrumize the impact of lot splits on farmland preservation efforts • Saline Township • Freedom Township Figure 4-4: Existing Agricultural Preservation Zoning Programs in Washtenaw County Source: Washtenaw County Department of Planning and Environment A Comprehensive Plan For Washtenaw County Page 4-9 �Chapter 4 4.7 Summary GOAL Encourage and support programs that maintain the viability of Washtenaw County's agricultural sector. OBTECTIVEl Encourage and s upport program s th at will maintain the viability of ag riculture through new and exp anding m arkets for locally g rown products. OBTECTIVE2 Encourage and s upport agricultural operation s through farmland preservation prog rams. Recommendation 1.1 New Market Opportunities Develop a collaborative effort between Washtenaw County, MSU Extens10n, UM Business School, local governments, surrounding counties, state government and agricultural orgamzatlons to find new market opportunities for \Vashtenaw County and the region's agricultural sector. Opportunities include ethanol production, direct producer-to-consumer marketing of farm products, local food distribution network, gram elevators and livestock markets. Recommendation 2.1 Farmland Preservation Funding Encourage landowners to apply for state and federal programs and encourage local governments to identify funding methods for farmland preservation including the following methods: Recommendation 1.2 Ne w Market Zoning Develop model zoning ordinance language that allows small agri-business activities, such as processing, in agricultural zoning districts to add value to the products generated on Washtenaw County farms. Public • Purchase of Development Rights Program • Transfer of Development Rights (through non-contiguous PUDs and Jo111t Planning Commissions between 2 or more local governments) • Purchase and Leaseback Program • Land Swaps Private Recommendation 1.3 New Market Education Support existing programs that encourage and educate producers on new entrepreneurial opportunities in the agricultural sector, including: • Land Trusts • Direct marketing to consumers (includes "community supported agriculture") Recommendation 2.2 PDR and Farmland Preservation For the Purchase of Development Rights program at the state, county, or local unit of government level, Washtenaw County will use the .Agricultural Lands !\lap as a guide for farmland preservation programs found on page 4-2 of this element. This map reflects the possible lands in Washtenaw County that could be selected for preservation, as the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners may choose to select lands for development rights purchase that may not meet the eligibility critena in the County's Purchase of Development Rights Ordinance. • .Adding value to the food (packaging, agri-entertainment, agri-tourism) • Niche marketing of farm products (ethnic foods, organic foods, specialty farm products). Page 4-10 • Land Donations / Reserved Life Estates • Land Swaps .A Sense of Place, A Su stainable Future �-Agriculture Recommendation 2.3 Recommendation 3.3 Model PDR/ TDR Ordinances Agricultural Impact Statement Develop model Purchase of Development Rights and Transfer of Development Encourage local units of government to consider impacts on agricultural operations Rights ordinances for local communities in \Vashtenaw County. during the land use and development decision making process. Supporting Recommendations Economic Development Element Chapter 6: Recommendation 5.1 Building the Social Capital Recommendation 5.2 Target Industry Strategy Recommendation 5.3 Ed11catio11 and Marketing Recommendation 5.4 'Jump Start" the Ag1ic11!t11ral Eco11011ry OBTECTIVE3 Encourage and support planning and z oning tools, along with state and federal policies that promote the viability of the County's and region's agricultural sector. Recommendation 3.1 Model Agricultural Ordinances Develop model ordinances and encourage the use of planning and zomng tools at the township level. Recommendation 3.2 Agricultural Enabling Legislation Advocate changes at the state level to allow for the following: • Changes in the state tax strucrure to utilize a use-value raxmg system • Enabling legislation that allows local jurisdictions and counties to use alternative sources of funding for purchase of development rights programs (i.e. sales taxes, excise taxes, impact fees, real estate transfer taxes, etc) • Enabling legislation for local agnculrural secunty area programs (enables agricul tural operators to have large blocks of land dedicated to farming operations) • Dedicated funding of the State Purchase of Developmenr Rights matching grant program • Changes in the Land Division ;\ct that will 1111nimize the impact of lot splits on farmland preservation efforts. A Comprehensive Plan For \Vashtenaw County Page 4-11 ��Chapter 5 Natural Resources A Comprehensive Plan For Washtenaw County �Washtenaw County \ '· \ \ Lyndon Township Dexter Webster Township Township I Salem Township \ Northfield Township \ \ Barton Hill, Village\ Sylvan Township ---- ---Lima Ann Arbor Township_ _ ..-/ Superior -- -- - -Scio Township - Township Township Ypsilanti City - Lodi Sharon Township Freedom Township Township Pittsfie Id I Township/ Ypsilanti Township York Township I Manchester Township Bridgewater Township Saline Township I Augusta Township A Sense of Place, .A Sustainable Future �Natural Resources 5.1 Purpose Washtenaw County's natural resources enrich our quality of life by providing a clean and abundant supply of groundwater and surface water, unique scenic beauty and natural landscapes that provide recreational opportunities and help to visually separate our landscapes. 5.2 Resident Comments Residents feel strongly about maintaining a healthy natural environment by protecting, restoring and sustaining our natural resources. They have identified many issues related to sustaining our natural resources: Highlights of Resident Comments from Regional Workshops For a complete list of resident comments see the Public Participation Support Document. • The need to improve our water quality for wildlife habitat in general and to improve river water quality • Protect our environment and character by preserving natural areas through land use techniques including infill and cluster development, county-wide transfer of development rights, purchase of development rights and acquisition of additional park.lands and preserves • Maintain our diverse wildlife thorough preservation and connection of natural areas and mcreasing protection for our resources including wetlands and wooded areas Natural Resources Goal The following goal of the natural resources element is based on resident input and analysis of conditions and trends: GOAL To protect, preserve and restore the natural resources of Washtenaw County through a comprehensive approach to water management and preservation of our natural features. • Protecting our groundwater resources by requiring hydrologtc studies for uses that impact groundwater and developing groundwater aquifer recharge protection regulations Canoeists on the River Raisin A Comprehensive Plan For Washtenaw County Page 5-3 �Chapter 5 5.3 Condition and Trends Water Resources Water Body Impairment The County's water resources are spread across five watersheds, the Huron River, River Raisin, Grand River, Rouge River and Stony Creek Watersheds. Major County river systems include the Huron River and River Raisin, with the remaining watersheds containing numerous tributaries or creeks. There are 372 miles of river and streams and 377 lakes in the County. Huron River Saline River Willow Run Creek Allen Creek Letts Creek Mallets Creek Swift Run Creek Paint Creek Honey Creek Horseshoe Lake Barton Pond Ford/Belleville Lake Whitmore Lake Portage Lake South Lake E.coli/Phosphorus E.coli PCBs E.coli Biota Biota Biota E.coli E.coli PCBs PCBs PCBs PCBs Mercury Mercury The changing landscape, from undeveloped to developed, can lead to negative changes in water quality, watershed hydrology, stream flows, groundwater recharge and aquatic habitat. While we enjoy an abundance of high quality water resources, many of the County's rivers, lakes and streams do not meet minimum quality standards due to high levels of mercury, PCBs, phosphorous, nuisance algal growths, and E. coli bacteria (fable 5-1 ). Wetlands and Woodlots Wetland and woodland acreage in tl1e County has been declining. From 1990 to 2000, a total of 1,272 acres of woodlands and 1,655 of wetlands have been converted to other uses. Table 5-1: Current water resource impairment impacting our resource for recreation and wildlife Source: Total Maximum Daily Load List, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Air Quality While the County is currently an attainment area for air pollutants, new National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone will result in the Detroit CMSA (10 counties including Washtenaw County) being designated as nonattainment for ozone. A nonattainment area is any area that does not meet the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for the pollutant. In addition to nonattainment for ozone, new standards are to be released by the EPA for PM'.! 5 and it is expected that Washtenaw County will also be in nonattainment for this pollutant. Page 5-4 A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �Natural Resources I 5.4 Water Resources A comprehensive approach is reqrured to address the protection and preservation of our natural resources. Inventones of important natural features and watershed conditions are needed to use as the basis for protection programs and regulations. Best management practices and regulations must be adopted on a county-wide basis to be effective and an aggressive public education effort is vital to our understandrng the impact of current and future development deosions. Watershed Planning and Permitting Recognizing the degradation of our national water resources, the Federal Clean \Vater Act was enacted in 1992. It included the ational Pollutant Discharge Elimination Program (NPDES) to control water pollution by regulating sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. Phase I of the NPD ES program set limits for wastewater treatment plants and requirements for permitting of point source stormwater discharges (the City of Ann Arbor, Michigan Department of Transportation and the University of :Michigan currently hold Phase I stormwater discharge perm1ts). Phase II of the program is 111 the process of being implemented. This phase requires municipalities to submit permit applications for their road stormwater discharges, industnal facilities, waste transfer stations, landfills and sewage treatment plants. To comply with N PDES reqrurements, the following components must be addressed: OBTECTIVEl Pro tect and improve the quality of o ur wa ter resources throug h a comprehensi ve appro a ch o f p la nnin g, m aint e n a n ce, re trofit and new development bes t m anagem ent practices. Recommendation 1.1 Watershed Plans Prepare watershed plans for all counry watersheds and prepare hydrologic models to assist local umts of government and the Dram Comrruss10ner to idennfy sub-watershed special needs for water quality resroratlon Recommendation 1.2 Watershed Funding Continue to pursue federal and state fundtng grants to prepare and implement watershed plans and work with local governments and the state to identify a long-term dedicated funding source. • Point source pollution from sewer treatment facilities and industrial sites • Stormwater discharges from municipal storm sewer systems • Illicit discharges • Soil erosion and sedimentation • Failing septic systems • Floodplain development • Watershed management plans to identify sources and remedial actions (optional) To date there is no dedicated funding source for prepanng and implementing watershed action plans, however some progress has been made through state grants and local contributions. The Huron River \'{'atershed has received the most attention and plans have been developed for parts of the I Iuron River \X'atershcd (r\1ill Creek, Ann ,\rbor-Ypsilanti l\Ictropolitan ,-\rea, l\,1iller's Creek, rleming Creek, Allen's Creek and fallctt's Creek). \'\'a tershed plans arc underway 111 other urban areas 111cludtng the Rouge River Sub \\''atershed (Lower and Middle, and the ' tony Creek and the Ri\·er Ra1s111 watersheds) . •\ Comprehensive Plan For \Vashtenaw County Page 5-5 �Chapter 5 These watershed plans identify a comprehensive set of actions needed to restore these basin's hydrology and water quality including retrofitting existing systems, natural area restoration and streambank stabilization. Sewage Treatment and Industrial Facilities The Huron River currently receives treated effluent from the City of Ann Arbor Waste Water Treatment Plant, Loch Alpine Sanitary Authority, DaimlerChrysler-Chelsea Proving Grounds, the Chelsea and Dexter wastewater treatment plants and private systems (mobile home parks). These entities are actively involved in reducing phosphorus loads at their facilities by making technological improvements and planting native vegetation along tl1e shoreline to help reduce the phosphorus levels in the river. Other point sources, such as the Pall Life Sciences industrial site discharging treated groundwater containing 1,4 dioxane into a tributary of Honey Creek, demonstrate the need to identify pollution sources, develop remediation plans, and monitor results. Urban Stormwater Runoff As development increases there is an increase in impervious surfaces, including roads, driveways, sidewalks, parking lots, rooftops, and other surfaces tl1at prevent the infiltration of rain and snow from entering the ground. Water running off these impervious surfaces (stormwater runoff) carries a variety of pollutants such as phosphorous from fertilizer, pesticides, oil from parking lots, sedimentation and pathogens from animal waste and illicit connections to storm l\Iallett's Creek drains 40 percent of the City sewers. Stormwater runoff from urban areas represents the of Ann Arbor's lands and is a major source most significant source of pollutants to water resources. of phosphorous pollution in the river. Inadequate and antiquated drainage systems contribute to flooding, erosion, increased water temperature and diminished wildlife. The res toration project for this watershed, including structural problems and reducing phos phorus by 50%, 1s projected to cost over $24 million. The high cost of retrofitting developed areas demonstrates the importance of using best management practices for all new development. Recommendation 1.3 Treatm ent Facility and Industrial Pollution Sources Require sewer treatment facilities to reduce pollutant loads and continue to identify industrial point source pollution and assist in remedial action. Recommendation 1.4 Urban Stormwater Sys tems Pursue grants and local funding sources to retrofit urban stormwater systems. Recommendation 1.5 Illicit Discharg es Continue illicit discharge detection and remediation and pursue user-fee funding sources to offset the cost of this new program. Supporting Recommendation Sewer and Water Services 2.1 Illicit Discharges Illicit discharges are sources of pollution from homes and businesses that discharge directly into storm sewers and drainage ways. The Drain Commissioner's Office inspects County Drains for illicit discharges and an enhanced detection program has recently been initiated with the Washtenaw County Environmental Healtl1 to conduct dry weatl1er screening, complaint response and "hotspot" investigations. Case Study Source: Washtenaw County Office of the Drain Commissioner Page 5-6 A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �I Natural Resources Lawn Fertilizers A recent study by the I Iuron River Watershed Council shows that lawn fertilizers contribute significantly to the total phosphorus ill the Huron River. Excessive phosphorus levels have stunulated the growth of nuisance weeds and algae blooms ill Ford Lake, Barton Pond, Geddes Pond and parts of tl1e I Iuron River flowing through the Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti area, impairing recreational use. Impervious Surfaces \Vhen the amount of imperviousness in a watershed exceeds 10 percent, streams start to show negative impacts from sedimentation and pollutants. Imperviousness can be reduced by incorporating best management pract::lces into our land development regulations and public construction standards. Examples of best management practices include: • Reduction of road widtl1s • Parking lot reductions (smaller stalls, compact car parking, reduced aisle widths) • Open space development (cluster design) Stormwater Management for cw Development Sediment is the product of uncontrolled erosion and it is the greatest pollutant by volume entering our lakes and streams. Erosion and sedimentation result ill increased flooding through siltation of drainage ways, damages to plant and animal life through high suspended sediment concentrations and act as a vehicle to transport pollutants such as insecticides, pesticides, PCB's, other industrial compounds, and toxic metals. Lands being disturbed by construction activ1t:1es expenencc soil erosion at high rates and unprotected construction sites can expenence annual soil loss rates of 150 to 200 tons per acre. The Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control of 1994, was enacted to protect the waters of the state from sedimentation caused by unchecked soil erosion. Counties have ilie primary responsibility for administering the statute and cit::les, villages, and charter townships are allowed to assume responsibility within their iunsdictions by adopting a MDEQ approved Soil Eros10n and Sedimcntatlon Control Ordinance. i\ Comprehensive Plan For \v'ashtenaw Counry Recommendation 1.6 Lawn Fertiliz ers Include lawn fertilizer impacts and responsible use m education materials and work with manufacturers to develop environmentally friendly products. Recommendation 1. 7 Impervious Surfaces Encourage the \'(/ashtenaw County Road Comrruss10n to promote a reduction m 1mperv1ous surfaces through its road design standards. Recommendation 1.8 Model Ordinances Develop model ordmances to reduce impervious surfaces on commercial sites and promote cluster development, overlay zonmg, and other resource protection rechntques. Recommendation 1.9 M odel Stormwa cer Regula tions Develop and implement model stormwater regulations that encourage mfiltraaon, natural vegetation and buffers to control srormwater runoff. Recommendation 1.10 Roadway Storm wa ter Encourage the \'\'ashtenaw County Road Comrruss1on to mcorporate storm water best management practices and water quality treatment as part of all new road pavmg and w1denmg pro1ects. Recommendation 1.11 Soil Erosion Prog ram s Evaluate local soil erosion ordinance prov1S1ons and enforcement activity and develop consistent and effective programs throughout the County. Page 5-7 �Chapter 5 Over the past ten years, a total of 1,272 acres of woodlands have been converted to other uses. The State of Michigan does not regulate woodlands, but several local units of government have adopted woodland ordinances. Floodplain Development Floodplains provide the County with natural flood and erosion control, natural water filtering processes, a wide variety of habitats for plant and anunal communities, places for recreation and scientific study, and historic sites. Major floodplains can be found along the Huron River, the River Raisin, the Saline River, Honey and Mill Creeks and several creeks in Augusta Township. Floodplains also exist near Whitmore and Horseshoe Lakes in Northfield Township and Ford Lake in Ypsilanti Township. When floodplains are altered by development, the increasing fill and loss of vegetation greatly reduces their ability to handle floodwaters, increasing bank erosion and flood damage. The MDEQ has jurisdiction over floodplains of rivers, streams, or drains which have drainage areas two square miles or greater and requires a permit prior to any alteration or occupation of the 100-year floodplain. Because a permit is not required from MDEQ for alterations in drainage areas less than two square miles, several local governments have adopted local regulations to protect tlus resource (fable 5-3). These local ordinances protect native plants, prevent stream corridor alteration, habitat destruction and development in riparian zones. Local Units of Government Floodplain Ordinances City of Ann Arbor Ann Arbo r Township X Freedom Township Lodi Township Northfield Township X Recommendation 2.4 Natural Features Inventory Refine the natural features inventory and identify potential natural resource corridors and other natural features at a scale conducive for local unit of government planmng and land development regulation efforts. Recommendation 2.5 Natural Resource Area Connections Identify connections between valuable natural resource areas, systems and trails to promote protection through county and local units of government trail and open space programs. Recommendation 2.6 Regional Open Space Plans Build from established natural resource protection programs, such as the County's Natural Areas Protection Program and local greenbelt initiatives, to encourage other local units of government to prepare regional open space plans and identify important natural features for protection. X X X City of Ypsilanti X Table 5-3: Floodplain Ordinances in Washtenaw County Source: Local Unit of Government Ordinances Page 5-10 A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �Natural Resources 5.6 Air Quality Ozone (OJ and Particulate Matter (PM) are unhealthy to breathe and also damage vegetation and forest ecosystems. OBTECTIVE3 Improve air quality for coun ty residents by reducing autom o bile and other s ource em ission s. • Ozone is an atmospheric compound, found both at ground level and in the stratosphere. Ozone is crucial for life as we know it, preventing harmful radiation from reaching the earth. But low-level ozone is partly responsible for photochemical smog in our cities and also presents a health hazard. Exposure to elevated ozone concentrations in the air can irritate a person's airways, reduce lung function and aggravate asthma and chronic lung diseases like emphysema and bronchitis. Recommendation 3.1 Funds for Non-Motorized Transportation Place a high priority and allocate greater funding towards non-motonzed forms of transportation in the County. • PM emissions are the results of fuel combustion in power plants, incinerators, and residential fire places or wood stoves; motor vehicle exhausts (especially diesel trucks and buses); industrial metal processing; road dust and wind blown soil; and forest fires. PM can come directly from these emissions or through a mixture of gases formed in the atmosphere such a sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds. Recommendation 3.2 Regional Approach to Reduce Emissions Participate with southeast i\lichigan agencies ro prepare a regional approach to reduce e1111ss1ons from automobiles and other sources. Washtenaw County has two monitoring stations, located in Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti and operated by MD EQ. The Ann Arbor monitor measures Particulate Matter (PM) and the Ypsilanti monitor measures ozone. According to current E PA standards, \'{/ashtenaw County meets all of EPA's ambient air quality standards for Carbon Monoxide (CO), Lead (Pb), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO~), Sulfur Dioxide (SO), PM and O zone. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has promulgated new National Ambien t Air Quality Standards (NAAQ S) for ozone based on data averaged over a three-year period and on an eight hour standard as compared to the previous one hour standard. The new average-based ozone health standard is more representative of the air quality people breathe over an eight hour period of time. Under its new standard, the Detroit CMS,-\ (10 counties including \'Z'ashtenaw County) would be designated as nonattainment for the eight hour ozone standard. In addition to nonattainment for ozone, new standards are to be released by the EPA for PM and \v'a shtenaw County is expected to be in nonattainrnent for this pollutant. MDEQ must submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to EP"-\ for each nonattainment area 1n the state by April 2007. As a member of SEMCOG, \v'ashtenaw County 1s participating in the Clean Air Task Force to develop a SIP for its nonartainrnem area. The SIP process involves input from vanous stakeholders, emissions tn\'entories, modeling demonstrations and a list of control strategies that will A Comprehensive Plan For \Vashtenaw County Page 5-11 �Chapter 5 be implemented to attain the standards for ozone and PM 25 Members of the Clean Air Task Force include MDEQ, MD OT, SEMCOG, Southeast Michigan Ozone Study, and Lake Michigan Air Director's Consortium. Ultimately, the degree and expense of controls to achieve attainment will be decided upon after the Clean Air Task Force technical analyses and recommendations are completed. 5. 7 Natural Resources Education There are numerous public education initiatives occurring throughout \v'ashtenaw County. The Huron River Watershed Council programs include the Information and Education Campaign to reduce nonpoint source pollution, the Adopt-A-River Program, Watershed and Sub-watershed Planning, Stormwater Runoff Guide, and Newsletter. The Washtenaw County Conservation District assists landowners and residents with the conservation and management of their natural resources. The Ecology Center offers several classroom options including "Groundwater and You," "Groundwhat? Groundwater!" and also assists \vi.th curriculum development. Community Partners for Clean Streams is a cooperative effort between the Washtenaw County Drain Commissioner's Office and County businesses and institutions with a common goal to promote business practices that protect our watersheds and waterways. OBTECTIVE4 Increase awareness and use of bes t m anag em ent techniques through an agg ressive public education program . Recommendation 4.1 Resource Protection Case Studies Encourage the I Iuron Area Chapter of the .,\merican Institute of Architects to prepare case examples (based on local sites) illustrating resource protection techruques and presenting them to local units of government. Recommendation 4.2 Natural Resource Ordinance Audits Encourage the Huron River Watershed Council to continue natural resource ordinance audits for local units of government. Recommendation 4.3 Best Management Practice Toolkit Prepare and publish a best management practices toolkit for use by local government, developers and community groups. Recommendation 4.4 Annual Water Quality Report Prepare an annual water quality report to gauge progress in meetmg water quality enhancement goals. Page 5-12 A Sense of Place, A Sustainable F uture �Natural Resources 5.8 Summary GOAL To protect and preserve the Natural Resources of Washtenaw County through a comprehensive approach to water management and preservation of our natural features. OBTECTIVEJ Protect and improve the quality of our water resources through a comprehensive approach of planning, maintenance, retrofit, and new development best management practices. Recommendation 1.1 Watershed Plans Prepare watershed plans for all county watersheds and prepare hydrologic models to assist local units of government and the Drain Commissioner to identify sub-watershed special needs for water quality restoration. Recommendation 1.2 Watershed Funding Continue to pursue federal and state funding grants to prepare and implement watershed plans and work with local governments and the state to identify a long-term ded icated funding source. Recommendation 1.3 Treatment Facility and Industrial Pollution Sources Require sewer treatment facilities to reduce pollutant loads and conunue to identify mdustrial point so urce polluuon and assist 111 remedial acuon. Recommendation 1.4 Urban Stormwater Systems Pursue grants and local funding sources to retrofit urban stormwater systems. Recommendation 1.5 Illicit Discharges Continue illicit discharge detection and remediauon and pursue user-fee funding sources to offset the cost of this new program. Recommendation 1.6 Lawn Fertilizers Include lawn fertilizer impacts and responsible use in educauon materials and work with manufacturers to develop environmentally friendly products. Recommendation 1. 7 Impervious Surfaces Encourage the Washtenaw County Road Commission to promote a reduction in im pervious surfaces through its road design standards. Recommendation 1.8 Model Ordinances Develop model ordinances to reduce 1mperv10us surfaces on commercial sites and promote cluster development, overlay zoning, and other resource protecuon techruques. Recommendation 1. 9 Model Stormwater Regulations Develop and implement model stormwater regulations that encourage 111filtrauon, natural vegetauon and buffers to control stormwater runoff. Recommendation 1.10 Roadway Stormwater Encourage the \'(/ashtenaw County Road Comnussion to incorporate storm water best management practices and water quality treatment as part of all new road pav111g and widening projects. Recommendation 1.11 Soil Erosion Programs Evaluate local soil eros10n ordinance provisions and enforcement activity and develop consistent and effective programs throughout the County. Recommendation 1.12 Drain Sy stem Maintenance Pursue a ded icated funding source for adequate rout111e mamtenance through state legislation or local sources. ,-\ Comprehensive Plan For Washtenaw County Page 5-13 �Chapter 5 Supporting Recommendations Recommendation 2.5 Natural Resource Area Connections Identify connection s between valuable natural resource areas, systems and trails to promote protection through county and local umts of government trail and open space programs. Sewer and Water Services Element Chapter 11: Recommendation 2.1 Reduce Pollutant Loading Recommendation 2.2 Time of Sale Program Recommendation 2.6 Regional Open Space Plans Blllld off established natural resource protecuon programs, such as the County's Natural .-\reas Protection Program and local greenbelt 111it1at1ves, to encourage other local uru ts of government to pre pare regio nal open space plans and identify impor- Recommendation 1.13 Agricultural Conservation Programs Increase the number of active farms with conservation resource enhancement programs though assistance m prepanng and 1mplement1ng plans. tant natural features for protection. OBTECTIVE2 Preser ve wetlands, woodlands, floodplain s and other natural features through resource assessments, model regulations and leveraging open space and trail programs. Recommendation 2.1 Model Ordinances Evaluate ei-ast1ng wetlands, floodplains and woodlot ordinances and develop a model ordinance to encourage all local uruts of government to amend or adopt consistent regulations. Recommendation 2.2 Natural Features Overlays Develop and support local uruts of governments m 1mplement1ng buffer areas, setbacks, natural featu re overlay zones and other innovative tools to protect natural resources . Recommendation 2.3 Mitigation Bank Develop a local wetlands mitigation bank to purchase and preserve larger, more important wetlands throughout the County. Recommendation 2.4 Natural Features Inventory Refine the natural features inventory and ide ntify potential natural resource corridors and other natural features at a scale conducive for local urut of government planrung and land development regulation efforts. Page 5-14 OBTECTIVEJ Improve air quality for county residents by reducing automobile and other source emissions. Recommendation 3.1 Funds for Non-Motorized Transportation Place a high pnority and allocate greater funding towards non-motorized forms of transportation in the County. Recommendation 3.2 Regional Approach to Reduce Emissions Par ticipate with southeast l\lich1gan age ncies ro prepare a regional approach to reduce erruss1ons from automobiles and other sources. OBTECTIVE4 Increase awareness and use of best management techniques through an aggressive public education program . Recommendation 4.1 Resource Protection Case Studies Encourage the I Iuron .-\ rea Chapter of the ,\ mencan Institute of Architects to prepare case examples (based on local sites) illustrating resource protection techmques and presenting them to local umts of government. A Sense o f Place, A Sustainable Future �1111 Natural Resources Recommendation 4.2 Natural Resource Ordinance Audits Encourage the Huron River \v'atershed Council to continue natural resource ordinance audits for local units of government. Recommendation 4.3 Bes t Management Practices Toolkit Prepare and publish a best management practices toolkit for use by local government, developers and community groups. Recommendation 4.4 Annual Water Quality R eport Prepare an annual water quality report to gauge progress m meeting water quality enhancement goals. A Comprehensive Plan For Washtenaw County Page 5-15 ��-- Chapter 6 Economic Development .,\ Comprehf'nsive Plan For Washtenaw County �Washtenaw County \ Lyndon Township Dexter Township Webster Township Salem Township Northfield Township / Barton Hill. Village Sylvan Township Sharon Township Lima Township Freedom Township Ann Arbor To~nship_ Superior Township Scio Township Ypsilanti City Lodi Township Pittsfield Township Ypsilanti Township York Township Manchester Township Bridgewater Township Saline Township I Augusta Township .-\ Sense of Place, L\ ustrunable Future �--Economic Development 6.1 Purpose A healthy economy is needed to provide Jobs for our residents and raise the standard of living for our lower income citizens. A healthy economy also provides the necessary tax base needed to provide public services. \Xi'hen integrated with the land use, transportation and utility elements of a comprehensive plan, economic development policies can promote an efficient pattern of growth that supports our sense of place. 6.2 Resident Comments While the county currently has a steady job formation and the lowest unemployment rate in the state, there are several economic development challenges and opportunities: Economic Development Goal The following goal of the economic development element is based on resident input and analysis of conditions and trends: Highlights of Resident Comments from Regional Workshops For a complete list of resident comments see the Public Participation Support Document. • The loss of manufacturing jobs in the County has resulted ill a need to attract new higher paying illdustries to replace these jobs. • Workers in the County often cannot afford to live ill the County. There 1s a need for higher paying Jobs and a variety of housing types. • Township officials cite the need to promote economic development throughout the County to provide the tax base needed to pay for public services. • Residents expressed the desire to see a healthy economy which provides jobs at all levels for theu children and opportunities for the County's older residents who must supplement limited incomes or 1ust feel themselves to be productive members of our society. • Residents are concerned about the loss of farmland w1tlun the County and the difficulty this creates for our farmers to continue the business of agriculture. GOAL Provide job opportunities, raise the standard of living of county residents, promote a sense of place and realize a tax base sufficient to provide public services through a comprehensive set of public and private strategies to foster and attract emerging industries. • Infill of underutilized parcels in our cities and vacant existing manufacturing facilities offer ready sites for expanding companies and reduces the impacts of sprawl. .c\ Comprehensive Plan For Washtenaw County Page 6-3 �Chapter 6 6.3 Conditions and Trends The County currently has a strong economy as demonstrated by the following indicators : Share of Regional Jobs: A net in migration of workers indicates strong job formation compared to the region. Washtenaw County has a large number of workers commuting into the County to work. According to the 2000 census, over 70,000 people commute into the County for work compared to 40,000 county residents commuting out of the County for work. Ratio of Population to Jobs: In 1990, the ratio of residents (16 years and older) in the labor force to jobs was 10:7. In 2000 this ratio is nearly 10:8. Over the next 20 years, job growth is projected to increase by 20.5 percent, from the current 232,175 jobs in the County to 279,741 by 2020 (an increase of 47,566 jobs). Unemployment Rates: \\7ashtenaw County consistently has had annual unemployment rates lower than both the State and C.S. averages (Figure 6-2) . In 2002, \'{'ashtenaw County had the lowest unemployment rate in the State of Michigan at 2.9 percent. Currently, the unemployment rate in the County is 3.2 percent, compared to 7.5 percent at the State level. 1111 :1111 311) .... Figure 6-1: Number of Jobs in Washtenaw County, 1990-2020. Source: Washtenaw County Department of Planning and Environment Median and Per Capita Income: According to the 2000 U.S. Census, \'v'ashtenaw County's median household income was $51,990, exceeding the median household income for the State of $44,667. Similarly, the per capita income for Washtenaw County of $27,173, is also higher than the $22,168 State average. Economic Tax Base: With a taxable value of approximately $5.5 billion, businesses represent nearly 50 percent of the total taxable value of the County. This $5.5 billion generates $128.5 million annually in taxes for the County and various taxing entities. By contrast, the residential tax base generates about $100 million annually (much of the difference is attributable to the additional $18.00/$1000 value that businesses pay into the state school aid fund under Proposal A). Businesses directly subsidize many of our community services. A recent report regarding tax base and services in Scio Township indicates that only 26 percent of taxes paid by businesses are used to provide services to those businesses. This means that 74 percent of taxes paid by businesses provide services to the community's residential areas. Case Study Source: A Cost of Community Services Study of Scio Township , 1996 Page 6-4 : . L I. llll(l 11i,8\ l\1112 IIIO) 1""'4 •llf> 1996 19(17 19'8 ~ DX) 2001 2!XX1 nJ:l Figure 6-2: Annual Average Unemployment Rate For Washtenaw County, Michigan , and the U.S. 1990-2004. Source: Washtenaw County Department of Planning and Environment ,-\ Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future 2(1),1 �Economic Development Capital Investment: In 1999, \'\'ashtenaw County firms received S84 million in venture capital, or 79 percent of the total invested statewide (Ann Arbor ews, 2000). ational Recognition: Washtenaw County consistently ranks high nationally as a good place to do business and was recently ranked the 9th most attractive economic development area in the nation (Expansion Management Magazine 2001) and the 9th Metro Area 111 the nation for new facility expansions (Site Selection Magazine 2001). Public Adm,n1stra11on 3% AgncUltute. M1nmg Natural Resouu,es 2% Manufactunng 15% Serv1ces 51% Transponat1on Commumcaaons and Utiht,es 4% Trends The County's job growth is expected to continue at a healtl1y pace over the next 20 years growing from the current 232,175 jobs to over 279,741 Jobs. In rapidly growing communities, there is a tendency for most new Job formation 111 the construction and retail sectors fueled by new hous111g construction and retail services to support new neighborhoods. An over reliance on conscruct10n and retail jobs results in lower paying jobs and higher unemployment rates during recessions as discretionary income decreases. The share of service sector jobs has been increasing 111 the County. As the chart to the right shows, service sector jobs account for 51 percent of the total jobs \vithin tl1e County, with a projected increase of 16.9 percent over the next 20 years (double tl1e 8.9 percent 111crease that occurred between 1990 and 2000) . ervice sector jobs can include a broad range of job levels, and pay, rang111g from Jobs 111 hotels and motels, repair shops, barber and beauty shops, hospitals, schools and business services; to engineering, software, architecture, lawyers and consultants. A Comprehensive Plan For \v'ashtenaw Co unty Finance 1ngura11Ce & Real Estate 5% Figure 6-3 : Distribution of Jobs in Washtenaw County by Sector. 2000. Source: Washtenaw County Department of Planning and Environment Page 6-5 �Chapter 6 6.4 Target Industries The share of service sector jobs in the County is expected to continue to increase over the next 20 years. To counteract this trend toward over reliance on service sector jobs, it is important to identify, foster and attract a set of "target industries" to provide jobs at all skill levels and to recession-proof the economy during economic downturns. Target businesses are emerging industry sectors that are realistic to grow and attract. They also provide employees with an average wage that will meet or exceed the current median family income. Based on an analysis by the Washtenaw Development Council, realistic emerging industries for the County to consider include: • Information Technology (telecommunication, software support, electronic publishing) • Life Sciences (pharmaceutical, medical devices, respiratory therapy, biological sciences) • Automotive R&D (particularly as it relates to leveraging Centers of Excellence at UM, EMU, currently polymers, plastics, MEMS [Microelectromechanical systems] and WIMS [\'v'ireless Integrated MicroSystems], telematics, alternative fuels) • Nanotechnologies (MEMS [Microelectromechanical systems] miniature sensors and mechanical devices used in medical diagnosis, air bag sensors, etc) Target industries also have a high multiplier effect on the local economy. For every 100 jobs created in the Physical and Biological Research sector (includes research and development in the physical, engineering and life sciences), 80 indirect jobs are created to support tl1ese workers. Indirect jobs include jobs at all skill levels including retail, accounting, legal, health and engineering services (2003 NAICS Multipliers). Local economic programs and plans should identify and implement a set of strategic actions to grow and attract these targeted businesses. To determine our potential for success, a careful assessment of our assets and the infrastructure needed to support these companies must be performed. For example, communities witl1 significant "quality of life" amenities are attractive to entrepreneurial firms because these companies employ higher skilled workers and the needs and desires of their technical personnel (human resource considerations) becomes increasingly important on location decisions. Assessment of the conditions that target industries consider in making decisions to expand or relocate to an area can be described in terms of the factors used by companies in making location decisions. A 1996 assessment of locational factors shows that the county has many locational strengths but also has constraints to overcome (Figure 6-4). Page 6-6 Locational Strengths Numerous technology and research facilities University of Michigan and Eastern Michigan Universities which are able to provide support and spin-offs Outstanding training and retraining institutions such as Washtenaw Community College Willow Run Airport(the nation's leading dedicated cargo airport) and Detroit Metropolitan Airport (11th largest in the country) Well represented rail lines and interstate access Available land for industrial and commercial development A nationally recognized quality of life . Locational Constraints Limited availability of labor due to low unemployment rates Aging physical infrastructure requiring high maintenance and replacement High cost of living compared to national figures Limited availability of sites and speculative facilities for immediate occupancy Government regulatory requirements Conflicts between existing rural land uses versus urban development Figure 6-4: Washtenaw County Locational Strengths and Constraints. Source: Economic Development Strategic Plan for Eastern Washtenaw County, 1996. A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �Economic Development Our universities are a significant economic asset for growing and attracting target industries and economic prosperity in the County can benefit from the "slipstream" effect of the universities and their inventions, applications and students. Recent facilities such as the new $400 million University of Michigan Life Sciences Complex and the construction of a $20 million Biomedical Engineering Building are significant assets for growing and attracting target industries. There is also a high potential for local venture capital due to this type of investment related to strong educational system and large amount of research dollars. The involvement of many participants with diverse perspectives and needs and offering different resources is one of the greatest challenges to implementing a strategic economic plan for the County. There are over 30 public, private and not-for-profit organizations involved in target industry support, ranging from job training, to site location and high-level management talent, (such as CFOs with experience in taking a company from concept to production). While the depth and breadth of this supporting infrastructure is an asset, dissimilarity of perspectives complicates the processes of promoting economic development, often creating competitive conditions or "turf battles" among the actors seeking to secure added economic activity. When this situation occurs, the result can discourage potential prospects and have the opposite effect of worsening the local economy instead of improving it. (Economic Development Strategic Plan for Eastern Washtenaw County, 1996). OBTECTIVE 1 Iden tify the specific needs of target in d ustries and d evelop th e infras tructure need ed to grow and attract th ese emerging b usinesses. Recommendation 1.1 Strategic Plans for Target Industries Develop strategic plans for each target industry including an assessment of nauonal and regional industry trends, assessment of our assets and competitive advantages, and supporting infrastructure requirements mcluding faciliues, workforce, venture capital and business assistance. Recommendation 1.2 Universi ty and College Connections Establish better I.inks between the U111versities and Colleges and busmess and idenufy ways to leverage their technology and facil.iues to 111crease target industry spin-offs. Recommendation 1.3 Economic Organization Alignment Align economic organizat10n resources to promote and support target mdustrtes and job training. Lab space at the Un iversity of Michigan Life Sciences Institute. Source: Life Sciences Institute Facilities Slideshow located at http:!/ www.lifesciences.umich.edulinstitutellabs/index. html: website design by U-M marketing communications © Regents of the University of Michigan A Comprehensive Plan For \Vashtenaw County Page 6-7 �Chapter 6 6.5 Job Training To increase the opportunity for our residents to succeed, we must also prepare our residents for jobs at all skill levels. This can be achieved by identifying the types of indirect jobs created from target businesses and developing training and placement programs for these jobs. Residents with special needs require supportive services to be part of the County's workforce. This requires programs designed to assist our youth, offenders emerging from correctional facilities, residents making the transition from welfare to work, the homeless and people with disabilities. In addition to these groups, residents over 65 years of age are expected to increase by 95 percent over the next 20 years. Many of these older residents will need assistance in finding jobs to augment limited incomes or just to feel as a contributing part of society. The County Employment Training and Community Services Department and the \'v'orkforce Development Board play an active role in providing direct services, such as career preparation and linking job seekers with employers. This group also coordinates academic and technical skill training through the public school and community college systems. OBTECTIVE2 Develop the training and placement prog ram s needed to tak e ad vantag e of targe t busin ess direct and indirect jobs and help residen ts at all socioeconomic levels to be gainfully employ ed. Recommendation 2.1 Target Industry Workforce Programs Identify the industry specific workforce needs of target businesses and develop workforce programs to meet those needs. Recommendation 2.2 Target Indus try Curricula Encourage our universities to provide programs and courses related to target businesses, working closely with employers to develop sectorresponsive curricula. Recommendation 2.3 Indirect Job Training Prepare residents for the indirect jobs created by target businesses, providing jobs at all skill levels and assisting the growth of small business in the County. Recommendation 2.4 Job Opportunities for Older Residents Identify job opportunities for our older residents and develop training and placement programs. Technical skills training at Washtenaw Community College Classroom instruction at Washtenaw Community College Page 6-8 A Sense of P lace, A Sustainable Future �Economic Development 6.6 Available Sites Target businesses are often fast growrng comparues expanding their workforce and facilities in a short period of time to meet new market demands. Once these target companies make the decision to expand or relocate to an area, they cannot afford the cost involved in finding a site, obtaining local zoning approvals and developing site infrastructure. To reduce the time and expense involved, these companies often seek existing buildings, business park locations and pre-zoned sites of sufficient size, located at major interchanges. The County has over 38 existrng busmess parks occupying 3,765 acres of land. However, only 948 acres are available for development. ew business parks are planned in Pittsfield Township which will provide an additional 201 acres for development. Infill sites in our cities and villages include vacant downtown office buildings, vacant and deteriorating manufactunng buildings and scattered vacant lots. \'v'hile these sites offer existing utilities and close proximity to universities and other supporting bus111esses, they often require extensive site demolition and building renovation to meet modern standards. In addition to infill sites in our cities, there are numerous vacant manufactunng buildings scattered throughout the County. For example, 111 Ypsilanti there are 21 vacant office and industrtal sites and in aline, there are three vacant 111dustrial sites and one vacant office building. The eastern portion of the County offers unique opportunities for business development. The close prox.unit:y of this area to the Detroit Metropolitan and \Villow Run Airports and com-enient access to I-94 are locat10nal factors that make this area marketable for future development. There have been several irutiatives to develop and promote this area including: • "The Wayne County Aerotropolis: Recaptunng Michigan's Competitive Advantage" recommends the development of air travel related, mtensive bus111ess clusters near the airport and along its transportation corridors. OBTECTIVEJ D evelop an in ventory o f rea dy sites fo r exp anding and new busin esses. Recommendation 3.1 In.ill Development Sites for Targ et Industries Develop an inventory of existing buildings and infill development sites and the renovation needed to make these sites suitable for target businesses. Recommendation 3.2 Brownfield and DDA Funds for Infill Place a high prionty on the use of Brownfield and DD, \ funds for preparing infill sites for development. Recommendation 3.3 Manufacturing Buildings for Re-use Develop a strategy to attract ne,v businesses to the vacant manufacrunng butldmgs scattered throughout the Count\. Recommendation 3.4 Reg ional Efforts to Attract Business Continue to support regional efforts to attract business ro underu nlize<l and 111 fill s1tcs 111 the eastern portion of the County Supporting Recomm endations Landscapes 2.2, 2.3 • "A Strategic Vision and Planning Gwdelines for \\'illow Run 1\1rport" recommends how this airport relates to the Aerotropolis, a master de,·clopment plan for the airport area and additional actions to attract "target" industries. • "East Ypsilanti Area Plan," an econorruc development strategic plan for Eastern \'{'ashtenaw County. A Comprehensive Plan For \X'ashtenaw Counry Page 6-9 �Chapter 6 These reports recommend local and regional actions to promote the eastern portion of the County and should be reviewed for action that can promote target industry development in this part of the County. Having a supply of ready sites will require larger building sites located at major interchanges that are zoned properly and have water and sewer infrastructure at the site. Identifying and implementing the Activity Center concepts detailed in the Landscapes Chapter of this plan will help to provide these ready sites. 6.7 Workforce Housing The presence of workforce housing is very important in Washtenaw County with a rapidly increasing service sector. Many residents have identified the need for service sector housing and a broad spectrum of housing types to accommodate workforce housing and reduce commuting distances. Availability of decent, affordable housing within a reasonable commuting distance is also a key factor for business location decisions. Many households fall within a category commonly called "workforce housing" and have incomes that place them in the low or moderate income range. Supporting Recommendations Housing 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 These households usually cannot qualify for existing housing programs, such as the Home Investment Partnership (HOME) and Community Development Block Grant programs, because their incomes are not low enough. To address this issue in Washtenaw County, several recommendations are created and detailed in Chapter 7 Housing. Page 6-10 A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �Economic Development 6.8 Agricultural Economy The County has a relatively strong agricultural economy despite continued decline in active agriculture operations and acreage and a reduction in supporting infrastructure. In 1997, the latest agricultural census available, Washtenaw County's farm economy ranked 24th out of 83 Michigan counties. Washtenaw County is the state's top producing county for sheep (USDA National Statistics Service, 1998). These rankings speak to the importance of Washtenaw County's agricultural sector in the region and in Michigan. Between 1987 and 1997, when adjusting figures to 2002 dollars, the market value of agricultural products sold in Washtenaw County decreased from $75.5 million to $63.3 million, a 16 percent decrease. \'v'hile we have experienced a loss of farmland and its supporting infrastructure, new markets for agricultural products such as corn, wheat, oats, soybeans and fresh vegetables, meats, and dairy provide opportunities for local farmers to be successful and new markets also have the potential of job creation at new local processing facilities. Agricultural operations in Washtenaw County • Local Food Markets: Local food markets capitalize on the growing interest in supporting alternatives to globally-imported foods that are better for human health and food security, the environment and the stability of the economy. The new market system aims to close the gap in producer-consumer relationships by working cooperatively across public, private and nonprofit sectors to develop food systems that are "self-reliant locally or regionally based." • Ethanol Production Plants: Ethanol is a good, renewable fuel source made from corn. Currently there is a proposal to build an ethanol plant in Lenawee County. This plant could process as much as 17.9 million bushels of corn a year. • Nutraceuticals Production: Neutraceuticals are natural, bioactive chemical compounds that have health promoting, disease preventing or medicinal properties. Nutraceutical markets include, herbal and dietary supplements and the pharmaceutical industry. The same approach to growing and attracting target industries applies to developing the emerging agricultural economy. A strategic set of actions needs to be in place to develop the supporting mfrastructure needed to make local farmers successful. A Comprehensive Plan For Washtenaw County Page 6-11 �Chapter 6 Because the local food economy movement is so new, information about the supporting infrastructure and organizational networks needed to grow this industry is limited. While there are several existing groups supporting this economic sector, there is limited direct involvement by government, however, governmental policy has major implications for this industry. There are several recent and ongoing initiatives that are setting policy in this arena such as the recent Ann Arbor Greenbelt Initiative, Ann Arbor Township's Farmland and Open Space Preservation Program and the Washtenaw County comprehensive planning process that can have far reaching impact on land availability, tax structure and incentives. As with other target industries, a supporting infrastructure for a local food industry needs to be in place. Tlus infrastructure includes an identification of economic opportunities, attracting financial resources through grants and local venture capital, physical facilities such as processing and foodrelated small business incubators to support start-up enterprises, business and entrepreneurial support services, and public programs that support this industry. One of our biggest challenges is to "jump start" this industry by developing local markets for locally grown food. As food consumers, we have moved from our agrarian roots where we relied solely on locally grown food to a system where we view nationally and intenationally grown products distributed through supermarkets as both the most convenient and highest quality method of obtaining our food. To promote the value of locally grown food to future sustainability and overcome these built in biases and misconceptions regarding convenience and quality, marketing locally grown food needs to start with a reeducation process. Traditionally, local food markets have been limited to local farmer's markets and special orders (e.g., meeting religious needs) . Opportunities for immediate expansion include sales to local institutions such as schools, hospitals, food assistance agencies, restaurants and locally managed stores capable of sourcing their food locally. Other areas of consideration for the short-term include local food networks (partnerships between farmers, buyers and consumers) and ethanol plants. OBTECTIVE4 M aintain th e viability of the ag ricultural sector of the Coun ty's economy through developing and s upporting ne w and e n hanced m arkets £or locally g ro,vn food. Recommendation 4.1 Supporting Network Facilitate public, pnvate and community groups involvement 111 developmg local food support systems. Recommendation 4.2 Agriculture Industry Strategy Develop a target mdustry for locally grown food mcluding an 1dent1ficat1on of the supporung infrastructure regwrements, venture capital, fa cilities, busmess assistance, education, tra111111g and public policy needed to make this sector successful. Recommendation 4.3 Education and Marketing Re-educate the community on the value of a localized food system through a variety of techrugues includuing school and commurut:y based mitiauves, community networks, local marketmg (and events) and farm-based and web-based education. Recommendation 4.4 "Jump Start" the Agricultural Economy Identify and promote short rerm markers for locally grown food products to " jump start" this economy. Supporting Recommendations Agriculture 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 Page 6-12 A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �Economic Development 6.9 Ecotourism and Heritage Tourism Our uruque landscapes, historic buildings and natural resources offer opportunities for ecotourism and heritage tourism bringing visitors and revenue into our community. The County has many unique natural features and historic places th.at attract visitors to our area and ecotourists and heritage tourism is a small but important part of our local economy. Each year, over four million tourists visited the County spending over $352 million during their stay and providing 5,700 jobs for residents. Developing these economic sectors can be an important part of maintaining the viability of our village main streets and providing an expanded tax base for townships. DETECTIVES Develop an Eco tourism and Heritage Tourism Program for the County to provide jobs and tax base for local governments. Recommendation 5.1 Ecotourism and Heritage Tourism Identify current and future Ecotourism and Heritage Tourism opportunities in the County and develop a marketing strategy to grow this economic sector based on local desires and natural resource holding capacities. Ypsilanti Automotive Heritage Museum in Depot Town, City of Ypsilanti A Comprehensive Plan For \Vashtenaw County Page 6-13 �Chapter 6 6.10 Summary GOAL Provide job opportunities, raise the standard of living of county residents, promote a sense of place and realize a tax base sufficient to provide public services through a comprehensive set of public and private strategies to foster and attract emerging industries. OBTECTIVE1 Identify th e specific needs of target indus tries and develop th e infrastru cture needed to g row and attract these emerging businesses. OBTECTIVE2 Develop the training and placement programs needed to take advantage of target business direct and indirect jobs and help residents at all socioeconomic levels to be gainfully employ ed. Recommendation 1.1 Strategic Plans for Target Industries Develop strategic plans for each target industry including an assessment of national and regional industry trends, assessment of our assets and competitive advantages, and support1ng infrastructure reqwrements including facilities, workforce, venture capital and business assistance Recommendation 2.1 Target Industry Workforce Programs Identify the mdustry specific workforce needs of target businesses and develop workforce programs to meet those needs. Recommendation 1.2 University and College Connections Establish better links between the Universities and Colleges and business and identify ways to leverage their technology and facilit1es to mcrease target industry spm-offs. Recommendation 2.2 Target Industry Curricula Encourage our uruversicies to provide programs and courses related to target businesses, workrng closely with employers to develop sector-responsive curricula. Recommendation 1.3 Economic Organization Alignment Align economic orgaruzat1on resources to promote and support target industries and job trrurung. Recommendation 2.3 Indirect Job Training Prepare residents for the mdirect jobs created by target businesses, providing jobs at all skill levels and ass1st111g the growth of small business in the County. Recommendation 2.4 Job Opportunities for Older Residents Identify 106 opportumties for our older residents and develop trrunrng and placement programs. OBTECTIVEJ Develop an inventory of ready sites for expanding and new businesses. Recommendation 3.1 In.ill Development Sites for Target Industries Develop an mventory of ex1st1ng buildings and infill development sites and the renovation needed to make these sites swrable for target busrnesses. Page 6-14 A Sense of Place, ,\ Sustainable Future �Economic Development Recommendation 3.2 Brownfield and DDA Funds for Infill Place a high priority on the use of Brownfield and DDA funds for preparing 111fill sites for development. Recommendation 3.3 Manufacturing Buildings for Re-use Develop a strategyoto attract new businesses to the vacant manufacturing buildings scattered throughout the County. Recommendation 4.2 Agriculture Industry Strategy Develop a target industry for locally grown food including an identification of the supporting infrastructure requirements, venture capital, facilities, busmess assisrance, educatJon, training and public policy needed to make this sector successful. Recommendation 4.3 Education and Marketing Re-educate the community on the value of a localized food system through a variety of techniques includwng school and community based initiatives, community netRecommendation 3.4 works, local events and marketing, and farm-based education and web-based educaRegional Efforts to Attract Business Continue to support regional efforts to attract business to underutilized and infill tion. sites 111 the eastern portion of the County. Recommendation 4.4 ''Jump Start" the Agricultural Economy Supporting Recommendations Identify and promote short term markets for locally grown food products to "jump Landscapes Element Chapter 3: start" this economy. Recommendation 2.2 Supporting Recommendations Activity Center Locations Recommendation 2.3 Agriculture Element Chapter 4: Activity Center I1ifi-ast111c/11re Recommendation 1.1 Ne1v Market Opportunities Housing Element Chapter 7: Recommendation 1.2 Recommendation 2.1 Ne1v Market Zo11i11g A111111al Housing Unit Targets Recommendation 1.3 Recommendation 2.2 New Market Ed11cation Low Income Housing Tax Credits Recommendation 2.3 Redevelopment Funds Recommendation 2.4 Density Incentives Recommendation 2.5 Infill Development in Villages OBTECTIVE 5 Develop an Eco tourism and Heri tage Tourism Program for th e county to provide jobs and tax base for local governments. Recommendation 5.1 Ecotourism and Heritage Tourism Identify current and future Ecotounsm and Heritage Tourism opportunities in the OBTECTIVE4 County and develop a marketJng strategy to grow this econormc sector based on M aintain the viability of th e Ag ricultural seccor o f th e County's economy local desires and natural resource holding capacities. through developing and s upporting new and enhanced m arkets for locally grown food. Recommendation 4.1 Supporting Network Facilitate public, pnvate, and community groups 111volvement food su ort s stems. A Compreh ensive Plan For \v'ashtenaw County 111 developing local Page 6-15 �Chapter 7 Housing A Comprehensive Plan For Washtenaw County �Washtenaw County \ I Lyndon Township Dexter Township Webster Township Northfield Township Salem Township I I I Sylvan Township Lima Township Superior Township __ - S-Cio Township Ypsilanti City Sharon Township Freedom Township Lodi Township Pittsfield I Township! York 1 Township Manchester Township Bridgewater Township Saline Township Ypsilanti Township Augusta Township A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �Housing 7.1 Purpose Adequate, safe, and decent housing is the most baslC need of a community. The location of housing units and proXllllity to schools, stores and jobs contributes to the physical health of the residents. Diverse types of housing helps to give our communities a strong sense of place and contributes to our economic and social diversity. 7.2 Resident Comments Residents want livable communities, affordable housing, and housing close to jobs. Resident comments consistently centered around the following topics: Highlights of Resident Comments from Regional Workshops For a complete list of resident comments see the Public Participaaon Support Document. • \X1e need affordable housing for all populat:1ons (young and old). Thts needs to be better addressed and not by manufactured home communmes, we need new ideas generated for this difficult topic • Need density for both affordable and other levels of housing • Need m1x of hous111g types to accommodate workforce housing and cut down on commutes • Provide affordable housing through use of design, such as cluster development, higher density, and redevelop older areas wluch allows land to be left vacant for all to enjoy. \v'ashtenaw County needs more quant:J.ty and quality of affordable housing, promote cohousmg, co-ops, condos, townhouses, seruor residences Housing Goal The following goal of the housing element is based on resident 111put and analysis of conditions and trends: GOAL To provide safe, decent and affordable housing for the County residents focusing on the needs of lower income, work force and special needs populations . • Development of manufactured housmg commuruties (:t\U IC) ts genernung increas111g concern among cmzens. The issue surroundmg MI I Cs 1s that such de,·elopments do not contribute to the tax base to sufficiently cover police, fire and school services needed by their residents. A Comprehensive Plan For Washtenaw County Page 7-3 �Chapter 7 •, -. L . l "-• • 1 ~ , - .I,,._ I - , - 7.3 Condition and Trends Housing Types and New Housing Construction Trends The vast majority of housing, both owner-occupied and rental, is constructed by the private sector. In 2000 there were 131,069 total housing units in Washtenaw County which can be classified into three categories: single-family detached, multi-family attached, and manufactured. • Single-family detached housing accounts for the majority, representing 54 percent of all housing units, an increase from 51 percent in 1990. • Multi-family housing accounts for 41 percent of all housing units as of 2000, down from 44 percent in 1990. • Manufactured housing accounts for four percent of all housing units, up from three percent as of 1990. Looking forward to 2020, if housing continues to be constructed at the current rate: • Single-family detached housing will increase to 59 percent of all housing units; I• 1990 □ 2000 ■ 2020 I Figure 7-1 : Housing Types in Washtenaw County, 1990-2020 Source: US Census: Washtenaw County Department of Planning & Environment (2020) • Multi-family attached will decrease to 36 percent of all housing units; and • Manufactured housing will increase to five percent of all housing units. Housing Prices Owner-occupied housing sale prices have been increasing at approximately six percent annually. Between January of 1999 and January of 2004, the average residential sales price increased from $181,464 to $237,164 (Ann Arbor Board of Realtors). Rental costs have been increasing at an average rate of three percent annually. Between 1990 and 2000, the average contract rent increased from $490 a month to $633 a month (2000 US Census). Age of Housing Maintaining the existing affordable housing stock is one important method of providing housing for low-income families. Of the 131,069 total housing units, 41,137 (31 %) were built before 1960. Much of this housing stock remains affordable by current standards set by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Page 7-4 A. Sense of Place, A. Sustainable Future �- ~ - ~ _-,- - •I. , Household Income Categoncs Housmg needs in the County are best demonstrated by connecting household income with hous1ng expenses and the availability of hous1ng units for each income level. Households, as defined by I IUD are "all of the people who occupy a housing unit as their usual place of residence." "Family households," where occupants are related by marriage, birth or adoption, are a subset of all households. For purposes of clarity and consistency, this plan refers to all households. I Iousehold income levels are categorized by HUD annually, based on the median income for a family household of four persons within a defined geographic area. Washtenaw County's defined geographic area includes Lenawee and Livingston Counties for the purposes of calculatmg the median family income (l\fFI). The following are the standards used by HUD with FY2004 income levels: Income 1~• : Housing 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person $12.075 $13,800 $15,525 Very Low (50%) 8,160 9,300 10,485 Extremely Low (30%) 4,890 5,595 6,300 Low (80%) Income Low (80%) Very Low (50%) Extremely Low (30%) 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person $17,250 $18,630 $20,010 11 ,655 12,585 13,515 6,990 7,545 8,115 Table 7-1 : Affordable Housing Costs Per Income Category Source. HUD, Wash tenaw County Department of Planning and Env,ronment Income Group 1 BR 2BR 3 BR • Extremely Low Income (ELI) households earn less than 30 percent MFI l\fedian ncorre Low er hcorre (80%) 80,500 92,000 103,500 • Very Low Income (VLI) households earn between 31 percent and 50 percent MFI Very Low ncorre (60%) 62,280 74 ,640 83,850 • Low Income (LI) households earn between 51 percent and 80 percent MFI Table 7-2 : Maximum Affordable House Price by Income Group at two times annual income • Moderate Income (l\11) households earn between 81 percent and 95 percentMFI. $108.800 $124.400 $139,800 Source: HUD, Washtenaw County Department of Planning and Env,ronment Many households fall with1n a category commonly called "workforce housing" and have incomes that place them in either the LI or MI category. These households usually cannot qualify for existing housing programs, such as the Home Investment Partnership (HOME) and Commuruty Development Block Grant (CD BG) programs, because their incomes are not low enough. I lousing Availability and Cost Burden Affordable housing is defined as a household not needing to spend more than 30 percent of its income on housing expenses. A household has a moderate housing cost burden if it spends between 31 percent and 50 percent of its income on housing. The hous1ng cost burden is considered severe if it is over 50 percent of the household income. Table 7-3 1s a summary of housing availability by cost burden based on the 2000 Census, showmg vanous income groups and the type of housing that is available and affordable to them. A Comprehensive Plan For \X'ashtenaw County Page 7-5 �• -' • _ j . ' . J I L 1 • ~ l I • Table7-3: Income and Housing Affordability Survey 1 Extremely Low Income Households (ELI) • Earning between 0% and 30% of the Area Median Income Very Low Income Households (VU) • Earning between 31 % and 50% of the Area Median Income Low Income Households (LI) • Earning between 51 % to 80% of the Area Median Income • 13.7% of total County households (16,936 households) • 10. 7% of total County households (13,149 households) • 15.1% of total County households (18,606 households) • 80% occupied rental units (13,550 households) • 68% unoccuppied rental units (8,946 households) • 53% occupied rental units (9,872 households) • Washtenaw County supplied 7,907 rental units, indicating an initial deficiency of at least 5,553. • However, of the 7,907 rental units, only 3,732 (47.2%) were occupied by ELI renters, remaining rental units were occupied by households with incomes >30% AMI. •Asa result, this crowding out factor increases the need for affordable rental units for ELI households to approximately 9,728 units. • 3,476 ELI households living in owner-occupied units, and 1,853 ELI households had a housing cost burden over of 50% of their annual income. • 20 ,709 rental units were considered affordable to this income group. Of these, 9,635 (46 .6%) were occupied by VLI households. The other 11,070 (53.4%) units were occupied by higher income households or lower income households who bear a housing cost burden in excess of 30% or even 50% of annual income. • While the census data show a small surplus of units affordable to this group (689 units) , 1,503 households in this renter group had a housing cost burden in excess of 50% of annual income. • 4,203 VLI households owned homes • 19,010 rental units were considered available to this group (a small surplus in rental housing of 393 units) • 227 renter households had a housing cost burden exceeding 50% AMI • 8,734 LI households owned homes in 2000 • Of the 14,829 owner-occupied units affordable to households in this income group, 4,088 were occupied by LI households. • 3,330 of the 14,427 owner-occupied units affordable to this income group were actually occupied by ULI households • 1,103 (24%) of the VLI owner-occupied households had a moderate housing cost burden , and 937 households had a housing cost burden in excess of 50% of annual income. University Factor: It is important to consider the effect of the large student population within the County. Students living off-campus are counted in the Census as non-family related ouseholds at the extremely low-income level. Accordingly, the number of low income households is skewed upwards due to the above average student population. The need for new nits for ELI households should also be reduced to factor for ELI student households. Sources. 2000 US Census; HUD. Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Page 7-6 A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �' 1' l • ..,. • I Housing Not for Profit Housmg and Public Housing \v'hile for-profit private developers construct the majority of new housing in Washtenaw County, there are non-profit private developers along with public entities that assist with the delivery of housing to Washtenaw County residents. Currently, almost $10 million is received annually through Federal funds, State grants, private foundations and corporations. There are over 20 entities providing services with these funds and programs. Federal programs include Public Housing Commissions, Section 8 vouchers, Shelter Plus Care, the CDBG Program and the HOME Program. Local programs include general fund allocations from both the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners and the City of Ann Arbor's Council. Other public sector programs include Low Income Housing Tax Credits program, administered by the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) . Special Populations Special populations include older adults (over the age of 65) and the disabled. Special populations often have additional housing-related needs that must be met in order for such individuals to successfully maintain their independence. Additional needs may include a service provider coming to visit to ensure the dwelling remains a safe and healthy environment, and to verify that the special needs person is taking medication as prescribed and eating properly. Figure 7-2: HUD-Assisted Housing Developments According to the 2000 U.S. Census, approximately 70 percent of older adult households in Washtenaw County have incomes less than 80 percent of area median income. There are 1,423 persons over the age of 65 living below the poverty level, which represents six percent of tl1e total population over age 65. A Comprehensive Plan For Washtenaw County Page 7-7 �. . Chapter 7· - 7.4 • •-■ - ' • - • - • • - ..,1 ■ • • OBTECTIVE1 M aintain the exis ting affordable housing s tock in the Coun ty. Current Housing Stock Much of the County's current housing stock is available to and serving some of the needs of lower income residents. Maintaining the existing affordable housing stock is one important method of providing housing for low-income families. Where affordable housing is concentrated in neighborhoods, maintaining this housing requires a reinvestment in both housing and overall neighborhood condio.ons. There are programs in place that make it possible for people to afford the homes so that they have shelter and access to jobs. These programs include: I IOPE VI, I IOME/CDBG ~· Recommeodatioo 1.1 Hou sing Grants Seek I !OPE \'I and other federal grants to improve the quality and desirability of the county's public housing stock. Housing opportunities in Washtenaw County and Low Income Housing Tax Credits Homeowner rehabilitation programs and rehab/resale of single-family units to low-income home buyers is a high priority. There are several low-income neighborhoods in the County where CDBG and I IOME funds can be used to renovate, build housing and improve other neighborhood conditions. The Urban County program, funded by Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and the Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program and County general funds, has targeted five initial neighborhoods for revitalizatlon: • The Gateway Community in the City of Ypsilanti, the Washtenaw Autumn subdivision in Superior Township and the Willow Run area of Ypsilanti Township are within Census Bureau designated low-income areas, making them eligible for the use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds on an "area benefit" basis. • Areas of Whitmore Lake and the I Iamlet of Salem will need to be assisted with redevelopment primarily on an individual household eligibility basis. Recommeodatioo 1.2 Homeowner Rehabilitation i\Iaintatn and 1mprove the condition of existing housing stock m lower income neighborhoods through homeowner rehabilitation and acqwsmon rehab and resale of single- family rental housing to qualified low-income buyers. Recommeodatioo 1.3 Housing Redevelopment Identify detenoratmg or underutilized multifamily rental units and promote redevelopment through I IOi\fE / CDBG, Low Income Housing Tax Credits and other funding. The CD BG and HOME programs also provide resources to assist in the acquisition and rehabilitation of multi-family rental housing. These programs also emphasize good property management practices that will prevent rental housing from future deterioration. Page 7-8 A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �7 .5 Private Sector Residential Developments The private sector 1s the maior provider of most types of affordable housing in the County. Public funding and incentives are available to the private sector to encourage them to provide more affordable housmg. This includes higher density development, financing programs and long-term affordability strategies. There 1s very little production of new lower-cost owner-occupied housmg. \Vhile there 1s no centralized source for the price points, over time, of new housrng construction, recent building permit data and correspondence with a range of local and regional builders suggest that "starter homes" have beginning prices in excess of Sl 50,000, mearung a household needs at least $60,000 in annual income. According to the Ann Arbor \rea Board of Realtors, between December of 1998 and December of 2003, the average residential sales price went from $180,031 to $268,888. This represents an increase 111 average residential sales price of 49 percent over this five-year period. Looking further back, between 1994 and 2003, the average sale price of residential property increased from $139,059 to $268,888 an increase over this nine-year period of 93 percent, or a 10 percent annual growth rate. Some private sector builders and developers have expressed a des1te to contribute to the stock of affordable housing given sufficient incentives and economic feasibility. In addition to the market forces driving up the value of land and housing, the I Iomebuilders Association of Washtenaw County also cite the timely process (zoning changes, creation and alteration of site plans, permitting process, etc.) associated with obtaining local approval for a project as contributing to the high cost of housing. Low Income Housing Tax Credits have been the primary tool used by the pnvate sector to produce low-income housing. MSHDA manages the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program m l\1iclugan. ot everyone can afford or desires homeownership. Prov1drng affordable housing ro low-income and workforce households reqUires the connnued construction of multiple family, cooperanves and cohousing. A Comprehensive Plan For Washtenaw County OBTECTIVE2 Increase the priva te sector produ ction of affordable ho using. Recommendation 2.1 Annual Housing Unit Targets Develop a publ.tc-pnvate partnership with the \Vashtenaw I Iomebuilders Association to set annual unit targets for new affordable houstng construction and to identtfy tncenaves for product10n. Recommendation 2.2 Low Income Housing Tax Credits Encourage the use of Low Income I Ious111g Tax Credits for rruxed 111come large and smallscale renter-occupied developments. Recommendation 2.3 Redevelopment Funds Requ1re all 111-fill and redevelopmenr pro1ects rece1v111g Brownfield or DD..\ funds to provide a percentage of unlls affordable to low income and work force households. Recomm endation 2.4 Density Incentives Provide density incenaves ro the pnvate sector for the production of Traditional Neighborhood Design (fND) "starter homes." Recommendation 2.5 In.i11 Development in Villages Encourage smaller cltles and villages to designate areas for affordable multi-farruly u111ts 111 areas 111tended for higher density Page 7-9 �Chapter 7 - 7 .6 . . Assistance for Lower Income Residents Lower income household annual salaries range between $38,851 and $57,500. Such households earn too much to qualify them for housing assistance programs, but too little to purchase the majority of homes in Washtenaw County. This group qualifies as requiring work force housing. People who work with lower income families who have Section 8 vouchers report the many challenges these families face in obtaining suitable housing. Many multi-family rental communities choose not to participate in the Section 8 program. Even though there are over 2,200 Section 8 vouchers available through several housing agencies at any given time, too often these vouchers go unused for lack of willing landlords. In addition to the administrative requirements of the Section 8 program, private rental housing managers cite the increased frequency of social and community problems that are associated with a concentration of lower income households in a rental community. Property managers are ill equipped to effectively identify early signs of trouble and intervene on behalf of tenants experiencing problems that could lead co eviction. Public housing managers are reluctant to rent to potential tenants who have poor rental histories, because of personal problems or poor money management skills. Public funds, such as the HOME program, create affordable rental and home ownership housing opportunities for eligible low-income households. However, mechanisms need to be in place to assure that more than the first renter or homebuyer household benefits from the program. Due to market forces, housing in this community is expensive. One way to reduce some of the cost of new and existing housing is for non-profit housing development corporations to buy or build housing. I Iowever, most existing nonprofits have very specific target populations and also have limited production capacity. Page 7-10 OBTECTIVE 3 Increase lower income residents' ability to obtain and rem ain in affordable units. Recommendation 3.1 Section 8 Voucher Partnership Develop a publ.Jc-pnvate partnership with the \Vashtenaw .-\rea ,-\parcment .-\ssociation to streamline and gam broader acceptance and use of Sect10n 8 vouchers. Recommendation 3.2 Public Housing and Tenant Assistance Encourage the development of working agreements between public housing comnussions and the social service sector to address tenant problems early to reduce eviction rates and rental community problems. Recommendation 3.3 Mfordable Resale Strategy Use affordable resale strategies to require housing built with public funds to remain at affordable below-market rates over the long term. Recommendation 3.4 E viction Prevention Strategy Create a public-pnvate eviction prevent10n strategy. Recommendation 3.5 Not-for-Pro fit Cap acity Expand existing nonprofit hous111g develop ment corporations to have sufficient production capacity to develop or redevelop lower cost rental housmg on a large scale. .A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �7. 7 Special Populations and Homeless OBTECTIVE4 Ensure housing for special populations and Special Populations homeless The changing demographics of the County indicate a substantial growth in the number of older adults, along with a steady increase in the number of disabled persons. "Disability" refers to physical, mental/ emotional and developmental disabilities. These groups require an array of housing options to meet their needs, such as support services that allow them to remain independent as well as design and structural strategies that address occupants' physical limitations. In addition, "special populations" include unaccompanied youth ages 17-20, survivors of domesnc violence and persons living with HIV/ AIDS. More information regarding the number of people requiring supportive services and the Recommendation 4.1 Special Population Needs Identify the amount, type and structural hous10g needs of older adult and disabled populations such as retrofitting housing and wheelchair ramps. exact range and intensity of those services needs to be developed. Recommendation 4.2 Disabled Renter Agreements Encourage service agreements between pnvate sector landlords and the social service sector to improve disabled renters' ability to remain housed. Recommendation 4.3 Foreclosure Strategies Develop public-pnvate strategies to prevent property tax and bank foreclosures on older adult and special needs residents Recommendation 4.4 Aging In-Place Develop strategies with agencies serv111g low111come older adult homeowners to enable "ag111g 111 place." Recommendation 4.5 Tax Reverted Properties \'v'ork with the County Treasurer's office to acqwre tax -reverted property for conversion (through rehabilitation or sale of assets) to supportive housing resources for older adults and the disabled. Page 7-11 A Comprehensive Plan For \'v'ashtenaw County �Chapter 7 Homeless Washtenaw County, the City of Ann Arbor, the Washtenaw Housing Alliance, along with countless other organizations are committed to addressing the causes of homelessness and the needs of those who become homeless. Developing and maintaining the appropriate services people need to prevent the loss of housing is critical to end homelessness. Long-term financing for homelessness is in place through various public and private lending and grant programs. However, the necessary supportive services are funded on a year-to-year basis, causing uncertainty and fragmentation of services. Point-In-Time Survey Data Count Number of Homeless Individuals Surveyed Number of Spouses/Partners with Homeless Individuals Total Number of Homeless Individuals Number of Homeless Families with Children Surveyed Number of Children in Homeless Families Number of Spouses/Partners in Homeless Families Total Number of Homeless Persons in Families 401 2 403 54 110 6 170 Non-Survey Data - Homeless Observed that Declined to Be Surveyed Number of Homeless Individuals 64 Number of Unaccompanied Youth 27 Total Number of Homeless Persons Counted , Not Surveyed Total number of horn eless people including children , youth, spouse, partners counted and/or surveyed on 3/18/2004 excluding those in permanent supportive housing Estimated Analyzed Homeless Count Table 7-3: Washtenaw County 2004 Point-in-Time Homeless Count: Summary Results (excluding persons in Permanent Supportive Housing) Recommendation 4.6 Homeless Plan Develop a strategic plan to end homelessness. Recommendation 4. 7 Transitional Housing Ensure transitional housing (up to 24 months stay) is used for populations who require an intensive, supportive living environment to maintain housing stability. Recommendation 4.8 Supportive Housing Target a specific number of permanent supportive housing units for acquisition or development and set annual goals to reach that target number. Recommendation 4.9 Identify Mainstream Resources l\Iainstream agencies, such as the Family Independence Agency, should clearly identify resources that can be directed toward alleviating homelessness. 91 664 2,756 Source: Washtenaw County Department of Planning and Environment Page 7-12 A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �7 .8 Coordinate County Resources OBTECTIVES Currently, nearly $9 million is received annually from federal, state and local sources for housing and housing-related services. Additionally, 2,334 housing vouchers and 548 public housing umts provide housing opportunities for County residents. Over 20 public and not-for-profit groups receive these annual funds (typically via contracts with the City of Ann Arbor and \'\'ashtenaw County) . \X'hile all of these funds are used for eligible activities Qow income and special needs residents), there has been no long-term strategy for coordinanng resources and funds to provide the most efficient services to lower income residents. During the latter part of 2004, Washtenaw County and the City of Ann Arbor will begin the process of integrating and coordinating their individual community development programs. This initiative should greatly improve planning efforts aiming to increase the effective use of Federal, tare and Local resources. Program HOME & ADDI program (feder al) CDBG (feder al) General fund Washtenaw County City of Ann Arbor (Comm unity Dev. & (Community Outside Agencies Development) funding) $1 ,173 ,533 $997 ,600 $768 ,330 (services ) Other Federal Sources State of Michigan (MSHDA) Total $757 ,507 $1 ,931 ,040 $603 ,900 $1,601 ,500 $360 ,000 (housing) Achieve affordable housing goals in the most efficient, cost-effective manner by coordinating community resources. Recommendation 5.1 Housing Targets and Outcomes Through public-pnvate collaborauon, identify the housing "targets" for low income and special needs populauons, and set annual housing unit and supportive service producuon goals and rrack housmg and homelessness expenditures and trends. Recommendation 5.2 Increase Grant Funding Invite local units of government to join the CDBG and / or the HOl\IE program to mcrease federal resources for more affordable housing. $1 ,243 ,907 $115 ,577 (services) Continuum of Care : - Supportive Housing Program - Shelter Plus Care - Emergency Shelter Grant Totals $2 ,871 ,817 $2 ,871 ,817 $687 ,384 $687 ,384 $401 ,900 $401 ,900 . $2 ,939,463 $3,559,201 $401 ,900 $8,737,548 $1,836,984 . . Includes adm1nistrat1ve costs and excludes non-housing related human services funding Table 7-4 : Public Sector Housing & Housing Related Services Funding Matrix* FY July 2004 - June 2005 Source Washtenaw County Department of Planning and Env,ronment A Comprehensive Plan For \Vashrenaw County Page 7-13 �Chapter 7 7.9 Summary GOAL To provide safe, decent and affordable housing for the County's lower income, work force and special needs population OBTECTIVE 1 M aintain the exis ting affordable housing s tock in the County. Recommendation 1.1 Housing Grants Seek HOPE VI and other federal grants to improve the quality and desirability of the County's public housing stock. Recommendation 1.2 Homeowner Rehabilitation J\Iaintain and improve the condition of existing housing stock in lower income neighborhoods through homeowner rehabilitation and acquisition rehab and resale of single-family rental housing to qualified low-income buyers. Recommendation 1.3 Hou sing Redevelopment Identify deteriorating or underutilized multifamily rental units and promote redevelopment through HOi\IE/ CDBG, Low Income Housing Tax Credits and other funding. OBTECTIVE2 Increase the private sector production of affordable housing. Recommendation 2.1 Annual Housing Unit Targets Develop a public-private partnership with the Washtenaw Homebuilders Association to set annual unit targets for new affordable housmg construction and to identify incentives for production. Recommendation 2.2 Low Income Housing Tax Credits Encourage the use of Low Income Housing Tax Credits for rruxed income large and small-scale renter-occupied developments. Page 7-14 Recommendation 2.3 Redevelopment Funds Require all in-fill and redevelopment projects receiving Brownfield or DDA funds to provide a percentage of units affordable to low income and work force households. Recommendation 2.4 Density Incentives Provide density incentives to the private sector for the production of Traditional Neighborhood Design (fND) "starter homes." Recommendation 2.5 In.ill Development in Villages Encourage smaller cities and villages to designate areas for affordable multifamily units in areas intended for higher density. OBTECTIVE3 Increase lower income residents' ability to obtain and remain in affordable units. Recommendation 3.1 Section 8 Voucher Partnership Develop a public-private partnership with the Washtenaw ,-\rea Apartment Association to streamline and gain broader acceptance and use of Section 8 vouchers. Recommendation 3.2 Public Housing and Tenant Assistance Encourage the development of working agreements between public housing commissions and the social service sector to address tenant problems early to reduce eviction rates and rental commu111ty problems. Recommendation 3.3 Affordable Resale Strategy Use affordable resale strategies to require housmg built with public funds to remain at affordable below-market rates over the long term. A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �• • · r:-~,.....-~~:,.-•r ~: .· _ ..·,)~·;•Jt~~~ -~-Ps,u~gj ,. -=-'; ..,1 -J...... Recommendation 3.4 Eviction Prevention Strategy Create a public-pnvate eviction prevention strategy. Recommendation 4.6 Homeless Plan Develop a strategic plan to end homelessness. Recommendation 3.5 Not-for-Pro.it Capacity Expand existing nonprofit housing development corporations to have sufficient production capacity to develop or redevelop lower cost rental housing on a large scale. Recommendation 4. 7 Transitional Housing Ensure transitional hous111g (up to 24 months stay) is used for populat10ns who require an intensive, supportive livmg environment to maintain housmg stability. OBTECTIVE4 Ensure housing for special population s and homeless Recommendation 4.8 Supportive Housing Target a specific number of permanent supportive housing units for acquisition or development and set annual goals to reach that target number. Recommendation 4.1 Special Population Needs Identify the amount, type and structural housing needs of older adult and disabled populauons such as retrofitting housing and wheelchair ramps. Recommendation 4.9 Identify Mainstream Resources l\Iamstream agencies, such as the Family Independence .-\gencr, should clearly identify resources that can be directed toward alleviatmg homelessness. Recommendation 4.2 Disabled Renter Agreements Encourage service agreements between pnvate sector landlords and the social service sector to improve disabled renters' ability to rema111 housed. Recommendation 4.3 Foreclos ure Strategies Develop public-pnvate strategies to prevent property tax and bank foreclosures on older adult and special needs res idents. Recommendation 4.4 Aging In-Place Develop strategies wirh agencies serv111g low-111come older adult homeowners to enable "agmg in place." Recommendation 4.5 Tax Reverted Properties \Vork with the Coun ty Treasurer's office to acquire tax-reverted property for conversion (through rehabilitation or sale of assets) to supportive hous111g resources for older adulrs and the disabled . •\ Comprehensive Plan For \'{'ash ten aw Coun ry OBTECTIVES Achieve communi ty res ources through collaboration and p artnerships to achieve affordable housing goals in the most efficient, cos t-effec tive m anner. Recommendation 5.1 Housing Targets and Outcomes Through public-pnvate collaboration, 1<lenafy the housmg "targets" for low income and special needs populations, and set annual housrng unit and supportive service producaon goals and track hous1t1g and homelessness expenditures and trends Recommendation 5.2 Increase Grant Funding Invite local units of government to jo1t1 the CDBG and / or the I [()~IE program 1t1crease fc<leral resources for more affordab le hous1t1g. to Page7-15 �Chapter 8 Parks and Recreation A Comprehensive Plan For Washtenaw County �Washtenaw County \ \ \ Lyndon Township Dexter Township Webster Township Salem Township Northfield Township \ \ \\ Ann Arbor Township_ _ / ,, < ....------ - -~ Sylvan Township --- Lima - Superior Township - Scio Township Township Ypsilanti City Sharon Township Freedom Township Lodi Township P ittsfie Id I Townshipj Ypsilanti Township I York Township Manchester Township Bridgewater Township Saline Township 1 Augusta Township A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �8.1 Purpose Park.lands and recreational opportunities promote mentally and physically healthier citizens. \\'a shtenaw County is fortunate to have a comprehensive park system providing a wide range of recreation expenences including natural areas for wildlife observation and hiking and picnicking to more active recreation such as swimming, golfing and indoor exercise. Public park and natural areas acquisition programs also play a sigruficant role 111 promoting a sense of place by integrating parks and open space acquisitions into regional and county-wide open space systems and protecting important natural resources throughout the County. 8.2 Resident Comments \'{'ashtenaw County has wonderful recreation facilities and parks, however some residents feel that increasing recreation and park opportunities would enhance their quality of life. Resident comments on issues and opportunities include: Highlights of Resident Comments from Regional Workshops For a complete list of resident comments see the Public Participauon Support Document. • Washtenaw County would be unproved if every townslup, village and city dedicated more space for commuruty parks and preserved natural areas. • There 1s a lack of exercise facilities 1n many areas of the County. • There is an opportunity to link county-wide open space, parks and trails through a greenway system by building off existing parks. Parks and Recreation Goal The following goal of the parks and recreation element is based on resident mput and analysis of conditions and trends: GOAL Provide adequate and accessible parks and recreation for all residents and develop regional open space systems and a countywide greenway and trail system to promote a sense of place, preserve important natural fe atures and provide non-motorized transportation opportunities. • Parks should be provided to serve new housing uruts and specify what the average distance from a dwelling to a park should be m thetr zorung laws. • It 1s necessary to preserve our lakes and waterways for recreat10nal opporturuties. Recreation areas in Washtenaw County offer scenic vistas , trails , and spaces to play and picnic .\ Comprehensive Plan For \Vashrenaw County Page 8-3 �8.3 Conditions and Trends The Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation Commission is responsible for the provision of a county system of regional parks. The Commission has recently completed a Master Plan Update, 2004-2008, to establish recommendations and priority actions over the next five years. These recommendations are reflected in this element along with additional recommendations for coordinating state, regional and local resources to promote regional and county-wide open space systems, greenways and trails, protection of important natural resources and adequate recreation opportunities for existing and future residents. \'{;'ithin the County there are 23,206 acres of public park and recreation lands operated by governmental agenaes at the state, region, county and local levels. The locations and acres of parkland by Jurisdiction are provided on Figure 8-1 (next page) and Table 8-1 (this page), respectively. These facilities provide a wide range of recreation experiences: State Parks and Recreation Areas: There are seven State parks in tl1e County ranging in size from a few acres for water access sites, to over 7,000 acres for larger natural areas. These parks are characterized by scenic quality, passive and water related recreation and conservation of unique natural resources. Regional Parks and Recreation Areas: Washtenaw County and the Huron Clinton Metropolitan Authority own and operate 16 regional facilities, providing large scale and special recreational facilities and programs that usually cannot be developed at the local level. These include conservation, canoeing, field games, and court games, fishing, hiking, skiing, swimming and picrucking. The County also operates an indoor recreation center, golf course and 114 acres of active farmland. Local Parks and Recreation Areas: All cities and villages in Washtenaw County provide recreational facilities and services facilities for frequent, short-term use by local residents, ranging from half acre mini parks to 535-acre preserves, equipped with trails, athletic fields and picnic grounds. Eight of the 20 townships do not provide any local recreational facilities. While many rural townships have access to large state and regional facilities, many rapidly growing populations and / or suburban developments require local recreational opportunities. The Townships of Ann Arbor, Augusta, Dexter, Lodi, Northfield, Salem and Scio do not provide township parks or recreational facilities. Other Facilities: In addition to these public park and recreation facilities, there are numerous opportunities provided by area schools, universities and private organizations: Jurisdiction Total Acres in Wlshtenaw County % of Total Lands State of Mich igan Anc:kney Recreauon Area 7.361 6.695 645 654 314 % Q-egory Gam, Area 126 05% LJttle Goose Lake Garn! Area 202 50 09% 02% 15.733 67% County Farm Park 127 05% cavanaugh Lake Park 3 312 00% Waterloo Recreatoo Area Sharonvile Garre Area 0,elsea Garre Area Water Access Stes Subtotal 285% 2 .7% 28% WCPARC Independence Lake Park Lyndon 13% 14% 335 12 01 % Parker Ml County Park 26 01 % Aerce Lake Gott' Course & Park 232 10% Osborne MIi Park 02% Parktsbrthfoeld Rollwlg Hlls County Park 39 151 Sharon Mis 26 01 % Staebler Farm 114 1 05°A. 00% 1.378 6% l-lK:lson MHs MetroPark 1,625 69% Dexter H.Jron MetroPark 125 47 05% 1.79 7 8% 1,918 33 82% 0-.elsea 12 01 % Dexter Vilage 25 44 01 % 02% Supenor Center Subtotal 06% 1--kiron-Clinton Metro Park Authorlt) Delhi t.letroPark Subtotal 02% Local Governm e nt Parks Ann Arbof Qty Sanon His Manchester VIiiage Mlan (includes Monroe Olly ) 194 TT7 01 % 08% Salone Qty 191 Superior TOW'nship 269 33% 08% 11 % Yori< TOW'nsh1p 150 06% Ypstlanh Qty 84 Ypsl!ant1 TOW"nsh1p 860 04% 37% 4.557 19% Attsfield Township Subtotal Table 8-1 : Total Public Park and Recreation Lands in Washtenaw County Source: Washtenaw County Department of Planning and Environment • Eleven public school districts, two state universities, and a community college in the County, which own and manage a significant amount of open space, recreational lands and facilities. The universiPage 8-4 A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �Figure 8-1: Parkland in Washtenaw County .... " h ... . ..- -.. ...... .. .: '- .. .... •• •. . .' . ., ·, ... I .... D D .' ~! I {, ,. J ,~·.,.. . ,.I II. ... ,, •• I ..- . 9• •' CJ I> 0 ·, . ., .'t i. ... .... . /I .... ' .' . r p 1 • N ll :" 3 ,'\ Jurisdictional Boundary Primary Roads Lakes and Streams State Park A Comprehensive Plan For \Vashtenaw Countv - D '""' Washtenaw County Park Land Local Government Park Land I Huron-Clinton MetroPark Authority Park Land 0 3 Miles ~ Source: \X 'as htcnaw County Department of l'lannmg anJ I•:n,·1ronmcnc Page 8-5 �ties and colleges located in Washtenaw County provide recreational facilities totaling 2,800 acres and neighborhood park facilities can also be found in public elementary or middle school facilities. • Public parks and recreation areas are augmented by the 4,000 acres of private parks and several private golf courses. 8.4 Adequacy of Parklands Washtenaw County is currently well situated with regard to the amount of park and recreation lands provided. The County currently has more acres of parkland than the 6-10 acres of developed parklands standards recommended by tl1e National Recreation and Parks Association. Even with the projected 2020 population, the County will have approximately 66 acres of parkland per 1,000 people. While the standards provide a general benchmark for total parks and recreation per capita, adequate parks and recreational opportunities include having convenient access to a variety of park experiences ~arge natural areas, regional facilities and neighborhood parks): • County Park Needs: The County Parks and Recreation Commission recently developed parks, one in a previously underserved areas - the Sharon Mills Park in Sharon Township and Staebler Farm in Superior Township. The Plan Update calls for exploring the possibility of providing additional land for underserved portions of the County for active recreational development. • Local Park Needs: Providing recreational facilities for frequent, short-term use is the responsibility of local governments. Ballparks, tot lots and playgrounds are examples of park and recreational facilities a local government may offer. County and state park lands supplement local efforts, but are not replacements for local parks, since such parks generally are not located near residences, are meant for long-term visits, and often require entrance fees. While the cities of Ann Arbor, Milan and Saline, the Village of Manchester, and tl1e Townships of Pittsfield, Superior, York and Ypsilanti provide nearly 3,500 acres of parkland beyond their population requirement through 2020, many local governments in Washtenaw County are not supplying an adequate amount of parkland for tl1eir population. Of greatest concern are townships with growing populations and/ or suburban developments that do not have any parks at this time. By applying the National Recreation and Park Association standard of 6.25 to 10 acres of parkland per 1,000 persons, serious deficits become apparent in our larger township communities. Page 8-6 OBTECTIVE l E ncourage the p rovision of p arks and recreational opportunities in close p roximity to Co un ty resid en ts. Recommendation 1.1 A dditional Parkland for Resid ents Explore the possibility of providing additional land for "underserved" portions of the County for active recreation development. ('WC Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update 2004-2008 Recommendation 6.5.4) Recommendation 1.2 Park Development Encourage local governments to plan for, acquire and develop neighborhood and local parks to adequately serve existing and future residents. Recommendation 1.3 D evelopment Standards for Park s Require all new development to provide parks and recreation facilities for residents through adequate on-site facilities and / or contributing to area-wide facilities and providing pedestrian connections. A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �Figure 8-2: Existing Greenway Trails and Potential Open Space and Trail Network Jus1d1ct1onal Boundaries Roads N N Ii Border-to-Border Trail (existing) Border-to-Border Trail (proposed) Former Rail Routes Potential Greenway Network (Source : Greenway Collaborative, Inc and Rails-to-Trails) % 1!!!!!!!!!!!iiiiiiial!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!'!!!lz UH.es + Page 8-7 ,-\ Comprehensive Plan For Washtenaw County �In total, urban and non-rural local governments (those listed previously) need to provide 1,215 acres of park facilities such as basketball courts, ice rinks, swimming pools, playgrounds in the next 20 years using this general national standard. It should be noted that these general parkland standards serve as a guide only. The National Recreatlon and Parks Associatlon recommends that communities develop parks and recreat1onal facilities tailored to their community's desires based on resident surveys, location and amount of available property and other factors unique to each junsdiction. 8.5 Open Space, Greenways and Trails Open Space: Maintaining distinct communities is a strong desire of residents. Communities with their own identify project a sense of place and foster a sense of pride. Open space between communities defines them, allowing each to retain its character, provides habitats for plants and animals and affords residents with passive recreational opportunities. Parks and recreation areas are integral to developing regional and countywide open space systems. Greenways: A greenway is a contiguous, connected system of open space systems established along natural corridors (such as rivers, floodplains and contiguous wetlands) and over land along parks, railroad right of way, nature reserves, cultural features or historic sites. Each of these components contain unique characteristics which, when combined, create a system rich in experiencing the natural and historic beauty of the County as well as providing opportunities for non-motorized forms of transportation for bicyclists and pedestrians. Trails: The Border-to-Border Trail is an initiative currently underway in the County. The trail follows the Huron River, linking Hudson Mills Metropark in the northwest with Ford Lake in the east and many key sites in between (Figure 8-2). The WCPARC, along with the City of Ypsilanti and the HCM.A, was awarded a grant under the Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan's Green\X'ays Initiative to complete the Border-to-Border Trail. The vision for a greenway system promoted by the Foundation was prepared by the Greenways Collaborat1ve, together with the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. The vision incorporated public input between 1992 and 1999, and may be used as a guide for the County and local governments (Figure 8-2). River Corridors: River corridors are especially unportant in developing a county-wide greenway system. \'v'hile there are regulatory aspects that preserve the functioning of riverine systems, a combination of regulation and acquisition afford the greatest protection and allows public enjoyment through passive recreation. Greenways are an excellent strategy to protect these zones and the ecological pro- Page 8-8 OBTECTIVE2 Leverage the resources of parks and recreation providers in developing regional open space systems and a countywide greenway and trail system. Recommendation 2.1 County-wide Greenway Network \Vork with muruc1pali11es, independent recreation providers, trail interest groups and public agencies to facilitate the development of a county-wide greenway network (WC Parks and Recreation Alaster Plan Update 200-1 -2008 Recommendation 6.2.1) Recommendation 2.2 Huron River Border-to-Border Trail Continue to acquire land and / or trail easements to facilitate the completion of the I Iuron River Border-to Border Trail (WC Parks Plan Recommendation: 6.2.2) Recommendation 2.3 Greenway & Trail Plan Develop a countywide Greenway and Trail Plan (WC Parks Plan Recommendanon: 6.2.3) Recommendation 2.4 Railroad & River Corridors Integrate abandonded railroad nght of way and river corridors mto the greenways network. Supporting Recommendations Natural Resources Recommendation 1.2, 3.1, 3.2 Transportation Recommedations 8.1, 8.5, 9.1, 9.2, 9.4, 9.5 A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �cesses they perform, such as conserving the quantity and quality of water and providing natural flood control. The Huron Clinton Metropolitan 1\uthority has created a stnng of parks along the I Iuron and Clinton River valleys protecting significant natural and recreational resources . .Abandoned Railroad Corridors: Abandoned railroad corndors offer opportunities for a county-wide trail system. These long and narrow corridors provide an 1mpressive amount of open space on very little land. The re-use of these corridors through negotiation with railroad comparues and federal and state "rails to trails" grants can provide significant recreation and non-motorized transportation benefits. A good example of this is the popular Gallup Park Trail in Ann .Arbor. Other abandoned railroad nghts of way in the County that should be considered for integration into a trail system include the former ConRail Railroad that traversed the southwest portion of the County (Figure 8-2 on previous page). 8.6 Land Preservation Programs The Natural Areas Preservation Program (NAPP) was approved by residents ill ovember 2000, irutiating a county-\vide 0.25 mill tax to fund the purchase of natural areas that contribute to the ecological diversity and heritage of the County and compliment the existing network of public and private protected lands. ApproX1mately $27.5 million will be generated for land acquisitions dur1ng the 2002-2011 penod. To date, over 850 acres of land has been purchased in Scio, Freedom, Bridgewater and Superior Townships and each of these properties \vill be open to the public and equipped with a small gra,·el parking area and low-impact trails. As this voter-approved millage will expire in 2011, consideration should be given to extending this program for an additional 10 to 20 years. In addition to this county-wide program, local government initiatives and land trusts offer s1gruficant opportunities to preserve 1mportant natural features as part of public open space programs. The , \nn Arbor Parks and Greenbelt program, _A nn , \rbor Townslup Purchase of Development Rights program and several other land preservation efforts such as the \X'ashtenaw Land Trust, Supenor Land Conservancy and Raisin Valley Land Trust programs can be combined to de,·elop interconnected systems of open space. Enjoying a day on the water at Bandemer Park, City of Ann Arbor OBTECTIVEJ Build off established na tu ral reso urce p ro tec tion programs, s uch as th e Co unty's Na tural Areas Protection Program and local op en space initia tives to preserve imp ortant natural reso urces. Recommendation 3.1 Park & R ecrea tion L and Acquis tion , \cqu1re addiuonal land for resource conservatlon and general recreation needs (\'\'C Parks and Recreafto11 ,\lmter Plan Update 200-1--2008 Rec ommendation 6.3.1 ). Recommendation 3.2 Na tural Areas Preservation Program Provide residents with a clear accounung of the results of the current County ~atural .-\reas Preservation Program and consider asking residents to extend this program for an addiuonal ten years. Suppo rting Recommendations N atural Resources Recommendations 2.1 2. 5, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.4 "\ Comprehensive Plan For \Xia sh ten aw Coun ry Page 8-9 �8.7 Summary GOAL Provide adequate and accessible parks and recreation for all residents and develop regional open space systems and a county-wide greenway and trail system to promote a sense of place, preserve important natural features and provide non-motorized transportation opportunities. OBTECTIVE1 Encourage the provision of parks and recreational opportunities in close proxiinity to County residents. Recommendation 1.1 Additional Parkland for Residents Explore the possibility of providing additional land for "underserved" portions of the County for active recreation development. (\VC Parks and Recreatio11 Master Pla11 Update 200-1-2008 Recommendation 6.5.4) Recommendation 1.2 Park Development Encourage local governments to plan for, acquire and develop neighborhood and local parks to adequately serve existing and future residents. Recommendation 1.3 Development Standards for Parks Require all new development to provide parks and recreation facilities for residents through adequate on-site facilities and / or contributing to area-wide facilities and providing pedestrian connections. OBTECTIVE2 Leverage the resources of parks and recreation providers in developing regional open space sys tems and a county -wide green way and trail sys tem. Recommendation 2.1 Countywide Greenway Network Work with municipalities, independent recreation providers, trail interest groups and public agencies to facilitate the development of a county-wide greenway network (WC Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update 2004-2008 Recommendation 6.2.1 ) Recommendation 2.2 Huron River Border-to-Border Trail Continue to acquire land and / or trail easements to facilitate the completion of the Huron River Border-to Border Trail (\VC Parks Plan Recommendatio n: 6.2.2) Page 8-10 Recommendation 2.3 Greenway & Trail Plan Develop a county-wide Greenway and Trail Plan (\VC Parks Plan Recommendation: 6.2.3) Recommendation 2.4 Railroad & River Corridors Integrate abandonded railroad right of way and river corridors into the greenways network .. Supporting Recommendations Natural Resources Chapter 5: Recommendation 1.2 IVate1:rhed F11nding Recommendation 3.1 Ftmds for Non-Motorized Transportation Recommendation 3.2 Regional Approach to RedJ1ce Emissions Transportation Chapter 10: Recommendation 8.1 Regional Transit Conso1ti111n Recommendation 8.5 Ai,port Shuttle Seruice Recommendation 9.1 Non-Motorized Transportation Plan Recommendation 9.2 Infrastmcturefor Bicycle Tmuel Recommendation 9.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle I,ifrastmcture at Facilities Recommendation 9.5 Co11t1(y-1uide Trail System A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �OBTECTIVE3 Build off established natural resource protection programs, such as the Coun ty's Natural Areas Protection Program and local open space initiatives to preserve important natural resources . Recommendation 3.1 Park & Recreation Land Acquistion Acqwre additional land for resource conservation and general recreation needs (\X'C Parks and Recreat1011 Alaster Plan Update 200-1 -2008 Recommendauon 6.3.1 ). Recommendation 3.2 Natural Areas Preservation Program Provide residents with a clear accounung of the results of the current County Natural . \reas Preservatio n Program and consider asking residents to extend this program for an addition al ten years. Supporting Recommendations Natural Resources Chapter 5: Recommendation 2.1 Model Ordinances Recommendation 2.5 Nat11ra! Reso11rce Area Co1111edio11s Recommendation 3.1 Funds for Non-Motorized Transportation Recommendation 3.2 Regional Approach to RedNce E111issions Recommendation 4.1 Resource Protection Case Studies Recommendation 4.2 J\'alitra! Resource Ordi11a11ce Audits .\ Comprehensive Plan For \'\'ashtcnaw County Page 8-11 �Chapter 9 Historic Preservation A Comprehensive Plan For Washtenaw County �Washtenaw County Lyndon Township Dexter Township Webster Township Northfield Township Salem Township ~- \ Barton Hill, Village - - Sylvan Township Lima Township Ann Arbor Town~hip_ __,, .,.,,,,. / Superior Township Scio Township -~ Ypsilanti City Lodi Township Sharon Township Freedom Township Pittsfield Township1 York Township Manchester Township Bridgewater Township Saline Township Ypsilanti Township Augusta Township A Sense of Place, .-\ Sustainable Future - �Historic Preservation 9.1 Purpose I Iistoric preservauon focuses on our irreplaceable treasures and provides programs and tools for protect:rng them. I Iistonc resources enliven our surroundings and enrich our quality of life by marntaining a unique sense of place and helping to distingwsh the unsurpassable landscapes of Washtenaw County. Our historic resources such as the neighborhood schoolhouse, iron truss bridge or farmstead speak to us across the years about how the land was used and shaped. Enjoying a favorite viewshed such as the view of Gordon Hall from Island Lake Road is as essential a habit for our citizens as going to work or meeting with friends. The gentle rumbling and flexing of an iron bridge heard while crossing during a drive down a county road provide a wistful harmony most pleasing to the ear. And for many locals, the slightly sweet scent of hand hewn barn timbers stimulate keen memones of the past. Rehabilitatrng our historic resources, preserving architectural details and materials that would be costly to replicate, and recycling and adapung old buildings creates economic, environmental, psychological and social benefits. \\'ashtenaw County has an abundance of unique histonc resources that bestow a sense of legacy. These valuable historic resources include buildings, structures, sites, objects and open space that tell the story of our past and inform future generations about our founding values. The nussion of I listoric Preservauon 1s to safeguard the heritage of \'{/ashtenaw County. Salem-Walker Church (1864) & Cemetery (1839), Salem Townsh ip - Michigan Historic Site and National Register of Historic Places • 2003 WCHDC Historic Preservation Award Rec ipient ,\ Comprehensive Plan For \X'ashtenaw Counn Historic Resource - More than 50 years old publicly or prtvatcly owned building, strucrurc, stte, object, feature, or open space that ts significant tn the history, archttecture , archaeology, engrneertng, or culture of this state or a communtty within this state, or of the Untted States. Resource - One or more publicly or prtvatcly owned histonc or non-htstonc buildings, structures, sites, objects, features, or opeo spaces located within a histortc distrtct or a proposed historic district. Building - \ house, barn. church, hotel or similar construcnon created to shelter any form of human acnvttv. Structure - Used to disttngutsh buildings used for shelter from funcnonal constructions such as brtdges, corn cnbs. silos, etc. Site - Locatton of a s1gn1f1cant event, a prehistortc or htstortc occupanon or acnviry where the site itself possesses value regardless of the value of any extstmg structures. I·.xamplcs mclude cemeteries, parks, designed landscapes and rum, of resources. Object - Small tn scale, armtic 111 nature. or simply constructed. \n ob1ect "'as,octated with a spcci fie setttng or envtronmenr such as the memorabilia of the USS Washtenaw <.ounrv prevt0usly housed at 220 N. l\latn 111 \nn , \rbor. Open Space - Undeveloped land, a naturally landscaped area , or a formal or man-made landscaped area that provides a connecnve link or a buffer between other resources (I ~xamplc: The Mall in Washington D.C.). Table 9-1 : Historic Preservation Definitions Source: State of Michigan Public Act 169 Page 9-3 �Chapter 9 9.2 Resident Comments The residents of Washtenaw County have demonstrated a commitment to preserve historic resources through the creation of local historic district commissions, rehabilitation of historic resources and efforts to protect the historic character of cities and villages. Residents stated their concerns regarding: Highlights of Resident Comments from Regional Workshops For a complete list of resident comments see the Public Participation Support Document. • Pressure to tear down historic resources and replace with buildings that are not in character with the surrounding streetscape. • The unique character of small city and village centers that can be easily altered due to lack of protection. • Protection of historic resources including those that do not shelter human activity such as narrow country roads, one-lane bridges, picturesque viewsheds, farmstead outbuildings and heritage trees. "Our Villages have a Unique Character, I would like to see them preserved" - Washtenaw Coun(y Resident Historic Preservation Goal The following goal of the historic preservation element is based on resident input and analysis of conditions and trends: GOAL To protect, preserve and restore the historic resources of Washtenaw County including houses, farmsteads, bridges, schoolhouses, Underground Railroad sites, places of worship, significant landscape features and viewsheds. The Guy Beckley House on Pontiac Trail in Ann Arbor, a Network to Freedom Trail site (2001) Page 9-4 A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �Historic Preservation 9.3 Condition and Trends \"X'ashtenaw County Government has supported historic preservation projects for 30 years, and is the only county 1r1 the state to be a Certified Local Government that features a rigorous Historic Preservation Ordinance administered by a nine member Histonc D1stnct Comrrussion. Resources may be listed on the Local, State and/ or ational Registers, each differing in the level of mandated legal protection. Local historic district designation offers the highest level of protection and provides protection from inappropriate alterations/ demolition and economic benefits. The anonal Register offers less protection, however, this level of protecnon qualifies property owners for receiving histonc preservation tax credits if the structure is rehabilitated. The State Register, Centennial Farm, etwork to Freedom and I listoric Marker programs foster appreciation and awareness. In addition, Washtenaw County 1s home to Eastern Michigan University's Historic Preservation Program, the largest academic preservation program in the nation. Proio-am Locally protected H ighest resources N atio:nal Historic Landmarlcs N atio:nal Re l'ister State Re mter ... CenteJUlial Farms Historic Marbrs- ] Historic Bridees One. Room Sckoollt.ouses 0 Mickigan Freedom Trail Re!tlster Unprotected kistoric Lowest resources The Welfare Building in Chelsea was listed on the State Register in 1979, and the marker was erected in 1986 Honorarv Protection E du:atio:nal Benefit Tax Benefit #InCoWltv YES YES YES YES 2,432 YES NO YES YES NO YES YES YES YES 0 72 NO NO NO YES * YES YES NO NO 101- NO YES NO NO YES NO NO lB YES NO YES NO 36 Potential NO NO YES NO 3,000+ YES YES NO 85 uo ~, Rural pmpl'rlll'S on Stall' lkgistl'r w11h popula11on o t unJn 5.(IIHI can rl'Cl'I\ c statl' lax crcJ1ts ,. Stall' of l\lich1gan. Washtc·naw Counrv anJ \nn \rbor Srrl'cl I ·. ,h1b1t 1\1.irkcrs Table 9-2 : Historic Preservation Programs in Washtenaw County (For Resources> 50 Years Old) Source Washtenaw County Department of Plannmg and Environment :\ Comprehensive Plan For \X'ashtenaw County Page 9-5 �Chapter 9 9.4 His toric Districts Washtenaw County has 2,432 individual historic resources designated under 26 local historic districts. Each district must be under the protection of a historic district commission that follows a local ordinance based on State of Michigan enabling legislation (Public Act 169). Historic district commissions follow the United States Secretary of Interior's Standards and Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of Historic Structures, a set of 10 guidelines for appropriate rehabilitation of historic resources. Local Historic District Commissions Washtenaw County supports the following four Historic District Commissions, which are Certified Local Governments eligible to apply for grant funding for historic preservation projects: • City of Ann Arbor I Iistoric District Commission (AAI IDC): AAHDC designated 1,662 properties in 13 districts since 1973 in neighborhood, downtown, and single resource districts. It currently claims three districts under study (Lower Town, \'{'ashtenaw/IIill & 178 Individual I listoric Properties). • City of Saline I Iistoric District Commission (SI IDC): SHD C contains three local historic districts. Recommendation 1.1 Create His toric District Commissions Assist the staff of local units of government in understanding the benefits of adoptmg a Local Histonc Distnct Ordinance and creatmg the1r own I Iistonc D1stnct Comm1ssions and 10111111g the Cert1fied Local Government program to qualify for federal funds for preservation pro1ects. Recommendation 1.2 Local His toric District Compliance Ensure current and future historic distnct ordinances are in compliance with the State of i\ lich1gan's requirements to qualify for preservation mcentives. • Washtenaw County I Iistoric District Commission (\X'CHD C): The WCI IDC has nine historic districts as of September 2004, with one more to be approved by the end of 2004. Recently the \X'CI IDC completed a ground-breaking federally funded grant project to map 3,000 historic resources to the GIS/HD C website. Visit http://histweb.ewashtenaw.org Recommendation 1.3 Local Historic District Ordinance Review • City of Ypsilanti Historic D istrict Commission (YHD C): YHDC has successfully created and maintained one large historic district containing 946 resources that protects 20 percent of the city's 4.4 square miles. Recommendation 1.4 Historic District Collaboration Facilitate collaboration between the l !1stonc D1stnct Comrmssions 111 \'{'ashtenaw County to develop a strategy for protectmg resources listed under ational Register of I Iistoric Places. National Register of Historic Places As of December 2000, Washtenaw County had 72 resources listed on the National Register of I Iistoric Places. However, the issue remains that there is no local oversight of these prime resources and are not protected from inappropriate alterations or demolition. Page 9-6 OBTECTIVEl Support local units of g overnm ent seeking protection and preservation of his toric resources through local, s tate and national program s. Review current historic district ordinances and suggest changes necessary to ensure productive preservation efforts. Recommendation 1.5 Innovative Preservation Strategies Assist local umrs of government m researchmg and apply 111novat1ve strategies to protect historic resources, such as historic preservation easements and historic overlay districts. A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �Historic Preservation State Register of Historic Places As of December 2000, the County listed 85 historic resources on the State Register of Historic Places; 49 of which have a state marker erected on site. The applicant is responsible for documenting the history of the resource, and for submitting an application to the State I Iistoric Preservation Office. In 1998, the State Register of Histonc Sites program changed rnto the l\lichigan I listorical Marker Program. These resources are not protected from inappropriate alterauons or demolition. 9.5 Unique Resources Centennial Farms There are 150 certified Centenrual Farms that have been acuvely worked by the same family for over 100 years 111 \'«ash tenaw County. This number represen ts over 10 percent of the total active farms in the County. This honorary program does not offer protection from demolition, inappropnate alterations, or decertificauon if the property is sold out of the family. Certification requires a submission of an application by the family, including photographs of the farm, documentation of when the first owner purchased the property and a site plan of the farm . Histonc Bridges The rural character of \X'ashtenaw County depends on the preservauon of lustonc bndges to maintain its cultural landscape. After comparing historic bridge data from 1994 to 2003, 15 of the 58 bridges reviewed have either been replaced or closed, resulting 111 a 25 percent loss. Many bridges 111 Washtenaw County are no longer structurally adequate for today's 111creased volume and type of traffic. Often these picturesque bridges are demolished and replaced with concrete bridges that negatively impact rural character and sense of place. Washtenaw County has several bridges slated for replacement to improve the transportation network and address issues of weight load, nurumum width, safety and traffic flow. The State is currently considenng adopuon of low-volume standards for roads that would pro,ride designsensitive opuons and standards for bndge replacement. Ro- The Bell Road Bridge in Dexter Township was removed from the Huron River in 1998. Photo taken October 2000 . • \ Comprehensive Plan For \\'ashtenaw County Recommendation 1.6 Nation al Register of Historic Places Evaluate histonc resources listed on the Stare Register and norrunate eligible resources for the ·auonal Register of I Itsronc Places. OBTECTIVE2 Provide effective prog ram s, tools and techniques for th e protection of our unique historic resources. Recommendation 2 .1 Centennial Farm Nomin ations Evaluate \Vashrenaw County 's Centenmal Farms to deterrrune 1'at1onal Register eligibility and work with landowners to seek 1at1onal Register norrunauon. Recommendation 2.2 Information for Land Use D ecision s .\dd appltcattons and photo s of Cenren111al Farms to the I Itst\'-:'eb stte so their umque status can be considered 111 updates to local master plans and proposed zomng changes Recommendation 2.3 His torically Sig nificant Bridg es I Iistonc bn<lge alternatives should 111clude res torauon or sympathetic replacement of h1sroncallv sigruficant bn<lges. See Trnnsportanon 5.1 and 5.2. Recommendation 2.4 Rural Roads Guidelines Encourage state legislature ro adopt Gmdelines for Rural Roads so that the \v'CRC has options for replacement of h1sronc bndges, such as allow111g rehabilitation of h1stonc bn<lges or replacement wtth h1sroncallv compatible strucn1res. Page 9-7 - --- - - - - - - - - - - ~- - �Chapter 9 One-Room Schoolhouses \X'a shtenaw County has more one-room schoolhouses than any other county in Michigan, however, only two are protected as Local I listoric Districts (Geer School and Popkins School). No. of One-Room Schoolhouses 2004 Status Residences No Longer Exist Vacant Com mercial Moved Garage/Storage Day in One Schoolhouse Program Unknown Total 1943 155 2004 113 Change (42) -27.1% No. 65 42 18 9 6 5 5 5 155 Table 9-3 : Status of One-Room Schoolhouses in Washtenaw County Source: Washtenaw County Department of Planning and Environment Geer School in Superior Township protected as a Local Historic District Recommendation 2.5 One-Room Schoolhouses Evaluate One-Room Schoolhouse eligibility and create a themed Local f Iistoric Disrnct that includes all existing eligible schools 111 the County. Recommendation 2.6 Underground Railroad Registration Facilitate the registration and protection of Underground Railroad resources 111 \Vashtenaw County. Recommendation 2.7 Michigan Freedom Trail Regis ter Support local efforts to norrunate Underground Railroad resources to the i\lich1gan Freedom Trail Register. Recommendation 2.8 Freedom Trail Network Work with the Michigan Freedom Trail Registry and the African .\mencan Cultural and I !enrage l\1useum to strengthen the County's ability to protect these historic resources. Michigan Freedom Trail Register - Underground Railroad Washtenaw County has a rich legacy of anti-slavery activity and participation in the Underground Railroad. There are 36 documented sites with only one protected under local ordinance (Gordon Hall) and one listed as a site on the etwork to Freedom Program (Guy Beckley House). The remaming 34 sites are not listed on the Michigan Freedom Trail Register. Unprotected I Iistoric Resources over 50 Years Old Even with the above mentioned levels of protection for historic resources in \X'ashtenaw County, there remain over 3,000 historic resources in the County which are not protected through available historic preservation programs, tools and techniques. Page 9-8 A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �Historic Preservation 9.6 Historic Resource Education The preservation of historic resources is largely a voluntary effort of landowners. While some historic district ordinances have been established regulating older residential areas, the preservation of many of our unique resources rely on decisions of individual landowners, supported by the local unit of government. Education on the benefits and incentives associated ,vith preservation is the most powerful tool for voluntary efforts. Having information readily available to planning commissions or County residents will also heighten the importance of preserving our resources as we develop our local plans and make local land use decisions. OBTECTIVEJ Prom o te the bene fits of his toric resource protection to Washtenaw Coun ty reside nts, land and busin ess ow ners and d ecision m akers. Recommendation 3.1 Local Master Plan Updates Add historic resources to the fragile lands mapping layer and provide to planrung comm1ssions as input to proposed changes to local master plans. Recommendation 3.2 Historic Resource Educati on Facilitate public educatJon efforts to foster un derstanding and appreciation of historic re sources through publiciz111g preservatJOn successes and educational preservation workshops. Sharon Mills in Sharon Township, An award winning adaptive reuse project by Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation Commission Page 9-9 :\ Comprehensive Plan For \v'ashtenaw Counry �Chapter 9 9.7 SUMMARY GOAL To protect, preserve and restore the historic resources of Washtenaw County including houses, farmsteads, bridges, schoolhouses, Underground Railroad sites, places of worship, significant landscape features and viewsheds . OBTECTIVE1 Support local units of government seeking protection and preservation of historic resources through local, s ta te and nati onal program s. OBTECTIVE2 Provide effective programs, tools and techniques for the protection of our unique his toric resources. Recommendation 1.1 Create H istoric District Commissions :\ssist the staff of local uruts of government in understanding the benefits of adopting a Local I Iistoric District Ordinance and creatmg their own I Iistoric D1srnct Comm1ssions and joirung the Certified Local Government program to qualify for federal funds for preservation projects. Recommendation 2.1 Centennial Farm Nominations Evaluate Washtenaw County's Centennial Farms to determ1ne ational Register eligibility and work with landowners to seek National Register nomination. Recommendation 1.2 Local Historic District Compliance Ensure current and future historic clistnct ordinances are 111 compliance with the State of l\Iichigan's reqwrements to qualify for preservation incentives. Recommendation 1.3 Local Historic District Ordinance Review Review current historic distnct ordinances and suggest changes necessary to ensure productive preservation efforts. Recommendation 1.4 Historic District Collaboration Facilitate collaboration between the I listoric Distnct Coffiffilssions in \v'ashtenaw County to develop a strategy for protecting resources listed under National Register of Historic Places. Recommendation 1.5 Innovative Preservation Strategies Assist local units of government in researching and apply 111novat1ve strategies to protect historic resources, such as historic preservation easements and historic overlay clistncts. Recommendation 1.6 National Register of Historic Places Evaluate historic resources listed on the State Register and nominate eligible resources for the National Register of Historic Places. Page 9-10 Recommendation 2.2 Information foe Land Use Decisions Add applications and photos of Centennial Farms to the I Iist\v'eb site so their umque status can be considered 1n updates to local master plans and proposed zonlflg changes. Recommendation 2.3 Historically Significant Bridges Historic bridge alternatives should include restoraaon or sympathetic replacement of historically sigrufican t bridges. See Transportation 5.1 and 5.2. Recommendation 2.4 Rural Roads Guidelines Encourage state legislature to adopt Guidelines for Rural Roads so that the WCRC has options for replacement of historic bridges, such as allowing rehabilitation of historic bridges or replacement with historically compatible structures. Recommendation 2.5 One-Room Schoolhouses Evaluate One-Room Schoolhouse eligibility and create a themed Local I Iistoric Dis tnct that includes all eXIstmg eligible schools 111 the County. Recommendation 2.6 Underground Railroad Registration Facilitate the registration and protection of Underground Railroad resources m \v'ashtenaw County. A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �Historic Preservation Recommendation 2. 7 Michigan Freedom Trail Register Support local efforts to norrunate Underground Railroad resources to the 1\l1chigan Freedom Trail Register Recommendation 2.8 Freedom Trail Network \v'ork with the l\lichigan Freedom Trail Registry and the \fncan _-\mencan Cultural and I Ientage l\luseum to strengthen the County's ability to protect these rustonc resources. OBTECTIVEJ Promote the benefits of historic resource protection to Washtenaw County residents, land and business owners and decision makers. Recommendation 3.1 Local Master Plan Updates _\dd historic resources to the fragile lands mapping layer and provide to planrung comm1ss1ons as input to proposed changes to local master plans. Recommendation 3.2 Historic Resource Education Facilitate publ1e educauon efforts to foster understanding and apprec1auon of histone resources through pubhc1z111g preservauon successes and educauonal preservauon workshops. .-\ Comprehensive Plan For \v'ashtenaw Counry Page 9-11 �Chapter 10 Transportation ,-\ Comprehensive Plan For Washtenaw County �Washtenaw County Lyndon Township Dexter Township Webster Township Salem Township Northfield Township ,,,,,,.,,. Barton Hill, 1 Village Ann Arbor To~nship_ Lima Township / --- .,,.. Superior Township - - Scio Sylvan Township ~/ Township - · Ypsilanti City Lodi Township Sharon Township Freedom Township Pittsfield Township York Township Manchester Township Bridgewater Township Saline Township Ypsilanti Township Augusta Township ,-\ Sense of Place, ,-\ Sustainable Future �10.1 Purpose \'v'ashtenaw County's transportat10n network affects the livability of our comrnuruty. It connects our homes to employment, shopprng, education, recreation and cultural acnv1ties; tt has impacts on our air and water quality; and it shapes the visual character of our community. Because of the influennal role a transportation network plays in the viability of a community, it 1s critical to coordinate transportation and land use planning in developing and implementing the comprehensive plan. 10.2 Resident Comments Many residents find \X'ashtenaw County a desirable place to live, but feel that transportation issues are 1mpacting their quality of life. Residents identified several opportunities that would help to improve the transportation system within the county. Highlights of Resident Comments from Regional Workshops For a complete list of resident comments see the Public Participation Support Document. • Too much traffic congesuon from build.mg of new mdustnal & residenual areas with no concern for traffic and "pass thru" traffic tnto \X'estern Wayne County and r\nn r\rbor. • Need for alternative transportauon to alleviate traffic congestion on roadways and tncenuves for ndeshanng. The Counry has too few areas to ride bicycles, walk and use the bus outside Ann Arbor City limits. • Develop a tran sportation onented master plan thac allows people co live close co the1r place of work. Reduce the need for auto-based lifestyles by provtdmg hous111g with walkable access to daily life needs. • Public transportation, especially tn urban areas, is not converuent enough to make 1t preferable to automobile transportation. • Road paving 1s not keep111g up with populauon demands. Transportation Goal The follow111g goal of the transportation element is based on resident input and analysts of conditions and trends: GOAL Strategically plan for and invest in a transportation network that meets the needs of future residents and businesses while promoting our sense of place and protecting the environment. • Gravel road ma111tenance and improvements are needed _-\ Comprehensive Plan For \'\'ashrenaw County Page 10-3 �- - C~ptet-10 , , • I _ ~-~• _ • _ -~• " I •• l _ 10.3 Conditions and Trends Increased growth in the County, coupled with a lack of transportation funding, poses a serious challenge for the future: • Out of the 1,018 miles of Federal Aid Eligible (FAE) roads in Washtenaw County, 221 miles (21.7%) are congestion deficient today. By 2020, an additional 75 miles will become congestion deficient, which represents a 34 percent increase. • The 2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan for Washtenaw County identifies 556 transportation improvements necessary to support current demands in addition to projected growth through the year 2030. Of these 556 improvements, 428 projects are projected to receive funding, while 128 projects have been classified as projects that cannot be funded within the financial constraint. This represents a funding gap of almost $1 billion needed to support the current population and future growth. • There are severe funding limitations to improving our transportation system. Michigan is a donor state, giving the Federal government more in transportation-related taxes than the state gets back in road funding each year. Currently, Michigan gets back only 88 cents for every dollar it sends to the federal government in transportation-related taxes. As a result of limited funds, the Michigan Department of Transportation has refocused their investment strategy to "Fix It First - Fix It Right for Michigan." This strategy of rehabilitating the State's road system will limit funding for new road construction in the county. • There is limited funding available for improvements to County roads.The bulk of the Washtenaw County Road Commission's annual budget, more than two-thirds, goes for maintenance of existing road facilities. Ag:Jrcy WJC AmArw O"elsea CextaIIAn::rester Mlan ~ ire Yp;ilaiti 148.73 Percentage ofTOOII Miles 72.8 13.3 0.8 0.7 0.6 1.0 1.5 2.5 6.8 829.79 2, 188.62 100.00 ~or/ Ag:Jrcy Local Primay TOOII 1,a;1.72 542 62 1,594.34 95.20 195.26 291 .46 9.!:E 5.55 4.45 8.72 13.31 20.ffi MXJr - TOOII 1,210.10 7.63 800 8.91 13.55 19.95 33.1 8 - 17.22 14.24 13.~ 22.Zl 33.26 53.74 Table 10-1 : Jurisdiction of the Transportation System in Washtenaw County by Miles of Roadway, 2003 Source: Washtenaw Area Transportation Study 2003 Updated Washtenaw County Road Miles. Received March 2004. Conges tio n deficient roads are roads that are at or near design capacity. These roads experience heavy daily and peak hour traffic causing slower speeds and long commute times. • Local governments are also faced with limited resources to maintain and rehabilitate their local roads. In the City of Ann Arbor, for example, property owners are paying a 1.98-mill tax to rehabilitate their aging road infrastructure. Continued growth and lack of funding has far reaching implications on the ability to move people, goods and services throughout the County and impacts our unique landscapes. To maintain the functioning of our transportation system, and maintain our sense of place, it is necessary to take a comprehensive approach to transportation that includes land use policies and a strategic investment in capacity in1provements, where warranted by study, and alternative modes of transportation. Page 10-4 A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �10.4 Freeways and Interchang es The freeway system is designed to move people and goods into activity centers within Washtenaw County, and through the County to other destinations. Recent reports by the Federal Highway Administration rate the condition of Michigan's interstate highways as the "nation's fifth worst, and its interstate bridges as the very worst." In addition, a study of the State Transportation Department's data found that about 20 percent of Michigan's roads need full removal and reconstruction right now, while another 60 percent have just seven or fewer years left before they also need the same treatment. The overall poor state of Michigan's interstate highways is no exception in Washtenaw County, where many freeways have reached or surpassed their expected design life and are in the process of being reconstructed. Most of these roads were built over 30 years ago, and have been resurfaced to smooth their ride-ability, but few have been completely reconstructed. Traffic congestion on US-23, Northfield Township In addition to problems with the condition of our state and federal roads, several facilities are currently operating over capacity and several more will become congestion deficient in the future due to increased local traffic from new developments, commuter trips and through traffic to northern Michigan tourist destinations. In addition to local trips, 70,000 non-residents currently commute into the County, with 40,000 County residents driving out of the County each day for employment. Adding to this influx of commuters, current trends show that tl1e percentage of workers residing in \'v'ashtenaw County who commute by driving alone has increased from 62 percent to 74 percent between 1980 and 2000. 1-94 This major east-west corridor demonstrates tl1e daily strain of local, regional and heavy commercial traffic. The most significant amount of congestion on I-94 ·within \v'a shtenaw County occurs between US-23 and State Street. To alleviate this congestion a third lane is necessary. But this in1provement is not included on the list of funded proJects in the 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) because MDOT only generates a five-year plan for roads within their jurisdiction, and this improvement is not financially feasible during that time frame. HOV lanes may not be as feasible on tl1is freeway due to the amount of interstate commerce using this facility. A Comprehensive Plan For \'v'ashrenaw County Freeway interchange (M-14 & US-23), Ann Arbor Township/City of Ann Arbor border Page 10-5 �US-23 US-23 is a major north-south corridor in Washtenaw County that is experiencing increasing congestion. For example, from M-14 to orth Territorial, the freeway was designed to handle 50,000 vehicles per day, but currently 1s at an unsatisfactory level of service, experiencing 70,000 vehicles per day. US-23 is also one of the major north-south recreational routes connecting Ohio to northern Michigan. Therefore, this corridor will continue to provide an unsatisfactory level of service unless additional capacity is provided. A third lane is included in the LRTP for funding between 2011 and 2015. ational studies demonstrate that additional lanes will simply allow more growth in the area and additional capacity will be consumed with local trips as opposed to providing capacity to and through the urban area. Therefore, additional lanes should be dedicated for commuter traffic through High Occupancy Vehicles and transitdedicated lanes if studies show tl1at such methods would be efficient in alleviating capacity issues. M-14 M-14, a regional east-west transportation route, will also be deficient by the year 2020 unless additional capacity is provided. Continued suburban development will accelerate the need to add a third lane from US-23 to Gotfredson Road. Interchanges Most of the interchanges in the County, especially those in the rural areas, are designed to handle only limited rural traffic. D ue to funding limitations, only three interchange improvements are funded in the LRTP (I-94 at Baker Road, US-23 at North Territorial and US-23 at US-12). Interchanges expected to remain substandard through 2030 include 1-94 at Fletcher and O ld US-12; US-23 at Six Mile; Carpenter and Baker; and M-14 at Barton Drive. In addition to substandard conditions, interchange spacing is insufficient to accommodate continued development in the western portion of the County. For example, along 1-94, there is a six-mile gap between the Fletcher/Old US-12 and Baker Road interchanges. Due to funding constramts, local units of government must contribute to expedite the construction of interchange improvements in the County. The 1-94 and Zeeb Road interchange was improved through MDOT, federal funds, and Scio Township's downtown development authority using tax mcrement finanang and developer commitments. Page 10-6 OBTECTIVE1 Improve our freeways and interchanges to m ain tain th e ability to move p eople, g oods and services into and throug h the Coun ty. Recommendation 1.1 High Occupancy Vehicle L anes Require that studies be done to deterrrune if It would be beneficial for addiuonal lanes constructed for US-23 to be !ugh occupancy vehicle and transit dedicated lanes. Recommendation 1.2 E xpand Transit Use for Commuters Expand the use of transit for commuter trips by providing convement access to addiuonal satellite parking facilities. Recommendation 1.3 State and Federal Funding for Expansion Continue to pursue state and federal funding to expand the capacity of 1-94, US-23 and M14 for commuter traffic. Recommendation 1.4 Interchange Activity Centers \'<fork with local units of government to 1denufy potential new activity centers along select interchanges and identify a combinaaon of federal, state, local, special assessments and developer contributions to fund improvements. Recommendation 1.5 Activity Centers Design Standards Encourage local governments to adopt design standards for activity cenrers 111clud111g a system of 111ternal roads and transit stations to maxirruze the interchange capacity. Supporting: Recomendations Landscapes 2.2, 2.3 A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �As a strategy to control sprawl, many commuruties elsewhere have developed activity centers to accommodate a larger share of regional growth 111 a compact fasluon and to minimize traffic on the county-wide road system. These high dens1t:y nuxed use districts are located at exisung interchanges with available land or new planned interchanges. Qwck access to the interstate, coupled with an extensive and compact internal road system accommodates a significant amount of new growth while reduc111g traffic congestion throughout the system. If new activity centers are proposed, the le,,el of development 111tensity should be much higher than typical suburban mixed-use development to encourage private investment and provide greater tax receipts and shorter bond lengths. 10.5 Urban Road Network The urban road network consists of roads designed to move residents and goods into and around our residential, economic, education and leisure centers. \X'hile our older cities have been able to accommodate growth and development through a pre-planned system of roads that disperse traffic along a grid system, this same pre-planning did not occur 111 the suburban areas surrounding our cities. Over the past fifty years, lower density neighborhoods have developed along two-lane roadways that were originally designed as connectors between agricultural activities and urban commerce centers. This suburban development consists of self-contained commuruties accessing a limited road network at subdivision entrance points, loading traffic onto a few concentrated locations along the road as opposed to dispersing traffic through a road grid network through connecting the subdivisions. This development pattern, along with a density of development that does not support transit, has resulted in the need to add capacity to numerous roads in the suburban landscape. The 2030 LRTP funded transportation improvements total over $788 million. Of this total, improvements (new roads, widening of roads to three and five lanes and 111tersection 1mprovements) made within the suburban landscape cost approximately $200 million or 25.5 percent of total road improvements. _e\ Comprehensive Plan For \X 'ashtenaw County OBTECTIVE2 Maximize the capacity of the existing urban and suburban transportation system. Recommendation 2.1 Capacity Improvements Provide capacity improvements at ma1or mtersecnons through turrung lane add1t1ons. Recommendation 2.2 Signal Coordination Reduce congest10n and expand capacity of ex1st1ng roads through signal coordinat10n between cines, villages, \X'CRC and l\[DOT. Recommendation 2.3 New Development Trafflc Studies Contmue ro require new development to prepare traffic studies to determme the need for intersection and signal improvements and the pro-rata cost share of these improvements. Recommendation 2.4 Interconnected System of Access Points l\famtam the capacity of ex1st1ng facilities by requinng new development ro pronde an mterconnected system of access pomts to disperse traffic along a network of roads, and mmmuze the number of access pomts along ma1or roads. Recommendation 2.5 Development Density to Support Transit Encourage mfill development at a density that will support transit and requue new development to provide transit srops and pedestnan fac11it1es to support transit Page 10-7 �'~pte,r 10 _ - - I • - ■ • - - ' 10.6 Rural N etwork The rural road network is the traditional system designed to serve the County's villages and agricultural areas through a limited number of major north-south/ east-west roads. These roads consist of older federal and state roads such as portions of M-52, US-12, I-94, Jackson Road and Carpenter Road. Connecting to these federal and state roads are a number of paved roads and numerous gravel roads. Washtenaw County Road Commission (\X'CRC) is responsible for the annual maintenance and improvement of public local roads. Based on Act 51 the WCRC can provide up to, but not exceed 50 percent of the total cost for any improvements beyond routine maintenance on local roads, the remaining 50 percent of the cost must be provided by another agency, public or private. In addition, the WCRC receives approximately $1,000 per mile per year for road maintenance. This level of funding is sufficient to provide for annual heavy maintenance (overlay and sealcoating); and routine maintenance (snow removal, s1gnage, line painting, culvert maintenance and repair, etc.); however it is insufficient to finance road reconstruction. \'vhile this rural road network has served the County well in the past, continued growth surrounding our cities and villages along with an increase in rural roadside homes has adversely impacted the livability of our cities and villages and presents major capacity problems for future rural residents. City and village roads are becoming heavily congested as lower density subdivisions and rural roadside homes funnel traffic through village main streets causing congestion and increasing public safety demands and cost. Increasing capacity on these limited facilities is problematic due to inadequate right of way through these villages and funding. To resolve existing congestion problems while accommodating future growth, alternative transportation corridors are needed. Identifying alternative routes that can both accommodate commuter traffic and maintain rural character requires careful coordination with overall land use patterns and density. As with adding lanes to the freeway system, if collector roads are improved and new development is allowed to access these facilities, the new capacity will be quickly filled by local demand and the purpose of providing through traffic improvements will be lost. OBTECTIVE3 Provide a system of nor th/so uth, east/west altern a tive ro utes in th e rural are as to a d e qu a t e ly mo ve p eople, go ods a nd services and minimize impacts to villages, cities and townships. Recommendation 3.1 Alternative Tran sportation Routes Work with local units of government to ident1 fy appropnate north /s outh, east / west corridors, and alternative transportation routes for cities and villages. Recommendation 3.2 Priority Improvements E stablish a CIP that identifies pnority improvements and funding sources mcluding federal , state, local and private contributions. Recommendation 3.3 Access M anagement in Rural Areas Support WCRC's adoption of future nght of way widths and access management standards; include these standards 111 local land develop ment regulations and require dedication of RO\'{! and compliance with access management as part of new development approval. Recommendation 3.4 Proper Planning of Exp anded Corridors Ensure that the land use des1gnauons along expanded corridors are properly planned to allow through traffic movement to occur as opposed to simply providing access to new developments. Exisung studies mclude the State Road, the Geddes Road, the Willis Ro ad and the Baker Road Corridors. Supporting Recommendations Landscapes 2.1, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9 Page 10-8 A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �There are approximately 800 miles of gravel roads in the County. Gravel roads make up the majority of the road network 111 rural areas . .r-\s additional roadside development and subsequent lugher traffic volumes occur, these gravel roads will deteriorate leaving residents with increased ma111tenance costs and safety concerns. DB TECTIVE4 D evelop a safe and well-main tained gravel roa d system that meets the needs of agriculture and rural resid ents while maintaining th e scenic bea uty and character o f this lan d scap e. The physical characteristics of gravel roads are not well swted for safe high volume traffic and they can easily exceed capacity. Low-density residential development 111 rural areas has forced the \X'CRC into a reactive pattern of maintenance on overburdened gravel roads. Linuted resources are used to do weekly grading on overcapacity gravel roads to keep the roads passable. This reqwres the WCRC to perform grading activity more often to ma111tain a properly functioning road thereby using up linuted resources. Rec ommendation 4.1 Gravel Road Cap acity Support WCRC and staff to classify all gravel roads to determine ex1st111g conditions and capacmes and to set maximum daily traffic loads to ma111tain the road 111regrity and saferv. 10.7 Gravel Roads Further complicating the issue is the divide between \'('ashtenaw County residents' view of gravel roads. Some residents rndicate that they do not want their gravel roads unproved and would like to limit development abutting these roads as much as possible. I Iowever, other residents want to see gravel roads paved to decrease maintenance needs, increase safety and allow for travel that is more convenient. An evaluation of 121.6 miles of Federal Aid Eligible Grm"el Roads in Washtenaw County finds that the majority are in "fair" condition. I Iowever, due to limited funds available to improve the gravel road system these roads will rapidly detenorate over the next 20 years. Between 2005 and 2030, there are only eight gravel road pavement projects pro1ected to receive federal funding, amounting to 11.65 miles at a cost of $13,265,000. There are an additional 14 gravel road pavement pro1ects identified on the unfunded list totaling 29.9 miles at a cost of $28,550,000. Estlmates project that to pave all of the gravel roads 111 the County, it would cost approximately $56 million which is well beyond the total transportation improvement budget. It is important to note that the gravel road service is highly variable based on dra111age conditions. Re commendation 4.2 Density Limitations on Rural R oad s Based on the gravel road class1ficat1on system, encourage local units of governments to ref111e land use plans, local development regulauons and state enabling legislation to hm!t the den sity of development along these roads, locate rural subdiv1s1on access po111ts ro m1111m1ze conflicts and requue developer paY111g where needed. Gravel Road Type Range of Acceptable Volume/Day Maximum Dwelling Units perAl:.re 16DUperk1:e A - highest quality 800-1000 or 1 DU per6.25 Acres .03 DU per mes \Vebster Township had 10 gravel road segments d1at were "overcapacity" given the current daily traffic volumes and thresholds. The analysis showed d1ac most of the gravel roads 111 d1e Township would have capacity problems if the current traffic levels continued and Township zollil1g was kept one unit per 2 acres. These volumes would likely lead ro maintenance problems with d1e gravel road (rutting, washboarding, etc.). Case Study E - IONest quality 0-199 or 1 DU per 33.3 Acres Table 10-2: Holding Capacity of Gravel Roads Source: Washtenaw County Department of Planning and Environment Source "How Much Development 1s Too Much? A gu,de on Using Impervious Surface and Gravel Road Capacity Analysis to Manage Growth in Rural and Suburban Communities August 2003 Mark Wyckoff and Michele Manning. Planning and Zoning Center, Inc, Lansing, Michigan and Kris Olsson and Ehzabeth Riggs. Huron River Watershed Council Ann Arbor, M1ch1gan , \ Comprehensive Plan For \"X'ashtenaw Count) Page 10-9 �-- l,"' I - ;~h~a:W. . ~_."_. :- - :- .. - --L - 10.8 Bridges A bridge that receives routine maintenance generally has a life span of about 50 years. Bridges in Washtenaw County tend to be 54 years old or older, much older than the general population of bridges in Southeast Michigan where the average bridge age is 38 years. Currently, there are 122 deficient bridges in Washtenaw County, 66 classified as functionally obsolete and 56 classified as structurally deficient. The improvement or replacement of bridges is very expensive and generally well beyond tl1e budget of local units of government. Federal dollars are the primary source of funding for bridge projects, and funding is a highly competitive process. Each year only a few of the most deficient bridges in the state are allocated funding. Out of the 122 deficient bridges within the County, the 2030 LRTP prioritizes the rehabilitation and replacement of 42 bridges between 2005 and 2030 in order for iliese structures to remain functional. Because many of our bridges are older than 54 years and located within the rural area, context sensitive design techniques should be considered when assessing ilie these structures. Additionally, ilie ability to identify a local funding source would enable a decrease dependency on federal and state funding and their accompanying restrictions and constraints of those sources. The constraints on funding has caused MDOT to restructure ilie selection process and allocation of scarce funds to bridges to more evenly distribute funds for bridge improvements. I DETECTIVES M aximize limi ted funding to m ak e designsen sitive improvem en ts o n d e fici e nt bridges. Recommendation 5.1 Context Sensi tve Design for Rural Bridges Support the WCRC in preparing context sensitive designs for rural road bridge rehabilitauon that meets the needs of safe travel while maintaining rural character and historic value. Recommendation 5.2 Funds for Rural Character Preserva tion Encourage local governments to plan for the funding needed to enhance the design and architectural features needed to preserve the rural character and historic value of our rural bridges. Recommendation 5.3 Bridge M aintenance Identify funding to maintain and rehabilitate bridges to reduce the total cost for repacement. Supporting: Recommendations Historic Preservation 2.3, 2.4 Rehabilitated bridge over Jackson Road, City of Ann Arbor Page 10-10 A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �10.9 Public and Private Road Connectivity A lack of interconnectmg roads forces even relatively short local rnps out onto main transportation corridors 111 the County. Connectivity implies a system of streets with multiple routes and connections serving the same origins and destmations; it relates not only to the nwnber of intersections along a segment of street, bur also to how an entire area is connected by the street system. I lighly connected areas possess the following charactensttcs: • • • • • • • A dense system of parallel routes and cross-connections within an area - typically formmg a grid-like pattern of arterial, collector and local streets Few closed-end streets Many points of access Narrow streets with sidewalks or off-street paths Frequent intersections to create a pedestrian-scale block pattern Traffic calmmg devices such as curb extensions, crosswalks, landscaping, etc. to slow traffic speeds; and Pedesrnan and bicycle connections where street connections are not possible due to barners. Physical barriers to connectivity may include: topography (steep slopes), freeways, railroads, pre-existing development, lease provisions, easements, covenants or water features Oakes, streams, etc.) OBTECTIVE6 Encourage future and existing connectivity of public and private roadways to provide an efficient and safe road network for the residents and visitors throughout Washtenaw County. Recommendation 6.1 Interconnected Roadway Network Encourage local units of government to work with the WCRC to develop recommendaaons for 1nterconnect1ng both public and pnvate roads. The potential to connect the public road network for existmg and planned development maX11TI1Zes the efficiency of the transportation network, facilitating local and regional circulation. Connectivity is attained through m1rumal occurrences of cul-de-sacs; dead-end streets, and poorly connected subdivisions. These clements place addiuonal stress on main arteries . . \ Comprehensive Plan For \Vashtenaw County Page 10-11 �10.10 Natural Beauty Roads The goal of the atural Beauty Road s program 1s to acknowledge the natural character of certain County local roads having unusual or outstanding natural beauty and to maintain those roads in accordance with accepted maintenance practices established by the County. Currently, with111 Washtenaw County there are nine designated atural Beauty Roads. When granting or withdrawing the Natural Beauty Road designation, the \X'ashtenaw County Road Commission considers the following: • Character of Road: The road must have outstanding natural features along its borders, including native trees and other native vegetation as well as open areas with scenic or natural vistas, which, singularly or in combination, set this road apart from other roads as being something unique and distinct. • Length: A minimum of one-half mile continuous length with exceptions below this length depending upon unusual features. • Roadside Development: Qualifying roads should preferably have no development along them, but such development as exists at the time the road is designated should be compatible with the surroundings, and should not detract from the natural unspoiled character and visual impact of the road area. Existing township zoning and planning along the roadway should be compatible with present land use. OBTECTIVE 7 M aintain the conditions o f certain road s h aving unu s ual or outstanding n atural beauty. Recommendation 7.1 Designa tion of N atural Beauty Roads Encourage local uruts of governments to work with the \'<1CRC to designate additional Natural Beauty roads. Recommendation 7 .2 Residential Design Standards Encourage local governments to adopt roadside residential design standards including canopy tree preservation, residentlal building setbacks and road access limitations. Recommendation 7.3 Scenic Vista Identification \Vork with local governments and residents to identify sceruc vistas and local, county, and state funds to acquire scenic vista properties and easements • Function of the Road: The existing road should function as a local access road, i.e., one which serves the adjacent property owners rather than serve as a collector or a higher functional classification (connecting two major County roads or developments). • Roadwav Condition: Condition of roadway should be adequate in terms of drainage, design and safety. • Volume: The current average daily traffic (ADT) on an unpaved roadway should not exceed 500 vehicles for consideration as a natural beauty road. • Vegetation: A minimum of 90 percent of the lineal footage of the road right-of-way should include native vegetation (excluding footage of driveways or farmland in total length) to qualify as a natural beauty road. Marshall Road, Scio Township Page 10-12 A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �10.11 Transit \'vashtenaw County has an excellent transit system ill the urban areas for a community of our size: • The Ann Arbor Transportation Authority 1s the pnmary provider of public transportation services in \'('ashtcnaw County, serving the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti urbanized areas mcluding portions of Ypsilanti, Pittsfield and Supenor Townships. In service for an average of 17 hours per day, AATA runs 24 fixed routes with an average weekday rider ship of 15,500 passengers. In addition to fixed-route services, A.AT.A provides paratranslt services, a flexible or door-to-door service for the elderly, disabled or econoffilcally disadvantaged. In 2002, 4,475,765 riders used A.AT.A's services. Currently there arc five park and ride lots accessing AA T A's ma111 fixed-route bus service. AA TA is funded primarily by Ann Arbor property tax millage, state operaung assistance, passenger fares, interest 111come, purchase of service agreements with otl1er governments and federal categoncal grants. These sources are currently stable, but are subject to fluctuations due to circumstances outside A.AT.A's control. Blake Transit Center, City of Ann Arbor • The l.Jnivers1t:y of Iichigan bus service serves all Ann Arbor campuses affiliated with the University as well as the University and A.A.TA park and ndc lots. Commuters can eitl1er park and ride, or transfer from a University bus to A.AT.A. Anyone can ride this bus, and tl1ere 1s no cost, however the coverage area is limited. However, it is now possible for all University of l\1ichigan faculty, staff and students to ride the AATA buses for free therfore expanding the limited coverage area of the University bus system. • The Chelsea Area Transportation System (Cr\ TS) started in 1976 as a demand responsive service for the elderly and the disabled, with call-for-scrv1ec, door-to-door transit. In 2002 CATS added a fixed route small bus service between Chelsea and Dexter. In 2003, when AATA cut its Dexter service because of insufficient local funding, CATS extended 1ts route to Jackson and \'<'agner Roads 111 Scio Township where passengers arc able to transfer to an Ar\TA bus (Figure 10-1). This service is known as Chelsea Arca Rural Express (CARE). Chelsea Area Transportation System bus in front of Meijer, Scio Township • There arc numerous paratrans1t (demand responsive ,,an and taxi services) providing service to the disabled, elderly and econoID1cally disadvantaged populations throughout \'\'a shtenaw County. These 111clude Chelsea Area Transponanon Sen'lce, l\Ianchester eruor Citizens, City of l\Wan Public Transit and orthficld I luman erv1ees and c1ghborhood Seruor cff1ccs . .-\ Comprehensive Plan For \X'ashtenaw County Page 10-13 �• - - I Chapt~r IO,·_ .. - ' "----'-- • . - . •' . .-. Figure 10-2: Fixed Transit Routes , Washtenaw County 2 D N N Page 10-14 Jurisdictional Boundary TRANSIT PROVIDER N CATS Highway MajorRoad N AATA Road University of Michigan 0 2 Source: Washt<.:n ~l\\-' County Depanmmt of Planning and EnY1ronment A Sense of Place, A Susrainable Future �- . -. · • 1 I \ ' •• ,1 I - - · -, · .T~o.rtation I - ••' -- - Despite these transit opportunities, current trends show that the percentage of workers residing in \X'ashtenaw County who commute by driv111g alone has 111crcased from 62 percent to 74 percent between 1980 and 2000. Figure 10-3 shows the different modes of transportation used by residents 111 \X'ashtenaw County working outside their place of residence between 1980 and 2000 and the change 111 their modal preference during this period. The number of workers 111 Washtenaw County driving alone has increased while those workers carpooling or usrng public transportation has decreased between 1980 and 2000. i 50 0 l 11 400 ~ + - - - - - - -• J 300 l 200 "' ai9ii, 00 Worb rs C ■1pooling Worh ,sdm ing ■lone ■ 1 990 Woitt•tt1n,ng ottiit1.,..■n101 tr■n1 001111 110n · Modi CJ 2000 ollr ■n1portation Sourr-# 1';1l(!C.,,...,.S..,.,m•vT_r .. J,,...,pteOtt, &ZOOX:--Oill• ~"-"'-•'°" ~ '-'<JIClf'C:l,e• e,._~o,r~ Figure 10-3: Modes of Transportation for Workers in Washtenaw County, 1980-2000 Source · Washtenaw County Department of Planning and Env,ronment The marn challenges fac111g the cont111uat1on and expans10n of AATr\ services is funding for operation because federal funds can only be used for capital costs and not opcraung costs. \\?hi.le ,-\,,\TA looks to the local uruts of government to assist with funding, budget cons tram ts linut local gm'ernmcnt participation_ This is currently happerung in Ypsilanti Townslup and the City of Ypsilanti where r\.r\TA and local officials arc tryrng to identify funds to keep sen'!ce 111 tl1c1r area . . \ Comprehensive Plan For \'{'ashtenaw County Page 10-15 �• T ~ ~1;1aptet.10 ' • r I - ---- -~ • - ■ ' . I I The demographics of the County rndicate a need to improve current and future services to transit dependent residents including: • 8,527 households do not own a personal vehicle • 28,141 residents, 16 years and over, have a disability and rely on alternat:1ve transportatlon • The number of older adults (age 65 and over) is expected to increase 96 percent between 2000 and 2020, from 26,271 to over 51,529. Continued de,Telopment in our villages and suburban areas will increase resident's demand for transit. In the mid-80's, in response to increasing demands for transit service, AATA expanded its service to include routes to Saline, Dexter, Chelsea and Scio Township. J Iowever, due to revenue constraints these expanded services have been reduced or eliminated. Service to Chelsea was discontinued in 2002, in June 2003, AA.TA discontinued service between Ann Arbor and Saline and in the fall of 2003 service between Ann Arbor and Dexter was discontinued. Currently there is coordination of services and pooling of funds occuring among the village areas such as Ride Source which serves as a brokerage service trying to match people to trips, and the coordination among A.A.TA, CA.TS and Milan Area Transit. I Iowever, increased coordination among the various services is necessary, and it may also be necessary to pool funds through transit consortiums or a dedicated county-wide funding source to continue existing services and provide transit services to suburban and village areas. Commuter Rail Commuter rail has been used successfully in numerous other metropolitan areas to provide additional capacity, particularly for commuter trips. Studies show that rail service does much better than buses in attracting riders and reducing automobile dependence due to tl1e speed and convenience of a train in comparison to a bus. Currently, SEMCOG, working with AATA and \'('ATS, is preparing a study to determine the feasibility of providing commuter rail service between Ann Arbor and Detroit along the Norfolk Southern Railroad Lines. In addition to this corridor, there may be a potential to relieve some of the congestion along US-23 by providing rail from Whitmore Lake south to :Milan along the old Tuscola-Saginaw Bay/ Ann Arbor Railroad Lines. Page 10-16 OBTECTIVEB Exp and th e Co unty's tcansit sys tem to re du ce a uto d ep enden cy and m ee t the needs of the County's residents. Recommendation 8.1 Regional Tran sit Consortium Expand the use of transit by forming a consoraum with Livtngston and other regional units of government to help fund expanded transit service. Recommendation 8.2 Transit Consortium for Senior Population Encourage suburban areas and villages to consider forrrung a transit consortium to fund service for a grow111g older population to provide transit to life line and leisure destinauons. Recommendation 8.3 Transit Services Funding Support efforts to identify a dedicated source of funds for county-wide transit services. Recommendation 8.4 Tran sit Frequency for Disabled and LowIncome Increase frequencies 111 urban areas to provide reliable transportaaon for disabled and lower 111come residents to access job opportun!Ues. Recommendation 8.5 Airport Shuttle Service Identify opuons for providtng shuttle service to the airport for County residents and econorruc development benefits. Recommendation 8.6 Conges tion Relief through Rail Continue to promote the ,-\nn .-\rbor to Detroit feasibility study and 1111t1ate a study to assess corrunuter rail along the .\nn Arbor/ Tuscola/Saginaw Bay rail line to relieve congesaon on US-23. A Sen se of Place, A Sustainable Future �10.12 Non-Motorized Network Non-motorized transportation includes bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Non-motorized deficiencies are defined as a gap in a sidewalk, or path, or a nussing segment in a network of on-road bike lanes. According to the 2030 LRTP, there are 40 non-motorized projects identified for improvement or construction between 2005 and 2030, for a total cost of $13 million. OBTECTIVE9 Become the state's leading example of implementing pedestrian, bicycle and trails systems to reduce automobile dependency, connecting residential to educational, work and leisure opportunities. Local units of government have different zoning requirements with regard to sidewalks, some require them with every development and some do not. When required by a Township, the Washtenaw County Road Commission typically constructs sidewalks with the township or developer funds. \'(!here sidewalks are not feasible, the WCRC tries to extend the existing shoulder to approximately six feet in width to accommodate non-motorized traffic within their road right-of-way. However, this is not always possible given the existing condition of the roadway. Recommendation 9.1 Non-Motorized Transportation Plan Coordinate with \VATS to prepare a countywide non-motorized plan to identify exisung sidewalk gaps, pnonties for pedestrian and bicycle connections to schools, neighborhoods, work and leisure activities. Since non-motorized facilities are necessary in the provision of successful public transit, many local agencies are currently working to improve their non-motorized transportation facilities and WATS will be developing a new non-motorized plan as part of their work program starting in July 2004. Recommendation 9.2 Infrastructure for Bicycle Travel Encourage \VCRC to conunue to provide six foot shoulders for bicycle travel where rightof-way and road design pernuts and addiuonal pavement will not affect scemc character. Recommendation 9.3 Development Regulation for Sidewalks Encourage local governments to adopt development regulations requuing the developer to install sidewalks along access roads to all new subdivisions. Recommendation 9.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure Encourage local governments to provide sidewalk or trail connecuons to all new public facilities (offices, librartes and parks) and between neighborhoods in adclitton to bicycle storage at all faciliues . Bicyclist on Liberty Street, City of Ann Arbor A Comprehensive Plan For \Vashtenaw County Recommendation 9.5 County-wide Trail Sys tem Leverage the resources of the county, state and local governments to develop a county-wide trail system. Page 10-17 �chapteilo; .·~ . . · _ -- ~"· ~- ~~ .. l _.. I - I ., ■ ... • .. • .. - 10.13 Summary GOAL Strategically plan for and invest in a transportation network that meets the needs of future residents and businesses while promoting our sense of place and protecting the environment. OBTECTIVE 1 Improve our freeways and interchanges to m aintain the ability to move p eople, g oods, and services into and through the Coun ty. OBTECTIVE 2 M aximiz e the cap acity of the existing urban and suburban transportation sy stem. Recommendation 1.1 High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes Require that studies be done to deternune if it would be beruficial for a<ldinonal lanes constructed for US-23 to be high occupancy vehicle and transit dedicated lanes. Recommendation 2.1 Capacity Improvements Provide capacity improvements at major 111tersecnons through turrung lane additions. Recommendation 1.2 Expand Transit Use for Commuters Expand the use of transit for commuter trips by providing convenient access to the system, through addit10nal satellite parking facilities. Recommendation 2.2 Signal Coordination Reduce congesnon and expand capacity of existing roads through signal coordinanon between cmes, villages, WCRC and the 1\fDOT. Recommendation 1.3 State and Federal Funding for Expansion Connnue to pursue state and federal funding to expand the capacity of I-94, US-23 and 1\[-14 for commuter traffic. Recommendation 2.3 New Development Traffic Studies Continue to reqwre developers of new development to prepare traffic studies to deterrrune the need for intersection and signal improvements and the pro-rata cost share of these improvements. Recommendation 1.4 Interchange Activity Centers Work with local units of government to idenufy potential new activity centers along select mterchanges and idennfy a combinanon of federal, state, local, special assessments and developer contributions to fund improvements. Recommendation 1.5 Activity Centers Design Standards Encourage local governments to adopt design standard s for acnv1ty centers mcludmg a system of internal roads and transit stations to maximize the 111terchange capacity. Recommendation 2.4 Interconnected System of Access Points 1\Iamtam the capacity of exisnng facilines by requmng new development to provide an mterconnected system of access pomts to disperse traffic along a network of roads and mirumize access points along maior roads. Recommendation 2.5 Development Density to Support Transit Encourage mfill development at a dens ity that will su pport transit and require new development to provide transit stops and pedestnan fac1lit1es to support transit. Supporting Recommendations Landscapes Chapter 3: Recommendation 2.2 A ctivity Center Locatio11s Recommendation 2.3 Activity Ce11ter I11frastmctt1re Page 10-18 A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �OBTECTIVE3 Provide a system of north /s outh, eas t/ wes t alternative routes in th e rural areas to adequately move people, goods and services and minimize impacts to villages, cities and townships . OBTECTIVE4 Develop a safe and well-maintained rural road sy stem that meets the needs of agriculture and rural residents while maintaining the scenic beauty and character of this landscape. Recommendation 3.1 Alternative Transportation Routes \'{'ork w1th local u01ts of government to 1den ufv appropriate north / south, east / west corridors, and alternauve transportauon routes for cities and villages. Recommendation 4.1 Gravel Road Capacity Support \VCRC and staff to classify all gravel roads to deterrrune ex1sung conditions and capacmes and to set maximum da ily traffic loads to ma111ta111 the road 111tegrity and safetr. Recommendation 3.2 Priority Improvements Establish a CIP that 1denufies pnonty imp rovements and fundmg sources mcluding federal, srate, local and pnvate contributions. Recommendation 3.3 Access Management in Rural Areas Support \\/CRC's adopuon of future nght of way, widths and access management standards for these routes, mclude R0\\1111 local land development regulauons and require dedicauon of RO\V and compl.tance with access management as part of new development approval. Recommendation 3.4 Proper Planning of Expanded Corridors Ens ure that the land use des1gna uons alo ng expanded corridors are properly planned to allow through traffic movement to occur as opposed to s1mply providing access to new developments. Supporting Recommendation Landscapes Chapter 3: Recommendation 2.1 Activity Center Uses , \ Comprehensive Plan For \\/as h tenaw County Recommendation 4.2 Density Limitations on Rural Roads Based on the classification system, encourage local u01ts of governments to refine land use plans and local development regulat10ns to lirmt the densiry of development along these roads, locate rural subdiv1s10n access pomts to rru111rruze conflicts and require pavmg where needed OBTECTIVES Maxin1ize limited funding to make design-sensitive impro vements on deficient bridges. Recommendation 5.1 Context Sensitive Design for Rural Bridges Support the \X'CRC in preparing context sensitive designs for rural road bn dge rehabilitation that meets the needs of safe travel while mainta111111g rural character and histonc value. Recommendation 5.2 Funds for Rural Character Preservation Encourage local governments to plan for the fundmg needed to enhance the design and archttectural features needed to presen·e the rural character and h1stonc value of our rural bndgcs. Page 10-19 �Recommendation 5.3 Bridge Maintenance Identify funding to mamrain and rehabilitate bridges to reduce the total cost for repacement. Recommendation 7 .3 Scenic Vista Identification \Vork with local governments and residents to identify scenic vistas and local, county, and state funds to acquire sce111c vista properties and easements. Supporting Recommendations Historic Preservation Chapter 9: Recommendation 2.3 Hislorical!y Sig11ijica11/ Bridges Recommendation 2.4 &,ral Roads G11ideli11es OBTECTIVE6 OBTECTIVEB Expand the County's transit system to reduce auto dependency and meet the needs of the County 's residents. Recommendation 8.1 Regional Transit Consortium Expand the use of transit by forrning a consortium with Livi ngston and other reg10nal units of government to help fund expanded transit service. Ensure public road connectivity for future and existing roadways to provide Recommendation 8.2 an efficient and safe road network for the residents and visitors throughout Transit Consortium for Senior Population Wa shtenaw County. Encourage suburban areas and villages to consider forrni ng a transit consortium to fu nd service for a growing older population to provide transit to life line and leisure Recommendation 6.1 destinations. Public Interconnected Roadway Network Assist the \VC RC and local units of government in developing a plan for public interconnected roadway network that matches with future land use patterns. Recommendation 8.3 Transit Services Funding Support efforts to identify a dedicated source of funds for transit services. OBTECTIVE7 Recommendation 8.4 Transit Frequency for Disabled and Low-Income Increase frequencies m urban areas to provide reliable transportation for disabled and lower income residents to access job op portunities. Maintain the conditions of certain roads having unus ual or outstanding natural beauty. Recommendation 7.1 Designation of Natural Beauty Roads Encourage local units of governments to work with the WCRC to des ignate additional atural Beauty roads. Recommendation 7.2 Residential Design Standards Encourage local governments to adopt roadside residential des ign standards including can opy tree preservation, residential building setbacks and road access lirrutations. Page 10-20 Recommendation 8.5 Airport Shuttle Service Identify options for providing shuttle service to the airport for County residents and econormc development benefits. Recommendation 8.6 Congestion Relief through Rail Continue to promote the Ann .\rbor to Detroit feas 1b1lity study and 111it1a te a study to assess commuter rail along the .\nn Arbor/ Tuscola / Saginaw Bay rail line to re lieve congestion on US-23. A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �OBTECTIVE9 Become the state's leading exa mple of implementing pedes trian, bicy cle and trails system s to reduce automobile dependency, connecting residential to educational, work and leis ure opportunities. Recommendation 9.1 Non-Motorized Transportation Plan Coordinate with \V.\ T~ to prepare a counrv-w1de non-moto n zed plan to 1dent1fr existing sidewalk gap s, p nonbes for pedesrnan and bicycle access to ex1sn ng and future schools, and new sidewalks needed to connect neighborhoods to work, shopping, educa uo n, recreatio n and other neighborhoods. Recommendation 9.2 Infrastructure for Bicycle Travel Encourage \\ 'CRC to contmue to prov1<le SLX foot shoulders for b1cvcle travel where nght of way and road design permits and add1t1onal pavement will not affect scemc character. Recommendation 9.3 Development Regulation for Sidewalks Encourage local governments to adopt development regulauons requmng the developer to mstall sidewalks along access roads to all new subdiv1s10ns. Recommendation 9.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure Encourage local governments to provide sidewalk or trail connections to all new public faciliues (offices, libranes and parks) and between neighborhoods 111 addmon to b1crcle storage at all public fac1lit1es. Recommendation 9.5 County-wide Trail System Leverage the resources of the county, state and local go,·ernments to de,·elop a count\ wide trail system. _\ Comprehensive Plan For \\'a shtenaw County Page 10-2 1 �Chapter 11 Sewer and Water Services ~-\ Comprehensive Plan For Washtenaw County �I Washtenaw County \ \ Lyndon Township I' Dexter Township Webster Township Salem Township Northfield Township I '\ --- Sylvan Township ___ _ ___ _ Lima Township / Superior Township - Scio Township Ypsilanti City Sharon Township Freedom Township Lodi Township Pittsfield Township York Township Manchester Township Bridgewater Township Saline Township 1 1 Ypsilanti Township Augusta Township ,\ Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �Sewer and Water Services 11.1 Purpose Provision of sewer and water services has significant impacts on how our County develops and functions. The extension of services from cities has allowed suburban development in adjacent townships and the development of new systems has resulted in new growth areas throughout the County. Providing services in the future will require a coordinated approach among local governments, not only to avoid duplication and provide services 1n the most cost-effective and sustainable manner, but also to ensure that the location and density of new development is consistent with master plans across jurisdictional boundaries. Maintaining and improving our surface and groundwater quality can also be achieved through a coordinated approach in the areas of eliminating older septic systems and managing land uses near public water supplies. 11.2 Resident Comments Residents recognize the interconnection between the provision of services and development within the County, and have identified many challenges for the County to overcome in the next 20 years. The extension of services from cities has allowed suburban development in adjacent townships and the development of new systems has resulted in new growth areas throughout the county. Resident comments on issues and opportunities include: Highlights of Resident Comments from Regional Workshops For a complete list of resident comments see the Public Parucipat1on Support Document. • Sprawl and the loss of agricultural land as the result from the extension of sewer and water lines into rural areas. According to residents in the rural areas of the County, they do not want water and sewer because it causes development and growth pressures. • Utilities as a way to control sprawl. Many residents feel that sewer and water services should be increased 111 developed areas, rather than rural areas, wluch would assist with the preservation of agricultural land and open space. Sewer and Water Services Goal The following goal of the Sewer and Water Services Element is based on these resident comments and analysis of conditions and trends: GOAL: To plan and provide sewer and water systems that meet the needs of future residents and businesses while promoting growth management, land use and environmental goals of the comprehensive plan. • Maintenance and quality of utilities is deteriorating. According to residents, sewers are not up to the same government specifications and there 1s an overloading of the existing 111frastructure. Tlus is due to mounting pressure for more urban density and m1rumal commitment to address10g agmg and failing infrastructures, especially water. .-\ Comprehensive Plan For \Vashtenaw County Page 11 -3 �Chapter 11 ' 11.3 Condition and Trends Within Washtenaw County over 70 percent of households are currently served by municipal water and sewer services. The maps (Figures 11-1 and 11-2) at the end of this chapter identify existing and future sewer and water service areas. The major service providers in Washtenaw County for central water and sewer are the City of Ann Arbor and the Ypsilanti Community Utilities Authority (YCUA). Otl1er service providers and collaborative efforts are shown in Table 11-2. Current sources of water for public water systems include the Huron River, the Detroit River from the City of Detroit Water System and groundwater. Except for portions of Augusta Township and York Township there is adequate supply of acceptable groundwater in Washtenaw County to support most uses. OBTE CTIVE 1 Promo te compact de velopment p attern s, m inimize development impacts across jurisdictional borders and increase sys tem s efficiencies. Recommendation 1.1 lnflll Development Capacity Assist local units of government in identifying infill development opportunities and system capacity improvements needed to accommodate infill development. Recommendation 1.2 Activity Center Capacity Within the past 15 years, water and sewer services have been developed in the more rural areas of Washtenaw County to address specific needs either to support new development or address longstanding environmental and public health issues. Assist local units of government in identifymg new activity centers and developing plans to provide water and sewer services to these areas. The trends affecting water and sewer services in Washenaw County can be categorized into two areas; planning for new development and protecting public health and the environment. Recommendation 1.3 Regional Sy stems Encourage the development of regional systems that are consistent with and promote the plan's goals, objectives and policies . 11.4 Planning for New Development .System Expansions for New Development There are some instances where local master plans show densities that will require central water and sewer services, but these master plans do not include plans for providing these services. To ensure a coordinated approach to land use and services, these plans should be updated to have a program for services or to adjust land use densities to a level that can be accommodated without central services. Additionally, it is important for communities to proactively plan for those areas where higher densities should occur. In these areas, provision of central water and sewer services should be addressed. Recommendation 1.4 Urban Service District Capacity \Vork with local units of government to prepare urban service district plans identifying areas that will be served, the level of develop ment and capacity needed, the timing of service and cost/ revenue sharing arrangements. Recommendation 1.5 Community Sys tems Operation Encourage the proper operation and maintenance of commu111ty systems through mu111cipal control or through binding legal agreements, special assessment districts, or other permanent operation and maintenance arrangements. Page 11 -4 A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �Sewer and Water Services Intergovernmental Cooperation Several townships have been able to work cooperatively to create regional authorities to address common utility service needs. Often times this has crossed County boundaries such as the Portage - Baseline Lakes \'v'ater and Sewer Authority and the Multi-Lakes Water and Sewer Authority. These systems are examples of shared ownership and control. I Iowever, in some cases, lack of intergovernmental cooperation and struggles over future tax base has created situations where duplication of services can occur. Cities and villages that provide water and sewer services are reluctant to offer those services outside their jurisdictions without annexation of the property being served. This issue is leading some townships to construct water and sewer services adjacent to existing infrastructure. Some communities are negotiating Act 425 agreements which allow for sharing of tax revenues. These agreements offer one method for central water and sewer systems to be extended across political boundaries and reduce duplication of services. Recommendation 1.6 Public Facilities Ordinan ces Encourage local units of government to adopt Adequate Provision of Public faciline s Ordmances ro ensure that services are available pnor to new development appro val, consistent with local master plans and urban service district plans. Recommendation 1. 7 County Financing Support Offer the County's fuU faith and credit ftnancmg for system expansion and new systems that are consistent with and promote the plan's goals, objectives and recommendanons. Small Community Systems Because of potential liability, such as for long term system operation or potential lawsuits related to high density developments in rural areas, most communities were reluctant to approve systems built for private developments. For many years, The Department of Environmental Quality interpreted state law to require that local communities approve and be liable for all public sewer systems that were constructed within their jurisdiction. Recently, that rule was challenged in court and it was determined that private developers could build their own wastewater collection and treatment systems without local unit approval and involvement. \'(!h.i.le local governments still control land use densities and locations through their master plans and zoning ordinances, this change in small community system approvals process could add to the pressure for development in rural areas. 1995 Potential Effects of Uncontrolled Small Community Wastewater Systems Manufactured Home Community in Salem Township Source: Washtenaw County Department of Planning and Envlfonment A Comprehensive Plan For \Vashtenaw County Page 11 -5 �Chapter 11 T he effect of this change in interpretation may lead to dispersed development patterns. To address this issue, communities require better tools for the regulation of land uses, such as adopting urban service districts showing where higher density growth is permitted and prohibited. 11.5 Protecting Public Health and the Environment Pollutant Loading to Surface Waters The Huron River watershed dominates much of Washtenaw County and is the receiving stream for several wastewater discharges. River systems are an acceptable discharge medium for properly treated wastewater but for the Huron River, downstream lakes and impoundments create a concern for accumulation of the nutrient phosphorus which aggravates weed and algae growth in lakes. State and Federal environmental agencies have placed a Total Maximum D aily Load (fMD L) on phosphorus in the Huron River. This requires that point sources of phosphorus, such as municipal wastewater discharges, are treated to a very high degree. Existing municipal treatment plan ts are required to con tinually improve their treatment processes. New sources of phosphorus, in terms of new discharges to the Huron River, are highly discouraged. If a new discharge is allowed it will be required to provide a very high degree of treatment, of which, long term effectiveness has not been demonstrated. This has led to consideration of looking at other watersheds for discharge of wastewater. Sylvan Township recently completed a wastewater collection system that transports sewage to Leoni Township 111 Jackson County with ultimate discharge to the Grand River watershed. In tl1e past the Ypsilanti Community Utilities Authority began pumping their effluent to the Rouge River watershed rather than the Huron River. There will be pressure for this trend to continue in the future to accommodate development needs in certain areas of the County. OBTECTIVE2 Ensure the protection of public health and environment through good stewardship in the provision of water and sewer services. Recommendation 2.1 Reduce Pollutant Loading Encourage all centralized sewage systems to coordinate efforts to address reducing critical pollutant loading to the County's rivers and streams. Recommendation 2.2 Infiltration and Inflo w Encourage local units of government to aggressively inspect new construction for compliance with plumbing code and sewer ordinance requuements and assist with identifying possible financing options to eliminate roof and foundauon drain connections. Recommendation 2.3 Gr0tmdwater Protection Ensure the protect10n of groundwater resources by encouragmg proper planning and land use 111 groundwater recharge protecuon zones. Groundwater Supply Most of Washtenaw County residents have access to good quality and quantity of groundwater. This is due to the glacial geology of the area. An exception is a portion of Augusta and York Townships which have both quantity and quality issues with groundwater supplies. This problem arises from the fact that the area is part of an old lake bed with lake plain sediments requiring reliance on limestone formations for water supplies. Failure to protect groundwater supplies and ultimate contamination can lead to the need for expansion of central water supply systems. Previous examples of this would be leaking underground storage tanks or industrial discharges to the ground that adversely affect groundwater quality. Page 11 -6 A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �,,. :: Sewer and Water Services Wellhead protection plans which create local regulations for control of land use and prevention of pollution and groundwater contamination are necessary to protect major sources of groundwater. As an additional effort to protect groundwater supplies the \Vashtenaw County Board of Comrruss1oners approved new well regulations which went into affect in March 2004. These regulations will further protect groundwater by assunng proper abandonment of old wells and requiring perrmts for all new wells, even non potable wells. Recommendation 2.4 Well Regulation Build upon the new well regulation and address issues related to groundwater conram1nation, extraction (includmg rrurung operations) and abandoned wells. In addition, as new central water supply systems are built, the need for specific treatment, such as iron removal, softerung or fluoridation should be considered to assure that costs to individual homeowners are minimized. Infiltration and Inflow Sanitary sewer systems are not designed to handle extraneous flows generated from rainfall events or high water tables. However in some cases, due to deteriorating sewer conditions or the improper connection of household roof and foundation drains, rainwater and groundwater can find its way to a sanitary sewer. The resulting high flows can lead to surcharge of the sewer causing backups in to basements and in some cases overflows to surface waters. This is more of a problem in established urban areas with older sanitary sewer systems. Some areas in the City of Ann Arbor have a severe basement flooding problem during high rainfall events. Over the years, lax plumbing inspections or illegal connections have resulted in roof drains and foundation drains being connected to sarutary sewers. This problem is difficult to address in a comprehensive manner because methods of public financing limit the capability to fund for improvements on individual lots to disconnect roof and foundation drains. Lakeside Residential Areas There are many lakeside residential areas in \'\'ashtenaw County that have historically featured clusters of small houses and cottages at higher residential densities than their immediately surrounding areas. In years past, the majority of these residences were used for seasonal and weekend recreational uses. With the growth of population and jobs, smaller lakes in rural areas are now within commutable distances and attract year round residences. Larger homes and year round living has resulted in failure of on-site sewage systems causing emrironmental damage to the water quality of the lakes. This creates public health concerns due to close proximity of water wells to sources of on-site pollution . .-\ Comprehensive Plan For \X'ashtenaw County Page 11 -7 �Chapter 11 To address these problems, some townships have collaborated to build sewer systems around densely populated lake areas part1cularly 111 the northwest portion of Washtenaw County 10 orthfi.eld, \\:'ebster, Dexter and Lyndon Townslups. Additionally, a new system is planned for other lake areas 111 Sylvan and Lyndon Townships. Problems with on-site sewage disposal systems have also been documented around lake communmes 1n Manchester and Freedom Townships. Failing On-Site Systems Septic systems are designed to rrurumize nutrients and human pathogens that may enter into our groundwater, wells and surface waters. While the current standards for the design and location of these systems provide a high degree of protection, many areas of the County are experiencing system failures due to small lot sizes, poor soils and the age of on-site disposal systems. On January 1, 2000, Washtenaw County initiated a regulation under the Health Code to require inspections of on-site sewage and water systems at the time of sale of property or transfer of ownership. This "Time of Sale" inspection program has created a better understanding of problems with on-site systems. Approximately 15 to 20 percent of systems that have been inspected have demonstrated deficiencies of one sort or another. The information generated from this program will be useful for future planning for centralized water and sewer systems. • 18° o of the sepac systems mspected were failing or madequate. • One out of every 18 sepac systems (5 .5%) had an illicit discharge. • 15°'0 of the wells mspected did not have adequate protection aga1nst conrammants. • One out of every 7 wells tested (14%) showed cherrucal or bacterial contammatlon. Table 11 -1: Time of Sale Inspection Statistics • City of \nn :\rbor (also provides service to _-\nn Arbor, Superior, Sc10 and Pittsfield Townships) • YpsilantJ Commu111ty Utilities Authority (also provides service to 1\ugusta, Pittsfielc and Supenor Townships, and western Wayne County commu111t1es) • City of l\[ilan (also provides sewer services to York Township for the I lamlet of :\looreville) • City of Saline • City of Chelsea • \ 'illage of Dexter • \'illage of l\fanchester • Salem Township • 1\Jorthfield Township • Svlvan Township \'v'ater and Sewer _-\uthonty (mcludes Sylvan, Lvndon and Lima Townships) • ;\Iulti-Lakes \'v'ater and Sewer .\uthor1ty (mcludes Dexter and Lyndon Townsh:ps, and parts of Livmgsron County) • Portage / Baseline Lake \Varer and Sewer A.uthonty (includes Dexter and \X'ebster Townships and parts of L1v111gston County) • ( )ther Small Service Providers Table 11 -2: Service Providers including Collaborative Efforts Page 11 -8 A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �Sewer and Water Services Figure 11-1 : Sewered Areas - Current & Future Sewered Areas Current & Future - Current Potential (Per LUG Master Plans) - Projected (Per Planned ,_______,_ Construction I Source: Washtenaw Count) Department of l'lannmg anJ l~nnronmcnt :\ Comprehensive Plan For \'\'ashrenaw County Page 11 -9 l �Chapter 11 Figure 11-2: Municipal Water Service - Current & Future Municipal Water Service Current & Future - Current - Planned Construction Projected Service ...___.:............._ Areas I Source: \Vashu:na,, Count\ Department of Planning ; nJ l:.n,·1ronm(.'nt ~ A -- ~...___ ' \ r'<....:.__+--+lf--U - ____ji-H--- r Page 11 -10 . .A Sense of Place, .A Sustainable Future �Sewer and Water Services 11.6 Summary GOAL To plan and provide sewer and water systems that meet the needs of future residents and businesses while promoting growth management, land use and environmental goals of the comprehensive plan. OBTECTIVE 1 Prom o te compact development p attern s, m inimize de velopment impacts across jurisdictional borders and increase sys tem s efficiencies. Recommendation 1.1 Infill Development Capacity Assist local units of government 111 identifying infill development opportunities and system capacity improvements needed to accommodate infill development. Recommendation 1.2 Activity Center Capacity ,-\ssist local units of government in identifying new activity centers and developing plans to provide water and sewer services to these areas. Recommendation 1.3 Regional Sy stems Encourage the development of regional systems that are consistent with and promote the plan's goals, objectives and policies. Recommendation 1.4 Urban Service District Capacity \Xlork with local units of government to prepare urban service district plans identifying areas that will be served, the level of development and capacity needed, the timing of service and cost/ revenue sharing arrangements. Recommendation 1.5 Community Systems Operation Encourage the proper operation and maintenance of communtty systems through municipal control or through binding legal agreements, special assessment districts, or other permanent operation and maintenance arrangements. Recommendation 1.6 Public Facilities Ordinances Encourage local units of government to adopt .-\dequate Provision of Public Facilities Ordinances to ensure that services are available prior to new development approval, consistent with local master plans and urban service district plans. A Comprehensive Plan For \Vashtenaw County Recommendation 1. 7 County Financing Support Offer the County's full faith and credit financing for system expansion and new systems that are consistent with and promote the plan's goals, objectives and recommendations. OBTECTIVE2 Ensure the protection of public health and environment throug h g ood s tewardship in the provision of water and s ewer s ervices. Recommendation 2.1 Reduce Pollutant Loading Encourage all centralized sewage systems to coordinate efforts to address reducing critical pollutant loading to the County's rivers and streams. Recommendation 2.2 Infiltration and Inflo w Encourage local units of government to aggressively inspect new construction for compliance with plumbing code and sewer ordinance requirements and assist with identifying possible financing options to eliminate roof and foundation drain connections. Recommendation 2.3 Groundwater Protection Ensure the protection of groundwater resources by encouraging proper planning and land use in groundwater recharge protection zones. Recommendation 2.4 Well Regulation Build upon the new well regulation and address issues related to groundwater contamination, extraction (including mining operations) and abandoned wells. Page 11-11 �Chapter 12 Solid Waste _-\ Comprehensive Plan For Washtenaw County �Washtenaw County \ I Lyndon Township Dexter Township I Webster Township 1 Salem Township Northfield Township ~-----,, I \ Barton HJlh. Village ------- Sylvan Township Lima Township Ann Arbor ,,. To~nship_ Superior Township Scio Township -- Ypsilanti City Sharon Township Freedom Township Lodi Township Pittsfield 1 Township! York Township Manchester Township Bridgewater Township Saline Township Ypsilanti Township Augusta Township A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �~ --- - -=-:i Solid Waste · 12.1 Purpose Management of solid waste in a sustainable manner is not only essential for the protection of the environment, but also critical to ensure that future generations ha\'e adequate disposal facilities and are not overburdened with the costs of solid waste management. 12.2 Resident Comments \'v'ashtenaw County citizens partiapate at rates higher than the state and national averages in waste reduction, recycling and compost1.ng. However, residents voiced concern for the following: Highlights of Resident Comments From Regional Workshops For a complete list of resident comments see the Public Participation Support Document. • Lack of regional and local facilities for recycling as well as options for the disposal or recovery of toxic materials and consumer products. • The importation of waste from other states and Canada has made Michigan the second largest importer of waste in the nation which further jeopardizes our disposal capacity. • Disconnected solid waste collection services for county residents. Among the 28 local uruts of government, only a few partner for solid waste and recycling services. Solid waste and recycling services available to residents and the costs for these services vary widely across the County. .·\ Comprehensive Plan For \'\'ashtenaw Count\' Solid Waste Goal The following goal of the Solid Waste Element is based on these resident comments and analysis of conditions and trends: GOAL: To manage solid waste in a sustainable fashion to ensure that current and future generations have adequate disposal facilities , that future generations are not overburdened with the cost of solid waste management and to protect the environment . Page 12-3 �- =Chapter 12 12.3 Condition & Trends The management of solid waste in \v'ashtenaw County consists of a network of collection, transfer, process111g and disposal facilities to support enhanced waste reduction, recycling, composting and sanitary landfill services. The Washtenaw County Board of Public Works 1s the locally designated state solid waste planning agency for the County. This agency is responsible for the development of an enforceable county-wide solid waste management plan that is to be updated every five years and is responsible to ensure disposal capacity exists for any 10-year period. It is also responsible for handling the siting of new or the expansion of regulated solid waste facilities and enforcement of solid waste activities that are non-compliant with the plan. Local units of government set the policy and requirements for local collection and recycling services. Landfill Management and Collection Services Arbor Hills Landfill is the only active landfill in the County and is located in Salem Township. As of January 2004, this landfill had 15.44 years of capacity remairung. In June of 1992, Washtenaw County entered into a 23-year contract with the Arbor Hills Landfill. The contract guarantees landfill capacity (air space) for \~'ashtenaw County for the period of the contract and requires the operator to pay the County three percent of its gate revenues to support County recycling programs. The contract stipulates disposal limits for the landfill and serves as a means to limit the amount of out-of-state and Canadian waste entering the landfill. Arbor Hills Landfill can not accept more than 17.5 million cubic gate yards of solid waste from all sources in any consecutive five year period and not more than 4.5 million cubic gate yards from all sources in any one calendar year. Additionally, the landfill shall not receive more than 6.25 million cubic gate yards from out-of-state sources 111 any consecutive five year period. In 2003, Washtenaw County received roughly seven percent of all waste disposed in Michigan and 8.5 percent of all Canadian waste disposed of in Michigan. While the County currently has landfill capacity through 2020, it is imperative to plan for adequate disposal capacity beyond 2020. OBTECTIVE1 E ns ure ad e qua te disposal sys tems and landfill cap acity at a cos t that will not overburden future g enerations. Recommendation 1.1 Land.ill Capa city Plan Create a SO-year landfill capacity plan to ensure that \'{/ashtenaw County will not be overreliant on contracts with other land fills for future waste disposal and to explore alternauve landfill methods. Recommendation 1.2 Legislation for Out-of-State Waste Take an acuve role 111 the development of state and federal legislation that auns to limit the amount and type of out-of-state waste accepted 111 ;\ficlugan and \'{/ashtenaw County landfills. Recommedation 1.3 Reevaluate Local Collection Services Prepare a county-wide assessment of local collecuon systems and costs and encourage systems that provide comprehensive collect10n services at the lowest cost. Local Collection Services The type and scope of solid waste services available to residents depends upon the local community in which they reside (Table 12-1). The services offered to residents fall within, or are a combination of, one of three management systems: (1) Single Hauler, (2) Preferred Hauler or (3) Subscription-based. • In a Single Hauler system, the local unit of government assumes the responsibility of delivering all solid waste services to its residents. The costs for services under this type of system are Page 12-4 Arbor Hills Landfill, Salem Township A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �Solid Waste covered by a dedicated funding source such as a millage or special assessment. Currently, there are nine communities with a Single Hauler system and within these communities trash, recycling, yard waste and bulk item services are offered. Limited commercial and multi-family residential services are available. • Three communities provide a Preferred I Iauler option to its residents. In a Preferred Hauler system, the local unit of government establishes a service agreement with a private sector contractor to deliver services within the community. This option is voluntary for residents; and they can choose the established services agreement with preferred hauler or arrange for services by another provider. Usually, the cost of services provided by the preferred hauler is lower tl1an other options available. The services provided include trash, recycling, yard waste and bulk item collection. (It is unportant to note that Superior Township does not allow any other hauler to serve residents). • The remairung 16 local units of government are referred to as a subscnption-based service community where residents secure their own needed solid waste services. All but three subscription-based communities provide monthly or daily drop-off recycling service to their residents. Municipal Single Hauler • Commercial • Residential 63% 37% Waste Diversion Rates • United States • Great Lake States • Michigan 30% 26% • Washtenaw Co un ty • \nn ,\rbor City 32% 40% 20% Waste Generation Rates \veragc I lousehold Rares 0bs / pcrson / day) • National 4.4 • Washtenaw Co un ty 3.07 Average Commercial Rate 0bs / employee / day) • Washtenaw Co unty 8.99 Michigan Waste Disposal Figures 62,615,429 cubic yards wtth • Michigan • Canada • Other states Subscription-Based Communities 75% 15% 10% Washte naw Coun ty Was te Disposal Fig ures 3,826,618 cubic yards wtth City of ,\nn ,\rbor Ctty of Chelsea (WWR,\ i\lember) Salem ' fownship Northfield Township Webster ·1,,wnsh1p City of Sahnc Seto Township City of Ypsilanti Dexter Township (\\ 'WR.\ i\lember) City of Milan Lyndon ' fownshtp (\VWR.\ i\lcmber) \'illagc of Barton I !ills Sylvan Township (\VWR.\ :--.!ember) \ ' illagc of lanchester (\VWR.\ Lima Township (\X '\\'R.\ i\lcmbcr) Member) l ,odt Township (i\.lonthlv recycling services) \ ' ill age of Dexter hccdom Township (Rccyclmg Drop-off Service) Yp,alantt Township Sharon Township (Recycling Drop-off Servtee) Manchester lc>wnship (\V\X'R.\ i\.lcmbcr) Pre fe rre d Single H auler Bridgewater Township (\V\\ 'll.\ :\!ember) \nn \rbor ' l<,wnship Saline ' li,wnsh tp (l\lonrhly recycling servtees) Supenor Township York Township (i\lonrhly recycling services) l'm,fidd Township Waste Generation Composition • Wayne County • Canada • Oakland C:ounry • Washte naw Coun ty The Washtenaw Consortium of Solid Waste Managment (WCCSWM) meeting at the Leslie Science Center to learn about sustainable building practices. • Macomb Count) • I .1vingsron, Ccncsec and Monroe Counties 35% 21 % 18% 12% 11 % 3% Table 12-2: Statistics & Highlights, 2003 Source: Washtenaw County Department of Planning and Environment \ugusra Township (l\lonthly recvcling services) Table 12-1 : Local Collection Services by Type , 2004 Source Washtenaw County Department of Planning and Env,ronment . \ Comprehensive Plan For \X'ashtcnaw County Page 12-5 �·chapter 12 l Improvements to the current system of solid waste collection could result m substantial benefits to residents and the environment. I JaV1ng several haulers serV1ng the same area results m impacts to neighborhoods (additional truck traffic), to roads (particularly truck traffic on weight restricted gravel roads), and resident cost of service. A review of rates under the preferred hauler system as compared to a subscription-based service shows rates are 25 percent to 40 percent lower under the preferred system with more services prO\rided such as curbside recycling, yard waste and white good collection. 12.4 Waste Reduction and Recycling \V-aste reduction, reuse and recycling practices and programs have the greatest potential to reduce the amount of waste bemg disposed 111 our landfills as well as provide for the protection of natural resources. The residential recycling rate in \'\'ashtenaw County is higher than state, regional and national averages, but commercial and multi-family recycling is lacking. Dedicated funding sources are needed to expand waste reduction, reuse and recycling programs to reduce the amount of waste going to our landfill. As new consumer products are introduced to the market such as computers, cell phones, home toxics and pharmaceuticals, environmental protection becomes a concern and we must find ways to recover these products and keep them from bemg disposed of in our landfills. OBTECTIVE2 Protect our environmental and public health through aggressive waste diversion and recycling programs. Recommendation 2.1 Waste Diversion Achieve the followmg countyw1de solid waste diversion targets : :ro; ~rs ion Tani>-ts 2010 2a10 Source led ucti on !:% 10% 1E% Rec;,d ing'Compostin! 3l% of:il(, ~'!(, Waste Divers10n and Recvcling The Washtenaw County waste diversion rate (32%) exceeds the national average (30%), the Great Lakes States average (26° o) and the l\1ichigan average (20%) (fable 12-2). However, mcentives and funding for waste divers10n activities such as community drop-off stations, special community cleanup days and curbside recycling programs are declining: • Excess landfill capacity developed in the region over the last 15 years has caused disposal pnces to fall resulting in decreased incentives for waste reduction and recycling activities. • The low landfill prices make cost of disposal less than the cost to process recyclables. The Washtenaw County Solid Waste Coordinator collected 300 tons of computers as part of a state grant • Low cost of glass, alumiruum, paper and other raw materials compared to recycled materials. • Inconsistent commodity prices that makes investment into recycling infrastructure costly. • The declining disposal costs have resulted in funding cuts to County recycling programs. Page 12-6 A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �Solid Waste~ .1 Through a contract between Arbor Hills Landfill and Washtenaw County, the County has provided communities with $4 million for recycling and waste reduction programs. Unfortunately, due to lower prices of disposal the amount collected by the County from the landfill has declined 45 percent over the last five years causmg the County to end its revenue sharing program in 2004. The end of the revenue sharing program has resulted in orthfield Township cutting 1ts recycling drop-off program and it is a concern that others will follow. Regional Recycling Services Eight western communities 1n the County formed the \X'estern \X'ashtenaw Recycling .Authority (\X'WR.A) to provide recycling services to its predominately rural residents. The \XT\'{!R.A assesses its residents for 24-hour unmanned recycling drop-off stations and/ or curbside recycling services. Curbside recycling service is offered to the Village of Chelsea and Village of Manchester residents and these residents are assessed at a higher rate than the other member communities. Washtenaw County D rop-off Station The Washtenaw County Drop-off Station provides all County residents with disposal and recycling opportunities for items not typically collected by a waste hauling service or typical community dropoff station. Electronics, computers, white goods, car batteries, clothing, books, antifreeze, propane tanks and fluorescent lighting are items that residents may drop off for recovery. Traditional recycling of containers, cardboard and paper is also available. The facility, operated by Recycle .Ann Arbor, is funded through use fees and a contract between Washtenaw County, the City of Ann Arbor and Pittsfield Township. Recommendation 2.2 Regional Solid Waste M anagement Commence a Regional Soli<l \Vaste ~fanagement Project to identify long-term funding and management soluttons to marntain and enhance waste reduction, recycling and solid waste services and programs. Recommendation 2.3 Recycling Drop-Off Facilities Locate convenient and accessible recycling drop -off fac1liues 111 rural and suburban areas. Recommendation 2.4 Funding for County Drop-Off Center Provide fundmg for the contJnued operation of the Washtenaw Counry Drop-off Statton that offers all Countv res1denrs with comp rehensive recyclrng opporrumttes and the recycling of items not typ1callv recovered by a waste hauling service or a rural recycling drop -off sites. Washtenaw County Consortium of Solid \X'aste Management (WCCSWI\f) The \X/CCS\VM was established in 1991 to foster communication and collaboration between local governments and public agencies on solid waste and recycling issues. Membership is voluntary and limited to local units of government and public agencies. The consortium has developed educational programs and provided financial support to projects. Some of their most successful projects include the Sharp's Collection Program (1st in Southeast l\1ich.igan), a County computer recycling collection event, an illegal dumping ordinance, sponsorship of the \X'aste Knot Awards Ceremony and home composting assistance. , \ Comprehensive Plan For \v'ashtenaw County A Recycle Ann Arbor truck returns loaded with recyclables for separation at the Ann Arbor Materials Recovery Facility Page 11-7 �Waste Knot Program The Waste Knot Program recognizes businesses, institutions, government agencies and non-profit organizations that show leadership in waste reduction and recycling. The program also provides technical and educational assistance to organizations. Its technical assistance focuses on helping with the development, design and implementation of waste reduction and recycling programs. Its educational assistance aims to keep businesses informed on recycling best management practices through the "Staying in the Loop Newsletter", workshops and website updates. The commercial/industrial sector in the County generates 63 percent of the total waste stream in the county. The continuation and expansion of a county-wide commercial recycling program, referred to as Waste Knot Program, will help improve the lack of recycling in the commercial/industrial sector of Washtenaw County. The program currently has 145 partners. Home Toxics Reduction Program The Home Toxics Reduction Program provides the residents of Washtenaw County with a disposal option for flammable, poisonous, toxic and corrosive materials. The program seeks to address the environmental and public health effects resulting from improper handling and disposal of home toxics. It is committed to reducing the use of home toxics and keeping citizens informed about the choices and responsibilities associated with purchasing, handling and disposing of toxic substances. The program over the last 10 years has collected 650,000 pounds of household toxics. Page 12-8 ,i Recommendation 2.5 Waste R ecovery Program s Expand current recovery programs for computers, electronics and cell phones and expand to include unused pharmaceuticals and other new consumer products that pose nsks to the environmental and public health. Recommendation 2.6 Was te Knot Program Increase the number of partners in the Waste Knot Program to 200 in 2005, 250 in 2010 and 500 in 2020. Recommendation 2. 7 Home Toxics Reduction Prog ram Expand the Home Toxics Reduction Program to reduce the toxicity of the waste disposed in our landfilJ and to limit potential health risks from improper handling, storage and disposal of household toxics. Recommendation 2.8 Hou selwld Response Procedure Develop a Household l\1ercury Spill Response procedure to ensure residents take the proper steps to avoid the risks of mercury exposure when a spill occurs. Recommendation 2.9 Rural Community Clean- Up D ays Provide assistance for rural community cleanup days that emphasize reuse and recycling along with options for disposal. A regional Home Toxics Reduction Program collection event held at Pioneer High School Recommendation 2.10 Policies to Ban Unlawful Waste Ac tivities Discourage on-site disposal, illegal dumping and the burnrng of trash by assisting local communities in adopting progressive policies and ordinances banrung such activities. A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �Recycling Demonstration Project Commercial/Multifamily Recycling Demonstration Proiect seeks to address the lack of recycling opportunities available within the business community and multi-family residential communities such as apartment complexes, condominiums and manufactured housing developments. The target for the project is a concentrated area of businesses and multi-family complexes where a collective integrated solid waste management or recycling system offers the most benefits for the lowest cost. Data Collection Utilizing information from waste generat:J.on studies, survey data, local and national averages and other solid waste research, Washtenaw County has been able to derive waste diversion and generation data and statistics for the County. These data and statistics are a critical part of the Solid \'\'aste Management System to help establish baselines to track program and system improvements and to set system goals. While the data is sound and based on quality information, it represents a snap shot in time not a process over time. The ability to collect and track solid waste information and to monitor performance of programs collectively has proven to be an elusive and difficult task. Ed ucation Current education and media efforts include the "Your \'('orld" article senes in the Ann , \rbor ews, Issues of the Environment Radio Show, Computer Recycling Grant and the Washtenaw County Consortium of Solid Waste Management. Yard Waste It is illegal to dispose of yard waste in landfills in the State of I\.fichigan. Because of this law, many local units of government are challenged to find ways to maintain, expand or de;,clop yard waste programs that are facing escalating collection and processing costs. A Comprehensive Plan For \v'ashtenaw County Recommendation 2.11 Commercial and Multi-Family Recycling Implement a comprehensive commercial / multi-family recycling program. Recommendation 2.12 Yard Waste Encourage local units of government ro mam tain, expand and create yard waste programs by ass1st1ng with the development of funding and operational strategics that address rismg collection and processmg costs. Educate the public on home compostmg opt10ns. Recommendation 2.13 Educate County On Solid Waste Benefits Continue ro inform and educate \v'ashtenaw County residents, businesses and dec1s1on-makers on the environmental, economic and social benefits of solid waste and recyclmg issues, 1rut1at1ves, special events and services. Recommendation 2.14 Solid Waste System Data Develop a method to collect and report solid waste system data to gauge progress and develop additional programs. Recommendation 2.15 Solid Waste Online Technical Assistance Create online techmcal assistance tools to assist \\'aste Knot partners with the design and performance monitoring of a waste reduction and recycling program. Page 12-9 �Chanter 12 1 12.5 Summary GOAL To manage solid waste in a sustainable fashion to ensure that current and future generations have adequate disposal facilities, that future generations are not overburdened with the cost of solid waste management and to protect the environment. Recommendation 2.2 OBTECTIVE 1 Ensure adequate disposal systens and landfill cap acity ac a cos t that will not Regional Solid Waste Management Commence a Regional Solid \'\'aste l\lanagement Proiect to 1dennfy long term funding overburden future g enera tions. Recommendation 1.1 Landfill Capa city Plan Create a SO-year landfill capacity plan to ensure that Washtenaw County will not be over-rel.tant on contracts with other landfills for future waste disposal and to explore alternative landfill methods. and management solutions to marntam and enhance waste reducuon, recycling and solid waste services and programs. Recommendation 2.3 Recycling Drop-Off Facilities Locate convemenr and accessible recycling drop -off fac1lines 111 rural and suburban areas. Recommendation 1.2 Legislation for Out-of-State Waste Take an active role 111 the development of state and federal legislat10n that atms to linut the amount and type of out-of-state waste accepted 111 l\!1Ch1gan and \Vashtenaw County landfills. Recommendation 2.4 Funding for County Drop-Off Center Provide funding for the continued operanon of the \"'\1ashtenaw County Drop-off Stanon that offers all County .residents with comprehensive recycl.tng opportunmes. The facility accepts items not typically recovered by a waste haul.tng service or a rural Recommedation 1.3 recycling drop-off site such as electrorucs, computers, wlute goods, car battenes, clothReevaluate Local Collection Services 111g, books, antifreeze, propane tanks and fluorescent lighung are items that residents Prepare a county-wide assessment of local collecnon systems and costs and encour- may drop off for recovery. Tradinonal recycling of contarners, cardboard and paper 1s age systems that provide comprehensive collection services at the lowest cost. also available. Recommendation 2.5 OBTECTIVE2 Waste Recovery Programs Protect our environmental and public health through aggressive wa ste diver- Expand current recovery programs for computers, electromcs and cell phones and sion and recy cling programs. expand to 111clude unused pharmaceuncals and other new consumer products that pose Recommendation 2.1 Waste Diversion Achieve the follow111g county-wide solid waste d1vers10n targets : Source Reducnon and Recycling/ Composnng. D1vcrs1on Targets Source Rc<luctton Rccycling / Compost111g Page 12-10 2!ill5 2lll!! 5° o '8" o I 011 o 45" o 2!l.2Q 15° o 50° o nsks to the environmental and public health. Recommendation 2.6 Waste Knot Program Increase the number of partners 111 the Waste Knot Program to 200 111 2005, 250 111 2010 and 500 111 2020 Recommendation 2.7 Home Toxics Reduction Program Expand the I lome Toxics Reduct10n Program to reduce the tox1c1ty of the waste disposed m our landfill and to l.tm1t potennal health nsks from improper handling, storage and disposal of household toxics. ;\ Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �Solid Waste Recommendation 2.8 Household Response Procedure Develop a Household l\Iercury Spill Response procedure to ensure residents take the proper steps to avoid the risks of mercury exposure when a spill occurs. Recommendation 2.9 Rural Community Clean-Up Days Provide assistance for rural community clean-up days that emphasize reuse and recycling along with options for disposal. Recommendation 2.10 Policies to Ban Unlawful Waste Activities Discourage o n-site disposal, illegal dumprng and the burning of trash by assisting local communities to adopt progressive policies and ordinances banning such activities. Recommendation 2.11 Commerical and Multi-family Recycling Im plement the commercial/ multi-family recycling demonstration project. Recommendation 2.12 Yard Waste Assist local units of government with the development of fundi ng and operational strategies to address the costs of maintaining, expanding or developing yard waste programs. E ducate the public on home composting options. Recommendation 2.13 Educate County On Solid Waste Benefits Continue to inform and educate Washtenaw County residents, businesses and decision-makers on the environmental, economic and social benefits of solid waste and recycling issues, initiatives, special events and services. Recommendation 2.14 Solid Waste System Data Develop a method to collect and report solid waste system data. Recommendation 2.15 Solid Waste Online Technical Assistance Create online technical assistance tools to assist partners with the design and performance monitoring of a waste reduction and recycling program. A Comprehensive Plan For \Vashtenaw County Page 12-11 �Chapter 12 Figure 12-1: Washtenaw County Solid Waste Facilities \Vashtenaw County Solid Waste Faci lities Foc1lity Type kd ,elan:t'- .A. Clc~:I Laf"t Of A Ccn-icc!l:Fao:it) . . ReqcM"~ Croc-01"S nor 4,. llcl'lfi"", Rte;"C•no Croo--O~Stat.on • Ho.itel'IOICI Ma:arocus ',\ a,te Colea:cr Fac11rty T - vpe @ ,.'a!er a•, Reco,el) F"acllt)· Prcctss.ng FaCdlfy 0 Re-Use :eiite~ ~ - ra"si!rS!JtlOl'I 0 Comm un it y So li d Wa ste Servi ce s LJ '· ,rc,;.:: a S1r,g,eH au1er LJ ',', ·~R"-l,1emter CJ Cf?i!'Te-::1 H21u1er ~ Sutscr,ct1cn.a ne:1 Cc mmuf1rt es C:J •,',•J,•R•l,l !Mt:e-r N A -c ~1.•• : :.: - :, :• ... • , · r •-. 11 >.:I i -- :.• --,<.J-,,.,_ '·---:• =~:, :~-.• ::.,--1: ...... :~· :-, ::11•\ll- .,_. 'I.,, \11.t :, "', 4:: · tc· ;• ••1; •·• 1::a ;_1r:1 •t : I J D·: c::a: ••• 1·;,•.:·1: . , :r1;•:-c: • :,·r1 ::r t 1;; r111 ·: ••·;,.: au • • . , • ;,u ; ;c· :· r :1·:11 , a : : r 1 ·.,c ---..-,s·1;:r.c 1 · : - 1 J 1. :• ,.:.~, _, .. , · • , , 7 ;:, ::,.1.1., 1 ;~11 ~-:\~~:;:·• ).~"!Wt ·I "l'.¥1.c • °" Page 12-12 tu .•t,-:•t:1 H .1:• "'1:1 11·11 . : 1=9 '""10 A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �Chapter 13 Intergovernmental Cooperation .-\ Comprehensive Plan For Washtenaw County �Washtenaw County I \ Lyndon Township Dexter Township Salem Township Northfield Township Webster Township I \ \ I Barton HJII, VillaQe\ - -- -Sylvan Township Lima Township Scio Township Ann Arbor Township_ Superior Township - Ypsilanti City Sharon Township Freedom Township Lodi Township P ittsfie Id ; Township Ypsilanti Township l Manchester Township Bridgewater Township Saline Township York I Township 1 Augusta Township A Sense of Place, .A Sustainable Future �Intergovernmental Cooperation 13.1 Purpose Washtenaw County has 28 local units of government, 19 school districts, several utility providers and numerous County agencies. The ability to coordinate the decisions and actions of these actors, particularly as it relates to land use and development, is the most important and challenging aspect of implementing this comprehensive plan. Aligning our decisions and programs and coordinating our resources is the only way to maintain our sense of place and provide a sustainable future. 21l.3'.- 13.2 Resident Comments 11.4% The fourth most frequent comment received in the public participation process involved intergovern- ,_,,,,__ mental coordination: 11.3% -·- • Residents identified the need to increase regional cooperation on land use and development decisions. With insufficient coordination on land use planning and services, regional planning was identified as an approach to encourage dialogue across and between communities, especially when municipalities have conflicting interests. • Residents expressed the need for each municipality to retain their independence while collaborating with the entire county. Residents indicated that there needs to be more interaction with local government and the county for planning to be effective and that local governments, the county, and the state have to work together to address important land use issues. 9.7% 42% a"" "'"" Figure 13-1 : Reg ional Workshop Comments by Topic • There is a need to coordinate services such as schools, water, sewer, public safety, transportation, parks, and transit. These should be considered at the regional level with residents expressing the need for townships to consolidate shared services. Issues associated with the provision of services include the costs of services and who is responsible for the expense of the services. • Including other actors in the process of implementing the plan is important, especially the need to improve relations between the universities and business community, soliciting the help of community organizations and involving residents in implementing the plan. • It was identified that the County can play a role in facilitating workshops for township and village officials in community planning and access management, assisting rural areas with future planning to protect open space and improve social services for these areas, and providing assistance to local governments on how to craft legally defendable plans and zoning ordinances. A Comprehensive Plan For \'\!ashtenaw County Page 13-3 �Chapter 13 It is not surprising that the plan recommends 188 actions that require intergovernmental and intersectoral cooperauon. Th.ts section of the plan reiterates the unportance of workrng together to achieve our goals focusing on three unportant areas: • Promoung more formal regional planning and service delivery initiatives; • Coordinating resources through public/private partnerships; and • A heightened role of the County in facilitating planning and service delivery. 13.3 Promoting Formal Regional Initiatives Local governments have a long history of cooperation in providing services to residents. Examples of this 111clude contracting among governments for regional building services agencies, fire, sewer and water facilities, recycling authorities and district libraries. Urban cooperation agreements (425 Agreements) have been used to facilitate economic development and tax base sharing. In addition to these inter-local arrangements, local governments have 101ned in the Urban County and I IOME programs to receive federal funding for lower income residents and have participated with AATA 111 providing transit services. Over the past two years, numerous regional planrung efforts have been initiated. Informal relationships among local governments have resulted in the development of regional plans for the Manchester, Chelsea, l\1ilan and Saline regions. Recent regional efforts include the Dexter Area Team, currently meeting regularly to discuss issues and the Washtenaw 1etro Alliance, a more formal regional group of governments who have adopted a "compact" to work togetl1er. These planrung efforts have been successful in providing a forum for regular commumcation and discussion of regional issues and opportunities and have resulted in some tangible results such as identifying regional locations for manufactured housing, beginmng work on future road right-of-ways with the Washtenaw County Road Commission, development of natural features maps for protection of natural features and common future land use nomenclature. While successful 111 opening lines of communication and beginning work towards regional goals, these efforts are limited in the degree to which they will promote regional planning: • The regional land use plans are largely a compilation of each local government's adopted land use plans. As a result, the regional plans do not address important regional issues such as a coordinated, regional approach to providing water and sewer services and alternative transportation routes to relieve traffic congestion through villages. Page 13-4 Che lsea Area Planning Team - CAPT Ctty of Chelsea Lyndon Township Dexter Township Sylrnn "fownsh,p l.tma Township D exte r Area Regional Team - DART Village of Dexter Dexter "fownship Webster 'fownshtp Lima Township Seto Township Milan Organization fo r Regio nal Excelle nce MORE City of Milan York 'fownshtp \ugusta 'fownshtp ~lilan 'fownsh1p, Monroe County London "fownshtp, Monroe County ,\!,Ian \rea Chamber of Commerce 1\lilan \rea Schools Saline Sus tainab ili ty Circle - SSC Ctty of Saltnc J,e,tlj Township Pittsficltl 'lbwnshtp Saline Township York "fownshtp Saltnt \rea Chamber of Commerce Saline .\rca Schools Southwest Was htenaw Council o f Gove rnments -SWWCOG Village of \lanchester ~lanchester 'lownshtp Sharon 'li,wnshtp l·reetlom 'li,wnshtp Bndgewatcr 'li,wnshtp Was htenaw Metro Alliance - WMA Ctry of \nn \rbor Ctt\" of Ypstlanu \nn \rbor Township l'ittstieltl "fownshtp Scio 'fownsh,p Superior Township Ypsilanti 'fownshtp Table 13-1: Washtenaw County Regional Groups A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �Intergovernmental Cooperation • There are no reqmrements for each local government to make land use decisions consistent with the regional plans. Some local governments have adopted the regional plan as "guidelines for agriculture, open space preservation, development patterns, etc.", while other regional participants have decided not to take any action to recognize the regional effort. These regional efforts represent a significant positive change toward regional planning and providing regional services. This plan suggests building on this momentum and taking regionalism to the next level through more formal regional arrangements. Element Regional Cooperation Recommendation Landscapes 1.8 - Small City and Village Infrastructure Planning 2.3 - Activity Center Infrastructure 3.1 - Manufactured Housing Communities 3.3 - Urban Service Districts 4.1 - Regional Open Space Plans Agriculture 2.1 - Farmland Preservation Funding Natural Resources 2.5 - Natural Resource Area Connections 2.6 - Regional Open Space Plans 3.2 - Regional Approach to Reduce Emissions Economic Development 3.4 - Regional Efforts to Attract Business Parks & Recreation 2.1- Countywide Greenway Network 2.2 - Huron River Border-to-Border Trail 2.3 - Greenway & Trail Plan His toric Preservation 1.4 - Historic District Collaboration 3.1- Local M aster Plan U pda tes Transportation 2.2 - Signal Coordina tion 3.1 - Alternative Transportation Routes 8.1- Regional Transit Consortium 8.2 - Transit Consortium for Senior Population 9.5 - County-wide Trail Sys tem Sewer & Wate r Se rvices 1.3 - Regional System s Solid Waste 1.3 - Reevaluate Local Collection Se rvices 2.2 - Regional Solid Waste Managem e nt Regional workshop held in Fall 2003 to gather input from county residents Table 13-2: Recommendations for Regional Cooperation .\ Comprehensive Plan For Washtenaw County Page 13-5 �Chapter 13 13.4 Coordinating Resources through Public/Private Partnerships As part of developing the background information for each plan element, an identificatlon of the current actors involved in planning and providing services was performed. This research shows that a major strength of the County is the number of organizations involved in delivering services and programs to our residents. In addition to local governments and County agencies, there are hundreds of educational, not-for-profit and private organizations that are involved in delivering services and implementing various land use and natural resource programs. \Vhile the benefits of having so many organizations are obvious, there is an opportunity to have greater impact toward realizing our goals by aligning and coordinating the resources of these actors. Element Partnershin Recommendation Agriculture 1.1 - New Market Opportunities Economic Development 1.2 - University and College Connections 2.2 - Target Industry Curricula 4.1 - Supporting Network Housing 2.1- Annual Housing Unit Targets 2.2 - Low Income Housing Tax Credits 2.4 - Density Incentives 3.1 - Section 8 Voucher Partnership 3.2 - Public Housing and Tenant Assistance 3.4 - Eviction Prevention Strategy 4.2 - Disabled Renter Agreements 4.3 - Foreclosure Strategies 5.1 - Housing Targets and Outcomes Parks & Recreation 2.1- Countywide Greenway Network Historic Preservation 2.4 - Rural Roads Guidelines 2.8 - Freedom Trail Network Transportation 1.4 - Interchange Activity Centers 2.3 - New Development Traffic Studies 2.4 - Interconnected System of Access Points 4.2 - Density Limitations on Rural Roads 9.1 - Non-Motorized Transportation Plan Sewer & Water Services 2.1 - Reduce Pollutant Loading Table 13-3: Recommendations for Coordinating Resources Through Public/Private Partnerships Page 13-6 A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �Intergovernmental Cooperation 13.5 A Heightened Role for the County in Facilitating Planning and Service Delivery Many of the goals and recommendat1.ons in this plan require the County's assistance in facilitating planrung efforts or require a county-wide approach to 1mplementat1.on. \'Chile the County has no direct land use or development authonty, there 1s a s1grufi.cant role the County can play 111 facilitat1.ng planning at the local and regional levels and implementing plan goals and objecti,·es. Element County Assistance Recommendation Element County Assistance Recommendation Landscapes 1.1 - Urban Infill Development Character and Design 1.2 - Urban Infill Incentives 1.5 - Suburban Infill Design 1.6 - Suburban Strip Centers 1. 7 - Small City & Village Residential Infill 1.8 - Small City & Village Infrastructure Planning 1.10 - Small City & Village Infill Design 2.2 - Activity Center Locations 2.5 - Activity Center Model Ordinances 3.1 - Manufactured Housing Communities 3.2 - State Legislation 3.4 - Hamlet Plans 3.6 - Lakeside Residential Design Standards 4.1 - Regional Open Space Plans Natural Resources 1.13 -Agricultural Conservation Programs 2.1 - Model Ordinances 2.2 - Natural Features Overlays 2.3 - Mitigation Bank 2.4 - Natural Features Inventory 3.1- Funds for Non-Motorized Transportation 4.3 - Best Management Practices Toolkit 4.4 - Annual Water Quality Report Economic Development 1.1 - Strategic Plans for Target Industries 1.3 - Economic Organization Alignment 2.1 - Target Industry Workforce Programs 2.4 - Job Opportunities for Older Residents 3.1 - Infill Development Sites for Target Indus tries 3.2 - Brownfield and ODA Funds for Infill 3.3 - Manufacturing Building Re-use 4.2 - Agriculture Industry Strategy 4.3 - Education and Marketing 4.4 - "Jump Start" the Agricultural Economy 5.1 - Ecotourism and Heritage Tourism Housing 1.1 - Housing Grants 1.2 - Homeowner Rehabilitation 1.3 - Housing Redevelopment 2.5 - Infill Development in Villages 3.5 - Not-for-Profit Capacity 4.1- Special Population Needs 4.5 - Tax Reverted Properties 4.6 - Homeless Plan 4. 7 - Transitional Housing Agriculture 1.2 - New Market Zoning 2.2 - PDR and Farmland Preservation 3.1 - Model Agricultural Ordinances 3.2 - Agricultural Enabling Legislation Natural Resources 1.2 - Watershed Funding 1.3 - Treatment Facility and Industrial Pollution Sources 1.4 - Urban Stormwater Systems 1.5 - Illicit Discharges 1.8 - Model Ordinances 1.9 - Model Stormwater Regulations 1.11 - Soil Erosion Programs 1.12 - Drain System Maintenance Table 13-4: Recommendations for County Assistance in Facilitation and/or Implementation .\ Comprehensive Plan For \X'ashtenaw County Page 13-7 �Chapter 13 Rlement Housing Countv Assistance Recommendation 4.8 - Supportive Housing 4.9 - Identify Mainstream Resources 5.2 - Increase Grant Funding 0 1.1 - Additional Parkland for Residents 1.2 - Park Development 1.3 - Development Standards for Parks 2.3 - Greenway & Trail Plan 3.1 - Park & Recreation Land Acquisition 3.2 - Natural Areas Preservation Program arks & Recreation Historic Preservation lrransportation 1.1 - Create Historic District Commissions 1.2 - Local Historic District Compliance 1.3 - Local Historic District Ordinance Review 1.4 - Historic District Collaboration 1.5 - Innovative Preservation Strategies 2.1 - Centennial Farm Nominations 2.2 - Information for Land Use Decisions 2.4 - Rural Roads Guidelines 2.5 - One-Room Schoolhouses 2.6 - Underground Railroad Registration 2.7 - Michigan Freedom Trail Register 3.1 - Local Master Plan Updates 3.2 - Historic Resource Education Element Countv Assistance Recommendation Transportation 8.4 - Transit Frequency for Disabled and Low-Income 8.5 - Airport Shuttle Service 8.6 - Congestion Relief through Rail 9.2 - Infrastructure for Bicycle Travel 9.3 - Development Regulation for Sidewalks 9.4 - Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure Sewer & Water Services 1.1- Infill Development Capacity 1.2 - Activity Center Capacity 1.4 - Urban Service District Capacity 1.5 - Community Systems Operations 1.6 - Public Facilities Ordinances 1.7 - County Financing Support 2.3 - Groundwater Protection 2.4 - Well Regulation Solid Waste 1.1 - Landfill Capacity Plan 1.2 - Legislation for Out-of-State Waste 1.3 - Reevaluate Local Collection Services 2.1 - Waste Diversion 2.3 - Recycling Drop-Off Facilities 2.4 - Funding for County Drop-Off Center 2.5 - Waste Recovery Programs 2.6 - Waste Knot Program 2.7 - Home Toxics Reduction Program 2.8 - Household Response Procedure 2.9 - Rural Community Clean-Up Days 2.10 - Policies to Ban Unlawful Waste Activities 2.11 - Commercial and Multi-family Recycling 2.12 - Yard Waste 2.13 - Educate County on Solid Waste Benefits 2.14 - Solid Waste System Data 2.15 - Solid Waste Online Technical Assistance 1.3 - State and Federal Funding for Expansion 2.5 - Development Density to Support Transit 3.2 - Priority Improvements 3.3 - Access Management in Rural Areas 3.4 - Proper Planning of Expanded Corridors 4.1 - Gravel Road Capacity 4.2 - Density Limitations on Rural Roads 5.1 - Context Sensitive Design for Rural Bridges 5.2 - Funds for Rural Character Preservation 6.1- Public Interconnected Roadway Network 7.1- Designation of Natural Beauty Roads 7.2 - Residential Design Standards 8.3 - Transit Services Funding Table 13-4 (continued): Recommendations for County Assistance in Facilitation and/or Implementation Page 13-8 A Sense of Place, A Sustainable Future �Washtenaw County Department of Planning and Environment 705 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 8645 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48107-8645 P: 734-222-6808 F: 734-994-2459 http://planning.ewashtenaw.org � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Wyckoff Planning and Zoning Collection Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Planning & Zoning Center (Lansing, Mich.) (Organization) Wyckoff, Mark A. Description An account of the resource Municipal master plans and zoning ordinances from across the state of Michigan, spanning from the 1960s to the early 2020s. The bulk of the collection was compiled by urban planner Mark Wyckoff over the course of his career as the founder and principal planner of the Planning and Zoning Center in Lansing, Michigan. Some additions have been made to the collection by municipalities since it was transferred to Grand Valley State University. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Michigan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1960/2023 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Subject The topic of the resource Michigan Comprehensive plan publications Master plan reports Zoning--Michigan Zoning--Maps Maps Land use--planning Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-240 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Washtenaw-County_Comprehensive-Plan_2004 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Washtenaw County Department of Planning and Environment, Washtenaw County, Michigan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2004-09-22 Title A name given to the resource A Comprehensive Plan for Washtenaw County Description An account of the resource A Comprehensive Plan for Washtenaw County was prepared by the Washtenaw County Department of Planning and Environment with the assistance from local external groups and agencies and was adopted on September 22, 2004. Subject The topic of the resource Comprehensive Plan publications Washtenaw County (Mich.) Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/6053093d0eec45b31b492bc4d9bf7053.pdf 52d881b631daf3a8173780f6e2628597 PDF Text Text COMMUN REC I TY DISCUSSION ME D TIO MA O 'S LA D USE F THE S ORC �FROM THE LIBRARY OF Pla.nning & Zon:r.G Center, Inc. A U AFRAMEWO S S I O N �The Honorable Dennis W. Archer Mayor, City of Detroit Dear Mr. Mayor, Last March you appointed 34 Detroiters to a Land Use Task Force and asked us to develop recommendations regarding the objectives and policies that should be considered in making land use decisions for our city. You asked us to take a hard look at Detroit's past and its present, to "dare to dream" and to shape a vision for the city's future while also bringing objectivity and realism to our task. And you challenged us to complete our work in 120 days! Working together over these past four months has been enlightening and invigorating. Enlightening because we have all learned a great deal about our city-- and about other cities as well. Invigorating because our work has been characterized by lively discussion, frank differences of opinion and a growing appreciation for the enthusiasm and commitment we share. We began our work by touring all areas of the city together; discussing issues; and visiting neighborhoods, business areas and community projects. Meeting both as a full Task Force and in smaller subcommittees and working groups, we reviewed existing plans; assessed actual conditions; and met with experts in planning, retailing, the environment, recreation, transportation, housing and employment. We also evaluated plans and projects from other cities and received ideas, suggestions, and recommendations from literally hundreds of interested people and community organizations. The input to our deliberations from a broad cross section of the city has been truly extraordinary. The work of the Task Force has been facilitated by an exceptional core staff led by Kate Beebe and her associates at The Smith Group -- and by contributions from the individuals and organizations listed in the report. We thank all of them for their support and, in particular, want to express our appreciation to the Hudson-Webber Foundation, The Kresge Foundation, Detroit Renaissance and the Detroit Economic Growth Corporation for providing major funding. Taken collectively, the recommendations contained in our report, "A Framework for Action," set forth a vision of what Detroit can become and establish a starting point for community -wide planning to attain that vision. We recommend, therefore, that a process be initiated under your leadership through which this report can be widely discussed and debated by interested individuals and groups throughout the city. We also suggest that the report be viewed as the first step in the development of an ongoing, professionally led planning effort for Detroit that would, over time, translate agreed upon land u e guidelines and objectives into a detailed comprehensive land use and strategic implementation plan. Our report proposes a land use policy framework designed to facilitate and guide growth and change for the next several decades. As such, it is based on several implicit conclusions: Decisions regarding specific projects -- especially projects of significant scale and impact -should be made in the context of city-wide land use planning objectives and should be carefully evaluated on a project by project, and site specific, basis. Since redevelopment and revitalization take place over many years, a process should be developed through which strategically located land parcels can be assembled, cleared if necessary, and land banked for future development. Any plan -- even a "framework" for planning -- should impose a city-wide, long term discipline on land use decisions while remaining sufficiently flexible to accommodate changed circumstances or an appropriate "exception to the rule." On behalf of the Mayor's Land Use Task Force, thank you for giving each of us the opportunity and privilege ofparticipating in this important work. ~~ Robert C. Larson Chairman �Robert C. Larson, Chairman The Taubman Company Ned Fawaz American Arab Chamber of Commerce John E. Lobbia Detroit Edison Company Joseph Thompson Edmund Place Restaurant Harold R. Varner, Vice Chair Sims-Varner & Associates Fred Goldberg FIG Realty Corp. Larry Marantette ANR Development Corp. Dennis R. Toffolo Hudson's Joseph L. Hudson,Jr., Vice Chair Hudson-Webber Foundation Yolanda Gomez-Stupka Michigan Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Gregory R. McDuffee Historic Realty Company Nellie M. Varner The NM. Varner Company Larry D. Alexander The Westin Hotel Bronce Henderson Chairman,Jobs Subcommittee Detroit Center Tool Eugene A. Miller Comerica Incorporated Flora Walker AFSCME Michigan Council 25 Byung (Ben) S. Park Korean Chamber of Commerce Gail L. Warden Henry Ford Health ~ystem Elizabeth Jackson David W. Schervish Schervish, Vogel, Merz Charlene Johnson Chairman, Neighborhood Subcommittee Michigan Neighborhood Partnership Alan C. Young Chairman, Urban Core Subcommittee Alan C. Young & Associates John David Simpson Entertainment Attorney Charles E. Allen Graimark Realty Advisors Charles H. Brown Victoria Park Development Company Leon S. Cohan Barris, Sott, Denn & Driker Tamara Chanel A. Craig Cass Technical High School Stephen R. D'Arcy Chairman, Infrastructure Subcommittee Coopers & Lybrand C. Beth Duncombe Dickinson, Wright, Moon, Van Dusen & Freeman Diane J. Edgecomb Central Business District Association Reverend Jim Holley Little Rock Baptist Church James C. Kokas Opus One Restaurant Larry C. Ledebur Wayne State University Sister Andrea Lee Marygrove College David LoweU Snead Detroit Public Schools �CONTENTS -~---07 OVERVIE CO --11 UNITIES - GREE AV SYSTE --19 TRA SPORTATION - - - JOB CE TE S ----27 CE T AL CITY---- - - 31 37 ACTIO RECD THA KS 23 -- - 40 ��OVERVIEW This report sets forth a proposed land use framework for Detroit. It looks ahead several decades and makes recommendations designed to create more liveable communities, more attractive areas for job development and a thriving central city. It advocates balanced revitalization throughout the city, building on existing strengths, while converting liabilities to assets. The Framework for Action is not a definitive plan for land use or economic development. Rather, it describes a vision for what the city can become and provides a starting point for ongoing citywide strategic planning and implementation. The recommendations provide general guidelines that can be used to evaluate land use and project development proposals. Proposals of a significant scale and impact will require project specific analysis. Recommendations are presented as plans and polides for interrelated components of the city's land use framework. Communities Ten distinct yet interrelated communities--each a focus of residential, commercial and job development--shape the city. Existing neighborhoods are the building blocks of each community and proposed community retail/service centers serve as their hubs. Job Centers Consolidated and competi[llf business locations will be established to expand and diversify Detroit's job and revenue base. Areas for business expansio: include existing industrial corridors and mi Central City. New business parks are recommended at freeway accessible locations throughout the city. Greenway System Over time, a greenway system will link communities to one another, to the central city and to the river in a continuous network of public and private open spaces. The greenway system will help to define Detroit communities, create a new citywide organizing structure and improve the quality of life for residents, visitors and businesses. Central City Residential development~ proposed as the key to successful Cen~ City revitalization. Adramatic increase·, residents will create a lively urban seH~~ ··edreLlu provide needed support for desn 1 i · 5vs1em anu uses and public transportatton 1. • " establish the fabric that links acu~,cy centers. Transportation An enhanced street system and improvements to Detroit's freeways will increase the city's competitiveness as a business location, improve the cohesion of communities, and define future public transportation opportunities. Changes in the land use orientation and in the appearance of radial st reets (for example, Woodward, Gratiot, and Grand River) are also propo ed. OVERVIEW �'' '' ' '' '' ' ' \ D -• D Low Density Residential Medium-High Density Residential Community Retail MLxed Use Public/Ins ti tu tional Industrial/Re earch & Development Public & Private Open Space econdary Community Retail/ ervice Centers Primary Community Retail/Service Centers LANO USE OVERVIEW PAGE 09 ��Concept Detroit is and has always been, a city of neighborhoods. The e recommendations define a community structure that will provide linkage between these neighborhoods and the city overall. Equally important, the community structure will allow neighborhoods to join together in communities to build the population base needed to support retail, transit and other public services. An important element in establishing thi community structure i the greenway system which works with the freeways and major treets to define physical boundaries. The availability of basic retail and ervice uses i al o critical to community vitality and viability. To ensure that these service are available, a limited number of well-located sites are identified where community retail and seIVice uses will be clustered. To erve as a focu of community activity, these centers should include a civic recreation and events space, a police mini-station and other health and social service agencies. Finally, the definition of communities hould be coordinated with public service delivery areas--e pecially the public schools which are community center in and of themselves and play a critical role in neighborhood and community life for families with children. While many residential areas remain trong, others require major reinvestment and till others have deteriorated to the point where clearance is necessary. Residents, businesses and other stakeholders should work together in_ preparing thoughtful approache to dealing with these realities. COMMUNffl PAGE 12 r POTE T L CO U ITV T UCTU E Recommendations Define a community structure. Ten communities are proposed. Precise boundaries should be established bv community-based "stakeholder" gr~ups \vho also will play a role in ongoing planning. Identify community retail/service center locations where commercial uses will be concentrated in the future. These centers should be planned to serve a community population of no le s than 60 000 to 100,000 re idents ao dto pro,i~ , k drug11~ such retail uses a supennar et ' . h rdware it oeneral merchandise stores, a . t> · clud1n° and other smaller scale u es 10 ,:'i J . • ts and meullll husmess services, restauran ,be enureh nl'i offices. These center mar · · · developed around existing retail h-..,~ of acoinv11"" concentrations and made up of existing and new commefcial establishments. �-- Low Density Re idential • Medium-High Density Residential . Secondary Community Retail/ ~rvICe Centers Primary Comm uni·rYRetail~ erv1ce Centers COMMUNITIES COMMUNITIES PAGE 13 �_,, Coordinate the definition of communities with service delivery areas. To reinforce communitv cohesion and identity--and to improve the accountahility of age ncies all<l departments providing services--each . community should work in cooperation with the public schools, city department and 0.th,er service providers to coordinate commumt} boundaries and service delivery areas. Tailor land use and development poli~ies to existing conditions. Ongoing plannmg in each community should begin wi th a realistic assessment of existing levels of . · sfor the vacancy and deterioration. Po1ioe future should respond to these realities. City Widfnway System Locate community services, civic spaces and a transit station in each center. These community services might include a police mini-station and health and social service agencies. Civic spaces should accommodate community events and recreation. Locate higher density housing within and adjacent to community retail/service centers. Use parks and open spaces to link neighborhoods to each other and the community retail/service center which serves them. Locate amenities (elementary schools, libraries, parks, neighborhood retail) within 1/2 to 1 mile of all residents. Buffer residential and non-residential uses. Reinforce residential areas where almoSl~I of the original structures have been . . good cond·t·on 1 1 usmo maintained and are in .D consistent code enforcement, rehabilitanon, and infill housing development, where appropriate. Additional permanent open space may be created in these areas ~o -~ increase the attractivenes of th e residenu . changes in the setting. However, maior existing development pattern and average densities are not anticipated. �Rel'italize residential areas where a moderate number of the original structures have been lost or are not rehabable using consistent code enforcement, rehabilitation, and infill housing development, where appropriate. In some instances, existing rehabable homes might be moved to vacant lots on otherwise stable block to re-establish complete block faces. Clearance of non-rehabable structures is likely to be necessary in some areas. Cleared lots should be assembled and held to accommodate future development. Vacant lots may also present opportunities for modifying the existing street pattern and providing additional parks and open space to enhance the residential environment. JWWWWWWL Restructure residential areas where the majority of the original structures have been lost and are not rehabable. In some of these areas, substantial clearance may be necessaty. This land should be assembled to create significant redevelopment opportunities. Where adequate land is available, special open space amenities should be created and street patterns modified to make these redevelopment sites competitive investment locations. COMMUNITIES �Within each community, an objective assessment of varying housing conditions will determine which of the three suggested land use approaches--reinforce, revitalize or restructure-is most appropriate. �Detroit is a city of neighborhoods. Each can offer a variety of housing types. COMMUNITIES ��Concc Apermanent, linked greenway system incorporating approximately 10% - 15% of the city's land area will reinforce viable land uses and transform areas of disinvestment and vacancy into open space assets. This greenway will ultimately become a linked system of public and private open spaces including parks, bikeways, boulevards, community gardens, buffer areas and golf courses. The greenway system will enhance land value in adjacent areas and increase investment potential. It will define community edges, buffer non-residential uses and offer close-to-home recreation opportunities linked to the river and major parks. The greenway system will change the city's image from gray to green and, in certain areas, provide a positive use of areas where environmental clean up for more intensive development is not economically feasible. n..,( 1e ~n,; 1 Establish a permanent greenway system. This system should double or triple the amount of open space acreage within the city, consistent with national standards. Plan this system to link major parks and to incorporate areas of disinvestment. In this way, major recreation assets can be made more accessible and areas of loss can be converted to community amenities. Incorporate a variety of open space uses. Examples include parks, bikeways, boulevards, nature areas, community gardens and golf courses. Link the greenway to the riverfront for public access and enjoyment. North-south open space corridors will extend the influence of Detroit's greatest natural asset into the fabric of the city. Encourage active uses within the greenway. Some buildings will remain within the greenway, in particular those with public and institutional uses. Opportunities for commercial use (for example, restaurants and recreational facilities) should also be provided to promote active as well as quiet enjoyment. GREENWAY �Public & Private Open Space GREENWAY SYSTEM �The greenway can offer a variety of open space uses and incorporate both publicly and privately owned land. GREENWAY �TRANSP �Recommendations Coordinate the rebuilding of 1·94 with policies for future land use. This immediate rebuilding project and future freeway improvements provide significant opportunities for retaining and attracting business and improving access to jobs and services. However, opportunities for improving freeway access ramps, adding service drives, and providing uansit conidor must be used to advantage. These improvement should include the construction of "land bridges'' occupied by parks and development areas to link uses on opposite sides of the freeway. In addition, public art should be incorporated in the de ign of freeways to add human interest and create a special identity. Concept Freeways and major streets are significant assets for businesses and jobs. As the freeways are rebuilt over time, they should be planned to create areas of investment opportunity, as well as more efficient circulation routes. The construction of freeway linkages will also enhance Detroit's economic development potential. Land use on Detroit' radial streets Qefferson, Gratiot, Woodward, Grand River and Michigan) should be re-oriented to encourage the development of consolidated community retail/service centers with residential, open space and institutional uses on the balance of the frontage. The e centers should include public uan portation stations. Because public transportation enhances access to jobs and services, Detroit should continue to work toward the development of a regional transit system. Future transit corridors should be reserved on freeways, radials and rail rights-of-way. The feasibility of future transit improvements can be improved by emphasizing higher density residential development in the Central City and on radial streets adjacent to community retail/service centers. An improved transportation system will increase Detroit's competitiveness in retaining and attracting businesses and will provide improved accessibility to jobs and services. In addition, it will enhance the cohesion and livability of neighborhoods and communities and improve the image that Detroit presents to residents and visitors. TRANSPORTATION Connect the Davison from 1-96 to 1-94. The construction of this linkage will make possible the development of competitive business park locations on the east and west sides of Detroit. Sensitive planning and design can minimize adverse neighborhood impact while providing improved accessibility to existing, as well as new, job centers. PAGE 24 - - - --- --- -- - Change land use on major streets. Land use on radial street frontages should be reoriented from trip commercial to residential, open space and institutional use with commercial consolidated in community retail/service centers. On non-radial major anerial streets (for example, Van Dyke, Livernoi , 8 Mile, 7 Mile, Mc ichol , Mack and Warren), viable commercial areas should be reinforced and residential, open space and in titutional u e developed on the balance of the arterial frontage. Upgrade the appearance and functioning of radial streets by modifying their design. The e radial treets should be rede igned to create landscaped boulevard medians, service drives for local traffic and parking, an enhanced sidewalk zone for pedestrians and/or broad landscaped setbacks. Provide future public transportation corridors on radials, freeways and obsolete rail rights-of-way. City Airport should be improved as a citybased highly convenient passenger facility. �'' ' '' ' '' '' r,,, ~-,.,.~-~---~ ______ i ., ',, ', ' '' '' B ~-•I B Freeways Freeway Extension Radials Arterials Transit Corridor Opportunities f• •-1 TRANSPORTATION �Clotku ise from ur.1 t f left The construction of "land bridges" can link uses on opposite sides of a freeway. These "land bridges" can be occupied by parks or development areas. Over time, strip commerical use on Detroit's radial streets can be replaced by consolidated commerical cenl111 with residential, institutional and open space use on lhe balance of the frontage. Radial streets can be redesigned as boulevards to increase their visual appeal. ��JOB CE ER Concept Detroit can establish a framework for strengthening existing businesses and expanding the city's jobs and tax base by restructuring land use to create more consolidated and competitive business locations. For maximum impact, investments should be targeted to areas of existing strength, areas with excellent freeway accessibility, and areas suitable for the kinds of employment sectors which have high potential for future growth. These include auto-related, health care- and universityrelated; service (finance, insurance, real estate, utilities, communications and government); wholesale/distribution; environmental science; and entertainment and tourism. Although every job in the city is important, these recommendations focus on major business concentrations. Detroit's land use policies should respond to the shift which has occurred from rail- and river-based job corridors to freeway-based clusters. Assembled, cleared, environmentally "clean," and well-located sites of adequate size (a minimum of 100 acres) to create modern business park settings should be created. Nevertheless, policies that foster the retention and growth of existing businesses are as important as policies targeted at creating new sites for job growth. Recommendations Identify and reinforce strong existing job corridors and centers. For example, on Detroit's east side, these include the Mound Road corridor, and the areas adjacent to the Chrysler-Jefferson Avenue and General Motors assembly plants. In the Central City, the areas of strength include Wayne State University, Herny Ford Hospital, and the Detroit Medical Center; Eastern Market; and the Central Business District. On Detroit's west side, they include the Lyndon Road and Oakman Boulevard area (I-96/Davison); the area adjacent to 1-96 between Evergreen and the Southfield Freeway; and the Port of Detroit. Create new, competitive business parks based on the following standards: 100 -200 acres with room to expand. Direct freeway access with easy truck access via freeway ramps and surface streets. Access to public transportation. Utility infrastructure in place. Separation/buffering from residential use. Locate these business parks in the following areas: I-751Russel1. north and soutb of 1-91. Automotive-related light industrial and research uses may be most appropriate in this central location adjacent to the new General Motors assembly plant. \Y'ayne State L'nil'ersizv. He11rr Ford Hmpital. Detroit lledica! Cenler Health care- and university-related research uses could be accommodated in a relatively high density, mixed-use urban research park setting located north of 1-94 to the east and west of Woodward. The research concentration at Wayne State University could also be an attractive anchor for an environmental science research and development center. Health care-related production and wholesale/distribution uses could be accommodated adjacent to the Detroit Medical Center to the east of 1-75. Detroit Cizv Airport. If City Airport does not become an economically viable passenger facility in the near future, it should be considered a highly attractive candidate for business park development. Airport area. If the Davison Freeway was extended from 1-96 to 1-94, the area between Mt. Elliott and Detroit City Airport could become a highly desirable location for a range of automotive suppliers and other industrial users similar to those located in the Mound Road corridor. Lvndon Road area (I-96/Dal'imn). An expanded Lyndon Road jobs center could capitalize on direct visibility from I-96 to create an appealing business park setting for a variety of industrial and high tech users. \\"'est of Liz'ernois between the Fisber FreeU'try andj~ffcrmn :l enuc This area is an excellent location for consolidating the transportation and freight-related functions already spreading along the southwest riverfront. If Livernois is redesigned to accommodate heavy truck traffic while buffering adjacent residential areas, this distribution center could be efficiently linked to the rail-to-truck intermodal center now being considered for the Conrail site. Slate Fahgrounds. This site's size, ~cellenr location and accessibility make it a prune candidate for more productive use such asa high quality business park. Detroit should_ initiate discussions with the State concermn~ its future. Conrail site. A rail to truck intermodal distribution center should be_ developed at r 0 this large site west of Livernois an~ ~01th Dix. If that is not feasible and if minimal_. . h Conrail site environmental problems exist, t e k · spar could become a candidate for busmes development. �-- Community Retail Office/Service/Retail Public Institutional Industrial/Research & Development JOB CENTERS JOB CENTERS �</oclm i,t' Jmm uPf,er 1£ r, New, competitive business parks are part of a strategy tor expanding Detroit's jobs and revenue base. In the Central City, an urban research park can accommodate expanding university and health-relateo R&D uses. Open space building buffers between housing and industry will benefit both uses. Detroit's CBD should remain the locus for government and private office uses. ��CENTRAL Cl Y Concept Detroit's Central City, the area within Grand Boulevard, should be the most intensive and diverse activity center in Detroit and a microcosm of the city as a whole. The Central City should be reinforced as the region's primary location for government, culture, entertainment and commerce. It is the image center of the city and an expression of its spirit. The recommended land use approach for the Central City capitalizes on its strengths--the Central Business District's concentration of services and government uses; Eastern Market; educational; cultural and health-care institutions; entertainment and other visitor attractions; the New Center's corporate focus and, of course, the Detroit River. However, it also identifies areas for new development and includes the clearance of structures which are functionally obsolete and have no viable reuse. Acommon sense approach to historic preservation--one that balances economic, cultural and social values--is also needed. Residential development is the key to successful revitalization of Detroit's Central ~ City. A substantial increase in the Central City ~ residential population will create a lively environment, provide the market to support desired retail uses and transit systems, and establish a development fabric that supports office, entertainment and institutional activity centers. The Central City includes several distinctly different areas that are, nevertheless, interdependent and should be linked together. A network of pedestrian-oriented open space connections will create linkages within the Central City, capitalize on the unique characteristics of the riverfront, and extend its influence into inland neighborhoods. 1 CBD 4 New Center 2 Gateway 5 Universitv/Cultural/ 3 Central City Medical Center West Recommendation.., Central Business District Promote the highest det elopme111 den ities and a mix of me, i11 the Ce11tral Busines,; District In particular, high density development should be encouraged at and around People Mover stations. 6 7 8 9 Brush/Cass Eastern Market Central City East Riverfront East . . , conomicallr Clear bwlt/111(!,s that bai e no e . " CBD's 1mage l'iable n?u,e To change the ortunmB, .·. and create new development opP Cadilla( ' theBook dif buildings such as Hu dsons, and the Statler Hilton s~ould b~;~r:ntenfl1 they cannot be economically r~ should tt green space (not surface pa:king) provided on these sites unttl new development occur • �Office - Retail - . t District Entertammen . Special Use Distnct - Industrial . High!Me?ium Density Residenual Low Density Residential - Public/Institutional Greenway System CENTRAL CITY LAND USE �Central Business District£11courage entertainment use north of Grand Circus Park to the Fisher Freeway and extending southeast to I-7\ west to Grand River and south to Adams and Broadway. University/Cultural/Medical Center Build on unil'ersi(V cultural and bealtb care ancbors by pro1•idingfor expansion into areas nortb of l-9·i and east ofI- ..5. Include residential and amenity retail as mixed uses. Encourage the consolidation of office use south ofKennec~v Square and north of Jefferson to create a CBD office district. Continue to attract and retain government and private office uses to reinforce this area as a CBD office district. New Center Jlaintain and e.,pand office, retail. restaurant and entertainmelll use in a high quality c01porate environment. Encourage residential use to the north. Promote mixed high-densi(l' residential and ameni(v retail uses between Grand Circus Park and Kennedv Square. Amenity retail includes those uses which serve the convenience needs of the CBD's residents, workers and visitors. Preserz•e the opportuni(vfor a regional(vscaled specialtr retail facility as part of a mixed-use development on a 20 -30 acre site in the Cadillac Square area between Woodward and Greektown. Locate cil'ic. public and complementan pril'ate uses on the CBD ril'erfront. Cass/Brush Empbaszze moderate(}' high-densizv residential use 1eitb amenizv retail and sen'ices in the area lo the north of the Fisher Freeu·a_1·. 1 Eastern Market Reinforce Eastern .Uarket ~v pro1•idi11gfor the expansion of wholesale and retail actll'ities zl'hile presen•ing the area's bh;toric character Link Eastern Market to downtown on Gratiot. Establish a retail serl'ice center in tbe Eastem Market area that offers a mix of comparison and conz•enience shopping Approximately 30 -40 acres should be reserved on a major arterial street and near a freeway interchange for a commercial center serving citywide and Central City shopping needs. This center should include comparison shopping (discount stores, home improvement stores, home accessory stores) and convenience shopping uses (supermarket, drugstore, personal service businesses). Gateway Create an improt·ed intemationel Gate1ra1· at the Amba,sador Brid,• 1e Provide separate truck and auto connections to Detroit's freeways and radial streets and encourage visitor-oriented commercial and mixed-use development from the Bridge through Mexicantown to Michigan Avenue. Link the Gateway to Fort Wayne with a greenway connection and a new riverfront drive. East Riverfront Promote res1dential. e11tertai11ment. bate/ and amenity retail in a special district tcitb ample open space and /a11d~capi11g Existing industry, which represents an asset to the Detroit economy, should be relocated over time. In addition, office development on the riverfront should be discouraged and retail use carefully planned to avoid compromising the retail base in other parts of the Central City. Create l'ieu· corridor:, to the Rit•erfrom }ejfe,:mn and del'elop north-south open space corridors leadinP, to areas of actiuity on tbe riz•etjront. Provide for public and primte open space on the rit-'e~fi"ont and public access on a combination of conJinuous inland and rive1front routes. Central City East and West t_, cuu,age resl(/i;,1/ial de1·dopme11tata /'anetv of densities in tbr) Ce11tral eto· East and \r e,·t a,w,r, Capitalize on opponunities for promoting large-scale residential development initiatives in areas of ignificam disinvestment Woodward Corridor cstabl,sb a b1gb(l' attractil'e streetset:peon V.:'ood,card ll'itb a oric and instituuonal empbcu, on tbe ,treet (,·ontage This symbolically important radial street s~ould become the most attractive in the region. for example a landscaped boulevardmed'ian or ' of the nght-of-way . · I de expansion to inc u · areas, landscaped setbacks and pede5rnan would create a sense of civic scale, De ign decisions should respond to the . . that structure with no,. recommendation . 1e reuse on Woodward,~~ economically v1ab Central City frontage be cleared. As_peod r . . Id b t bltshe ,or district des1gnatton shou e e~ a , andi the Woodward frontage with guideh~~s hest design review process to ensure the I? t Atransit quality of future developmen · N linkage from the CBD to the ewCenter should also be provided. �Clodu·ise (rum llP{c'f 1eft The East Riverfront can accommodate aspecial mix of uses in an open space setting . Agreenway along the riverfront will welcome visitors arriving in Detroit from the Ambassador Bridge. Asignificant specialty retail development may be feasible in the future in the CBD. The "rebirth" of Woodward Avenue as awell landscaped corridor lined with civic and institutional uses will become a symbol of Detroit's quality of life. b �Vernor DETROIT CENTRAL CITY GREENWAY ��E Recommended actions are identified to initiate an effective community discussion of the Framework for Action and to ensure that pending planning and infrastructure decisions are made with a clear understanding of Detroit's vision for the future. Community Definition The Task Force has recommended that ten distinct yet interrelated community districts be established across the city. The proposed communities reflect the functional organization that supports the creation of viable community retail/service centers, as well as the physical conditions (for example, freeways, major su·eets and the greenway system) that establish logical edges. This community structure is also intended to encourage neighborhood groups, businesses and other stakeholders to join together in undertaking community-based planning. Although the boundaries that define these communities merit additional consideration, this community structure should be used to organize a workable process for community review of the Task Force's Framework for Action. 1-94 Corridor Planning for the rebuilding of 1-94 has begun. This project has the potential to be much more than a repaving exercise. The improved freeway can help to redefine land uses, establish linkages, improve economic development potential and lay the groundwork for implementing sophisticated traffic and transit solutions. It is recommended that the city work directly with MDOT and SEMCOG on planning for the future of the 1-94 corridor. Woodward Avenue Because the repaving of Woodward Avenue is scheduled for 1996, the city should work with MDOT on the design of Woodward improvements to ensure that they are consistent with Detroit's vision for the future. Rail-to-Truck lntermodal Terminal MDOT is currently studying alternatives for the location and conceptual design of a major (20~ acres or more) intermodal terminal in the Detroit metropolitan area. The Task Force has recommended that the Conrail Yards be elected. The city should advocate the designarion of the Conrail Yards for this use and begin immediately to work with MDOT to reach decis_ions on size, design and function. The needs and priorities of the city and the southwest Detrott businesses and residents who will be mo t directly affected should be recognized. Business Park Development . Two sites already in public ownership--Detroit City Airport and the State Fairgrounds--prov1de outstanding potential for the development of new, competitive business parks. The costs and benefits of expansion to improve the Airport's attractivenes as a passeng~r service facility should be evaluated and then compared to those resulting from the poss_ible reuse of this site for business park development. Decisions concerning the future of th is important site should be made as soon as possible. The state-owned Fairgrounds' excellent location and accessibility make it a prime ca nd_idate for a high quality business park. It is recommended that the city initiate discussions wi th the State concerning its future. �~ivertront Me~rgest landowner on the East Riverfront, the city can begin immediately to implement recommendations for creating north-south open space corridors leading to riverfront activity neasandde ignating areas for unobstructed views to the river. These efforts can serve as the 1 mtialstep in establishing a special district designation for the East Riverfront to promote an ~propriate mix of uses and a high quality of development. (nvironmental Contamination and Clean Up ~non~·attention should be given to the definition and adoption of realistic environmental clean ~P standards that protect human health and safetv and the environment consistent with the mtended future use of any given site. Clean up re'quirements should he appropriate to future bnduse. ACTION �Core Staff Funding Support Katherine F. Beebe, Premise Associates, Director Romeo Betea, Detroit Economic Growth Corporation George Sass, Johnson Johnson & Roy Connie Dimond,JohnsonJohnson & Roy Barry Murray,JohnsonJohnson & Roy William Hartman, Smith, Hinchman & Grylls Associates Lillian Randolph, Community Development Services Rainy Hamilton, Hamilton-Anderson Associates Ernest Zachary, Zachary and Associates Hudson-Webber Foundation Kresge Foundation Detroit Renaissance Detroit Economic Growth Corporation Supporting Staff Kent Anderson, Schervish, Vogel, Merz Peter Berg, Schervish, Vogel, Merz Deborah Bobowski, Premise Associates Don Capobres, Premise Associates Patricia Dermidoff, Smith, Hinchman & Grylls Associates Karen Gallagher, Johnson Johnson & Roy Malik Goodwin, Johnson Johnson & Roy Gilda Jewell, Premise Associates Mary Jukari, Johnson Johnson & Roy Brian Miller, Sims-Varner & Associates Dorian Moore, Smith, Hinchman & Grylls Associates Jane Morgan, Community Development Services Gloria Paul, Smith, Hinchman & Grylls Associates Connie Pulcipher, Johnson Johnson & Roy Janine Rataj, Smith, Hinchman & Grylls Associates Jerry Sarkody, Smith, Hinchman & Grylls Associates Mark Thomas, Premise Associates Derek White,JohnsonJohnson & Roy Tour Guides Mary Hebert Diane Jones Ann Lang Karen McLeod Sue Mosey Jack Pryor Joe Vassallo Tom Walters Kurt Weigle Report preparation Smith, Hinchman & Grylls Associates Johnson, Johnson & Roy Premise Associates Contributors AB Associates, Patricia Becker Acme Abrasive Company, Robert Beebe A.I.A. Detroit Allied Signal Ambassador Bridge Company, Dan Stamper Ameritech BEi Associates The Boomer Company Brogan & Partners Butzel Long Casey Communications Management Cody Olson, Phil Cody Comerica Incorporated, Kathryn Bryant Deloitte & Touche, Patrick Moore Detroit Economic Growth Corporation, Jack Pryor Detroit Public Library Detroit Renaissance, Robert Keller Detroit Medical Center Detroit Edison Eastern Market, Ed Deeb Engelwood Enterprises, Francis Engelhardt The Farbman Group Professor Michael Farrell Focus:HOPE, Fr. William Cunningham, Eleanor Josaitis Gebran S. Anton Development Corporation, Gebran Anton Grand Trunk Railroad, Bob Walker Holtzman and Silverman Construction & Realty, Gilbert Silverman KPMG Peat Marwick Mexican Industries, Rance Aguirre, Pete Leon Michael Kobran Associates, Michael Kobran M.R. Prochaska, Mike Prochaska Michigan Department of Transportation Motor Marketing International of Detroit, Robert McCabe OJ Transport, Rojelio Padilla, Leon Harris Contributors continued RFP Associates, Raymond Parker R.A. DeMattia Co., Gary Roberts Schervish, Vogel, Merz, Architects/Planners Signature Associates, Chris Mansour Sims-Varner Associates, Architects/Planners Smith, Hinchman & Grylls Associates, Arnold Mikon Southeastern Michigan Council of Governments,John Amberger Southwest Detroit Business Association, Kathy Wendler Spaulding Electric, Bill Spaulding The Taubman Company, William Cook University of Michigan, Susan Rochau, Intern University Cultural Center Association William Kessler and Associates Wayne State University, John Taylor Wayne County Office of Jobs and Economic Development, DeWitt Henry Bill Adaline and the Staff at 150 West Jefferson City Departments and Personnel . Marge Byington, Director of Economic Development, Marsha Bruhn, Detroit City Council Liaison Community & Economic Development Department Planning Department City Engineering Department Finance Department, Assessors Division Detroit Department ofTransportation City Airport Department Detroit Water and Sewerage Department Economic Development Corporation Detroit Economic Growth Corporation Recreation Department Detroit Public School System Cit , of Detroit ) Graphic Design, Photography, Renderings and Publication Smith, Hinchman & Grylls Associates Balthazar Korab National Photo Service, Steve Rubin Richard Rochon Inland Press And thanks to the many individuals f. ' l d' h h. . . . . d mendations U'ilh us. line u mg sc ooI c ildren) and commumty organizations who shared their ideas an recom • � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Wyckoff Planning and Zoning Collection Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Planning & Zoning Center (Lansing, Mich.) (Organization) Wyckoff, Mark A. Description An account of the resource Municipal master plans and zoning ordinances from across the state of Michigan, spanning from the 1960s to the early 2020s. The bulk of the collection was compiled by urban planner Mark Wyckoff over the course of his career as the founder and principal planner of the Planning and Zoning Center in Lansing, Michigan. Some additions have been made to the collection by municipalities since it was transferred to Grand Valley State University. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Michigan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1960/2023 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Subject The topic of the resource Michigan Comprehensive plan publications Master plan reports Zoning--Michigan Zoning--Maps Maps Land use--planning Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-240 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Detroit_Land-Use-Framework_1990s Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Land Use Task Force, Detroit, Wayne County, Michigan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1990s Title A name given to the resource A Framework for Action: Recommendations of the Mayor's Land Use Task Force Description An account of the resource A Framework for Action: Recommendations of the Mayor's Land Use Task Force was prepared by the Land Use Task Force appointed by the Mayor of the City of Detroit in the 1990s. Subject The topic of the resource Land Use--Planning Detroit, Michigan Wayne County (Mich.) Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/05125a4b45def7e5bf0c16ebb057ca24.pdf d7cb10fb5e3b6ef62ea316d1cf1a5d14 PDF Text Text A Plan For Wyandotte 's CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT �• • • • • • • • • • • . FR_QM H LI ~RA~V OJ!) Planning & Zoning Center~ Inc• A PLAN FOR WYANDOTTE'S CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT prepared for: THE CITY OF WYANDOTTE prepared by: ■ ■■□■■ Vilican■ □oo■■ Leman □□□■■ . □□□■■ & Associates, oo□o■ Inc. ■ COMMUNITY PLANNING & LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • 28316 FRANKLIN ROAD SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN 48034 • (313) 356-8181 FEBRUARY, 1991 �II II • • TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. INTRODUCTION ANALYSIS BACKGROUND ..................................... 1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ASSETS AND LIABILITIES OF THE CBD ........................... 2 PRIMARY GOAL ............... . ............................ 3 SPECIFIC GOALS .... . ...................................... 3 DIAGNOSIS OF THE CBD CBD AREA ACTIVITY CENTERS : ................................ 5 VISUAL ASSESSMENT ........................................ 5 DESIGN STUDY CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL AREAS ......... . .................. 9 OFFICE COMMERCIAL AREA ...... . ................. . ........ 11 CBD CORE AND BIDDLE AVENUE . . . ............ : . .' ............ 11 PORTSIDE MARINA AND SOUTH RIVERFRONT AREAS .. . . . .· . . . . . . . . . 12 EFFECTUATION MASTER PLAN FOR FUTURE LAND USE ........ ... ............ . . DEVELOPM ENT CONTROL .................. ... .............. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMMING ........ . ........ . ...... PLANNING - A CONTINUING PROCESS ....... . ........... . ...... 15 15 17 17 MAPS EXISTING LAND USE . . ..... . .......... . .................... 1A LAND/ BUILDING VALUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1B CBD AREA ACTIVITY CENTERS ................................ 5A PLANNING OVERVIEW - VISUAL IMPRESSIONS .................... SA C.B.D. DESIGN PLAN ...................................... 14A ELEVATIONS - CBD DESIGN PLAN ............................ 14B ENTRANCE DESIGN STUDIES ................................ 14C BIDDLE AVENUE - STREET PARKING STUDY . .................... 140 EUREKA AVENUE EDUCATIONAL AREA ........................ 14E APPENDIX DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MARKET POTENTIAL ........ .. .... ·. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PARKING NEEDS ....... . ......... . . . ...................... C.B.D. WORKSHOP SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MASTER PLAN FOR FUTURE LAND USE (CBD AREA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A B C D E �THE DDA's CHALLENGE AND MISSION • • •II II II THE CHALLENGE While the Wyandotte CBD cannot hope to directly compete with large scale regional oriented, enclosed shopping malls like Southland or Fairlane, it can serve a separate need. Most of the current shopping center complexes in the downriver area are of contemporary design and unspecialized in tenant mix or "theme." This mass appeal meets many needs. However, a shopping area attuned to its rich architectural history, ethnic diversity and waterfront access such as the Wyandotte CBD can also meet shopper needs for the "unique," the "colorful" and the "different." THE MISSION A combination of well designed store facades, a complementary streetscape, adequate and convenient parking and a strong linkage to the CBD's unique natural resource - the riverfront, coupled with vigorous self promotion by CBD businessmen should enable the CBD to expand its commercial base while retaining its urban small town atmosphere. Reference: Vilican-Leman & Associates, Inc. 1983 Downtown Wyandotte Study COD 11 /21 /89 �INTRODUCTION �., Iii •II • •II II -II II II I II •I I I INTRODUCTION Within the Wyandotte CBD and its immediate fringe some 500,000 square feet of retail space services a sizeable portion of some 200,000 people who reside in Wyandotte's primary trade area. The continued health and prosperity of the central business district is a prime concern in providing a direction for present and future uses of land in and around the CBD. Central Business Districts throughout history have represented the "lma;Je of the City." In a sense it is "Everyone's Neighborhood" and should be preserved and nurtured to be a source of pride to all of the City's residents. Over the past few decades (1960, 1970, 1980) strong inroads have been made by new shopping centers in competing for the retail shopping dollar. While the ·wyandotte CBD cannot hope to directly compete with large scale regional oriented, enclosed shopping malls like Southland or Fairlane, it can serve a separate need. Most of the current shopping center complexes in the downriver area are of contemporary design and unspecialized in tenant mix or "theme." This mass appeal meets many needs. However, a shopping area attuned to its rich architectural history, ethnic diversity and waterfront access such as the Wyandotte CBD can also meet shopper needs for the "unique,· the "colorful" and the "different." A combination of well designed store facades, a complementary streetscape, adequate and convenient parking and a strong linkage to the CBD's unique natural resource -the riverfront, coupled with vigorous self promotion by CBD businessmen should enable the CBD to expand its commercial base while retaining its urban small town atmosphere. ~ A strong sense of community exists in downtown Wyandotte as is evidenced by efforts to keep the CBD not only a strong retail center but also through a continuing program to make it an attractive activity center. Building maintenance, streetscape improvements, pleasant lighting and a solid business/government partnership have all played significant roles in the preservation of downtown Wyandotte and in making it more than just a regional retail center. Past accomplishments with regard to the improvement of the CBD, while laudable, should not lull the community into a false sense of security regarding the well being of downtown for the years ahead. Times and conditions are constantly changing . ANALYSIS BACKGROUND At the outset of planning for the Wyandotte CBD area, several basic studies were undertaken. These studies, summarized in the appendix relate directly to the potential for additional market growth, anticipated demographic trends and parking needs to support a sound business district. The existing land use and building/land values on a block by block basis are indicated on the maps which follow. 1 �• E XI sT I N G L AND DOWNTOWN CITY OF • . -- - usE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WYANDOTTE _ ,, JANUAOY IHI · MICHIGAN - DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AREA �~1;1:1:1:111 11111 L_J L_J _J LJ LJ LJ LJ .__________. LJ L__J L__J LJ LJ L LJ l_J [__J LJ FIFTH :t: 1:1:: 1::: r1: 1 :i:11:: 1 It : 1i { 1: : r 111r~111111111 1 ::::::::[,I II [ Jl ~ Bi 111 il l ~ 1 !1:: : : ~ l]ill ~ ~ ~ I□ I[ ] ~ 1:l: 1 1 ::::: =====:=: ::::::: ::=:::= ::::::== 1 1 ]: ::=::::: :=:::== :=:=::: =:::=: ::::=== ::::::= _=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=j m:mnw ~:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=l 1 FOURTH 1 :1:1:1:1:1~1:1:1:::11::::::1 Q. ::::::: : ::=::::: 0 :::::::: ::::::: 1:1:::1:: ::1:1:: W :::::::: 1:::::1 u, :::::::: :::::: 2 1:1:1:1: 1:::::::1:1:::1:1 1:1:1:::11i:1 1::1::::::111:: ::::::::1::::::: ::::::: ::::::: W ::::::: :::::::: 0 U ::::::::: :::::::: • •.•.; . :,;,:.;.;.;,:,:.; SECOND ~ ■ ■ ■ l!lll!l!I ~ -·-·-:;:::::=:: 1:1111111 ■ 11111 ·II. •,..· [c v:,Fi!l!l!li ............ ~ !litH O • 30,000 ~ 30 001 ' 60 000 ~ 60 , 001 90,000 ~ 90,001 120,000 ~ 120,001 150,000 1111 150,001 a OVER ~ EXEMPT BLOCK BASED ON li!i!l!ll:!l!i!l! [ ............. . FIRST ~ > u, DD l\tIt:11\:t:( 1)/tt I/}tt 1/f : 1 : : 1 II II [ ti· II I@ OW THIRD J~{)\\f l~f ((t/ <ttilil]J' ::::::: ~ ' • D f: r ......___ I/ 0 r I w•·-:-:•:•:-~ 0:::-:-:::::: (;-:-:-:-:•.·.·.·.·.· .;.;:~;~\~:;:1 ■ c [ I/ I i , 1989 f: I/ ASSESSEO 114LUE IN DOLLARS LAND VALUE PER ACRE _J L_J L_j L__J LJ L . . _ __ _ _ _ , LJ LJ LJ LJ LJ LJ L_1 L_J l_J L L_J LJ FIFTH 1 ■ ]l: : : -: -:-:-:-: 1:1 WJLJ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :;: : : ,11i!l,l1 ■ [ 1 !lil:!ili! l1!ilil 11:::::: !i!/i!i!l111!!:lii 11::ltl~lj/j l li1ii1tliliji/ll/ }llllt{_ 1::::1:1: FOURTH ■ g~ ■i~ ■ ~ 1li ! il l l ~ l{(•1::::::: ■ !~ ■ ~□![ ] w1:11:1:::t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ {) i ){ ; ::i:::::!:i:i:l ]:!:l:::!:l:! /} (} ; THIRD J•~~~-==~ □0 111 ■■ ■ [ 1trtH a . 200.000 [ : ;: ;:;::\ 200,001 300,000 ~ 300,001 400,000 ~ 400,001 500,000 ~ 500,001 6 OVER ~ EXE M PT BLOCK BASED ON •, , I/ 0 ~ ~ ! II t 7 r I Ii I v 1989 {' I/ ASSESSED VALUE IN COL " \RS 0 LAND VALUE PER ACRE PLUS BUILDING VALUE CENTRAL BUSINESS CITY OF W YANDOTTE MICHIGAN ~ 20 0 ~ <00 fl auoun "" DISTRICT VILICAN-LEMAN&ASSOCIATES, INC. C ~ r , ~ ( 0,,.WA l ...,.,t, ~ '1Kl•IIC1 ) 1 11 1 1!!! !/l!l/lil ll �•ill • • • •Ill -Ill -Ill •Ill GOALS AND OBJECTIVES �• • • • • GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Imperative to the success of any planning effort is the assurance that a proper direction or goal is established which if achieved, will provide a desired and acceptable end result. Part of the answer is found in the process by which goals are set up. If offered from on high, they may seem too abstract, too idealistic and romantic, and their presentation may be resented or ignored. Worse yet, they may fail to truly represent what the community wants. One road to clarity, then, is procedural : it lies in having all interested parties or their representatives take part in the process of drawing up the objectives. A series of public workshops sessions were conducted with the City Council, the Downtown Development Authority, the Planning and Rehabilitation Commission , city administrative personnel, Chamber of Commerce, business and property owners, news media and the public. During these sessions, workshop participants were asked to identify what they felt were current assets and liabilities of the C.B.D. These are included in the appendix, however, the primary assets and liabilities identified during this session are as follows : LIABILITIES ASSETS 1. The riverfront 1. Inadequate parking (patrons and employees) 2. Camaraderie of existing retail shops 2. Lack of an anchor store 3. Appearance of downtown; historic character / cleanliness 3. Biddle truck traffic 4. Friendliness of merchants 4. Poor commercial diversity 5. Small town ambiance 5. Accessibility to downtown 6. Appearance of vacant/ blighted buildings Goals and objectives were then explored and defined for the improvement of the Downtown area. The objectives of establishing goals is stated as follows : GOALS GIVE DIRECTION TO THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR PLANNING PUBLIC FACILITIES - ENABLING Tf:-IEM TO PREPARE PLANS IN ACCORD WITH COMMUNITY DESIRES. 2 �THEY CAN CREA TE A COMMON GROUND OF AGREEMENT WHICH IS t.ECESSARY WHEN MANY INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS ARE ACTUALLY INVOLVED IN PREPARING AND ACHIEVING PLANS. THEY CAN PREPARE THE WAY FOR ACHIEVEMENT BY WARDING OFF UNWARRANTED - "JOHNNY-COME-LATELY'' CRITICISM WHEN THE TIME COMES TO PUT A PLAN INTO EFFECT. It is essential to achievement of goals that they be clearly stated. For this reason, it is often advantageous to develop two sets of goals for the future development of a central business district. First, a fundamental, underlying goal toward which all programs developed later presumably will be directed. And second, subsidiary and more specific goals that grow out of the underlying goal. PRIMARY GOAL FOR WYANDOTTE'S CBD Through government, business cooperation enhance CBD growth opportunities to enable it to continue as the prime retail, service and community event center for the downtown area. This will be done in a fashion sensitive to the existing character of the downtown area with emphasis on river access and proximity. Each new development will be expected to contribute to the economic vitality, service capability and attractiveness of the CBD. SPECIFIC GOALS A series of eight specific goals in support of the primary goal were developed which were further supported by numerous objectives as enumerated in the appendix. The specific goals were established as follows: GOAL I: ACCESSIBILITY- Access from the south and west as well as north should be improved. Routes to the CBD should be distinctively identified. GOAL II: TRAFFIC CIRCULATION - Downtown streets should provide easy access and smooth traffic flow for the downtown visitor and shopper with a minimum of pedestrian and vehicle traffic conflict. GOAL Ill PARKING - Every effort should be made to increase convenient safe and attractive customer parking particularly in areas where a deficiency in parking exists. GOAL IV SIZE OF CBD - The CBD will need to expand to keep pace with market area growth. Future growth should be concentrated as a compact business area conducive to walk-in business and through careful interaction with developers provide for the continuation of 3 �• • • • • - • • • • the unique character which typifies Wyandotte 's CBD. An additional 50,000 square feet of retail and supporting business activity in the Wyandotte CBD should be achieved by the year 2000. GOAL V CBD APPEARANCE - Provide a clean, efficient and tasteful environment that will enhance the Central Business District as a place to do business and a place in which all the citizens of Wyandotte take pride. GOAL VI THE RIVERFRONT - The Detroit River is Wyandotte's most attractive natural feature. Every effort should be made to make the river accessible to the public with particular emphasis on tieing the downtown area more intimately to the river. GOAL VII CBD MAINTENANCE - It is essential to keep a neat, orderly and safe downtown which attracts and keeps high quality businesses and maintains a comfortable retail atmosphere for the shopper. GOAL VIII EFFECTUATION - Every available tool for the improvement of downtown Wyandotte will be pursued. 4 �DIAGNOSIS OF THE CBD �-II Ii II II II II Iii DIAGNOSIS OF THE CBD CBD AREA ACTIVITY CENTERS The current land uses which occur in the Central Business District are identified in eight activity areas. They are: The CBD Core shopping area, residential usage area, civic activities area, office/commercial area, historically significant area, parks/recreation area, and a potential marina/waterfront usage area and the Roosevelt High School Campus area (see concept diagram). These are further defined as 11 land use sectors in the Master Plan for the CBD Area listed in the appendix. An analysis of each area leads to a stronger suggestion for greater identification of its own inherent characteristics and most importantly, identity through its connection with all areas, i.e., linkage.· In the course of the workshops conducted, key word-concepts like connection, access.linkage, internal and external nodes, and edges were used repeatedly to describe how the CBD might best function as a unified whole. It is through these spaces that the movement of people occur. It has been proven that people become more secure in their environment when specific usage areas are less jumbled, and confusion is reduced. Briefly these terms can be described as follows : Nodes: Are centers where usage areas meet and where edges join typically identified intersections or special places of use. Linkages: Tie nodes together by connecting them in such a way that movement is a pleasurable experience. Why? to get people out of the automobile and on their feet where the access to goods and services are convenient. Edges: Are the fringes of areas. abutting neighborhood. For example, preserving the integrity of an It is through careful integration of these land use applications that a long range plan for downtown Wyandotte emerges. It is a process of bringing the whole CBD picture into focus . VISUAL ASSESSMENT The current function and appearance of the CBD is the result of historical trends relating to economic conditions, geographic location and political decision making. In order to identify · the current elements that provide us with both positive and negative visual impressions of the CBD, a reconnaissance survey was performed that serves as an overview of current problems relating to land-use relationships within the CBD and 5 �.,, IL••••~• •l•: m J□·oo·oo~oo· t..,.'" ST. CAMPUSAREA RESIDENTIAL ) NEIGHBORHOOL.J ITT' I s1 xrH f-srl llllor--.~r SIXT.., e:1111 , ,. p 1, , I 11 ~ 9 In "'n- - - - - n --- _ FIFTH ■ ~......._.._~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . , , . . . . . . , . . . . ST •• ••u... civic I _ I _ i!_____ __ _ ST _ ____ _ _ __ ·s ·i..--..10 ~~ - - "-- 0 0 DD DD DD Ld bci e ,7 . ~ ~ O ~ -~ ! a: ~ g Q. a O er ~ " 1 eus_1N~~~-- E FIRST s=-----: v __ . --□ DD DD - ~ LJLJENWLJLJ D.W Jg"[ . r, CENTRAL R I _ I I RESIDIII :NTIAL Wl=lr.l-lR( ---- -- ---->RHOOD THIRD · ( 1G "-;;-,;;M_l M,_ 1--1• ---om- -- , - ~ II,, -•--- ~- - - •< ~LJI ~~;n .,I HIGH SCHOOL THIRD Li~ ~I:==- ' .ix II Q. JD DD DD DD DD Pr■, JD DD DD 0[100 10 JD DC LJLJ LJLJ o . 3 ]D~oo ~ egh i ~ riu~++ ii 0 a: lJl. 1 XI ST ~ ~ ~o~ - □□►D, ... i 7 J i : FIRST L--JL--J ~ J Q. ooc::i, ~==ID C ER LJ OI I .,..,-......._ ---------o ' CBD AREA ACTIVITY CENTERS I VAN 6, : : 11 p ALSTYNE PARK 1 1 I n C] I �impressions of the primary transportation corridors into the City. This information is presented on the "planning overview" map at the end of this section. Further assessment of the primary transportation corridors into the city is provided below. NORTH ENTRANCE: The Ecorse bridge landmarks the boundary and separates Wyandotte from the City of Ecorse to the north. The area, south of the bridge has a pleasant pastoral character that should be protected. The idea is not to create a grandiose entry presentation but to encourage the preservation of well established trees and good housing stock with ample setbacks which provide for an entrance statement of its own. Further refinement of entrance identification could consist of a center landscaped median in Biddle Avenue. This approach would complement the existing character, reduce the scale of the road and benefit the abutting residential community as a whole. The Ecorse bridge structure, if improved, would enhance the entrance image to the City. Such improvements should consist of repairing the facial damage and broken pediments that reveal the aging and weathering that has occurred over time. Further study could produce a new color scheme with supportive street graphics and amenities that introduce a nautical theme as an attachment to the bridge while being careful to avoid overstatement. The Biddle Avenue landscape changes dramatically beyond Clinton Avenue. Between Clinton and Perry Avenue the similarity to the several blocks at the entrance to Wyandotte ends . Boat storage racks, chain link fence, concrete hardscaped surfaces crowd the right-of-way edges. The tree stock is dwarfed as a comparison and offers little value to the overbearing elements behind their branches. It is not that the character of this space cannot be reworked to bring out positive values, it can. This area lacks transition and continuity. The transitions in this space are sharp, abrupt and allow for visual bleed-off into unsightly pockets. Further study needs be conducted to identify inherent improvement opportunities of this entire area. The visual character begins to improve from Perry Avenue to Ford Avenue. At Ford, a sense of urban character takes shape. Large trees and historic building facades return to the streetscape. The space between Ford and Superior Avenue has been defined as an opportunity for historic preservation and is discussed in another portion of this report. SOUTH ENTRANCE: Wyandotte 's south boundary is defined, by Pennsylvania Avenue. The greatest exposure to the community is via Biddle Avenue. At this junction the Wayne County waste treatment plant to the west, a Detroit Edison transformer sub-station on the southeast corner and the Penn Walt Company to the east dominate this entrance. Some changes are currently underway to improve the image of this area. These efforts have been 6 �focused on landscaping the lot immediately south of the Nichols Vending site, and in addition, the city is currently completing the construction of a planting median on Biddle Avenue from Pennsylvania to Grove Street. While these efforts are good, they also need to provide consistency iii selection of materials, consideration for size and scale of the right-of-way, and the impact on future land uses currently projected for the waterfront. EAST ENTRANCE: A great deal of discussion in workshop sessions centered on Wyandotte's opportunity to connect with the resources of the Detroit River. The City's eastern edge runs the entire length of the river's shoreline. Historically this land has been dominated by industry. Vacant properties now exist for sizeable portions of this area. It is of immense importance to the CBD and the people of Wyandotte that new development of this riverfront property be utilized to provide public river access wherever feasible. Currently, Bishop Park is the only sizeable public access pQint on the riverfront in Wyandotte. WEST ENTRANCES: Eureka Avenue provides the major east-west connection to the Central Business Area from east of Fort Street to Biddle Avenue within the heart of the CBD. Eureka Avenue is appropriately under study for improving its business function and its visual quality. Eureka Avenue is a major commercial corridor linking the communities to the west with Wyandotte. The prominent features of Eureka are its generous right-of-way, the railroad bridge structure, Roosevelt High School which is just east of the bridge, and the intersection with Biddle Avenue within the CBD. The Fort and Eureka Intersection is the gateway into Wyandotte from the west. As a gateway it should function to extend to commuters who would normally pass by without notice, an invitation to participate in community activities. This intersection serves as a doorway into the City. This means that the intersection must take on a form consistent from one side of the right-of-way to the other; one that communicates "welcome" and induces movement into the City, (see Entrance Design Studies, Concepts A and B). The "communication" can be festive or subtle yet dynamic, thematic or even inspirational. Whatever characteristic this gateway emulates, it purpose is to set up a level of expectation for the events that are to occur once past this point. Ford Avenue which parallels Eureka to the north, is smaller in scale and has some commercial activity east of the railroad tracks but changes into residential character between the tracks and Biddle Avenue. For this reason increased traffic volumes could have a negative impact on the character of Ford Avenue. 7 �II • • •II II - EUREKA BRIDGE: Continuing concern is expressed for the improvement of the railroad bridge to stop its overall decay. Potential exists to improve its image and to utilize the bridge as an entry introduction to the Central Business District. The bridge presently serves the interest of Conrail Railroad and Detroit Edison. The west side face of the bridge is owned and maintained by Edison and is open to any proposals for improvements including the attachment of structural signage. In this study a concept has been developed to embellish this structure and the adjacent slopes, (see Entrance Design Studies, Concept C). This concept is an attempt to work with some elements that exist and combine them into a design that perhaps represents a current trend. Much refinement would be required to make this idea feasible, but the intent allows for a graphic image to bring together colored panels for interest, a nautical flavor by the use of flags and a symbol previously developed for the CBD storefronts. Supporting plants should be new materials, further adding to a fresh appearance. Although this approach is a bold one, the conquest for bridge refinement combined with signage is justifiable given the opportunity to promote the CBD to the east. Additional improvement opportunities should be given further study. 8 �• • • • • ,__ PARKING • PRIVATE PARKING LOT DOMINATES Tl1E AREA • INTERNAL PlAHTING IS ADEQUATE • SUGGEST BEA MING AREAS BETWEEN ROAD AND PARKING TO DEFINE EDGE AND LIMIT VIEWS ACROSS LOT • RECENT STREET CLOSURES HAVE PROVIDED EXTRA PROTECTION BY ELIMINATING EXCESS TRAFFIC • HOUSING COMPOSED OF OLD SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIPLE (LOW TO MID-RISE) PRIMARY PEDESTRIAN ZONE----' • NEED LINK TO RIVER CE NTR A L BUSI NESS DISTRICT 0 to0 • .-00 VAN ALSTYNE CLOSED TO Tl1ROUGH 'TRAFFIC AT Tl11S POINT •OO"'f A PLANNING OVERVIEW CITY OF WYANDOTTE M ICHIGAN RIVER FRONT PEDESTRIAN USE AREA NEEDS A TERMINATING FEATURE ON SOUTli END • INTENSELY USED RIVER SIDE PARK. POSmVE FEATURE FOR THE c 11.l). AND NEIGHBORHOOD ' • LINK TO RIVER WALK EAST OF lHE C.B.D. COULD BE STRENGTHENED, SUGGEST EXTENDING RIVER WAIJ(llfTO PARK. AMERICAN LEGION NEEDS TO BE RELOCATED TO ACCOMPLISH l,JNK �II ii I • • • • • •II • • • •■ •~ • DESIGN STUDY �•I I •II II II II II II • • DESIGN STUDY It is the intent of this design study through simulating an overlay on the described usage areas and, by careful interaction between nodes and key linkages, that the Wyandotte Central Area urban fabric begins to knit together. A design concept is presented representative of only one way to create such an environment by the positioning of in-fill development, parking structures and streetscapes using all of the existing commercial buildings where they presently stand. These spaces are meant to encourage positive relationships between usages, provide convenience to shoppers, and create a stimulating environment for city dwellers. This is a process of bringing the whole community picture into focus with our objective of making the CBD area "everyone's neighborhood ." CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL AREAS There are many historic features in Wyandotte worthy of historic preservation such as home sites, church spires, historical monuments and artifacts relating to the City's early history. Wyandotte 's Historic Preservation Society is a non-profit organization that has been granted stewartship over the protection of these elements. It's principle objective has been to provide a sense of identity to the community and strengthen it's cultural heritage. Presently the Ford-MacNichol house and the museum is the nucleus for a potential historic district. The location for this district is on Biddle Avenue between Walnut and Chestnut Streets. Encouraging the growth of the historical society includes building up it's endowment and also strengthening the image of the district to provide a historical gateway into the city from the north. A district of this nature and location communicates to others that Wyandotte has dimension, is preserving its cultural heritage, and is selective about the types of development that are to occur . Because of the close proximity to Bishop park, the historic district has direct linkage to open space which is vital to conducting public awareness programs. Current programs include: the historic festival, preservation week and the christmas program. These types of functions bring people into the CBD area. Additionally, a historic theme in this location compliments the residential areas to the west and south by preserving the harmony and integrity of each land use. In this historic entry area, Elevation C depicts Biddle Avenue without curb and gutter with a raised center planter. These elements are intended to slow down vehicular traffic, discourage Biddle avenue as a trucking route through Wyandotte and heighten the awareness of motorists for pedestrian safety. The parking lot between the library and the high-rise apartment building has been converted to a pedestrian access corridor creating courtyards orienting the entrances of both structures inward while linking this area to Bishop Park. Vehicular parking has been shifted across Van Alstyne into a parking 9 �structure to supply parking for the high rise apartments, the library and park visitors. The tennis courts :. re now located on the roof top of this parking facility . Additionally a new Recreation/Cultural Center is depicted adjacent to the River Towers further strengthening the concept of a Cultural Area. EDUCATIONAL AREA How much is Wyandotte willing to invest in the future of it's young people? What would be an ideal learning environment for the high school student of Wyandotte? These are very important questions to ask of Wyandotte's citizens relative to the use of land within the vicinity of the Roosevelt High school area. The high school is a significant part of the central area of the City. Daily some 2,500 students and there parents converge on its premises. Additionally, this learning center encourages students and the community to indulge in the arts, sciences and the humanities on a continual basis. Why wouldn 't it make sense to develop this area into a campus environment, a place where students can find an extension of the classroom out into the real world? Opportunities for employment, pilot programs for student/private business enterprises, a student operated bank, and a plaza for public forum and exhibition of academic accomplishment, are examples of a place used for human development within a cultural context. Why not contain community supported educational activities and possible student employment within a campus atmosphere as an alternative to aimless vehicular loitering throughout the city? This educational, trade learning, and employment complex, envisioned specifically for three blocks of Eureka Avenue from seventh to fourth streets, would be a high school nucleus capable of supporting a wealth of community resources. Immediately east of the high school lies a vacant parcel of land. This parcel of land is visualized as a potential campus plaza that would be used for art display, cultural exhibits, exchange of ideas and information. This proposed plaza provides for the display of expressiveness through the arts , sciences and humanities. It also proposes the installation of a snack shop and bookstore on the east side of the plaza area. This concept has tremendous potential and will require well conceived policy and action to carry it's conception into reality. CIVIC AREA Currently the city hall complex occupies valuable downtown real estate. When Federals Department Store left the downtown, a void was created that was filled by the city offices. Currently, this use functions to draw people into the CBD area, however it occupies a valuable site in the center of an important retail block. Over time consideration should be given to conversion of this site back to a retail activity. The CBD plan proposes the relocation of civic oriented activities to a fringe area of the CBD on the north east corner of Eureka and Third Street. This new position provides gateway identification to the urban core for those entering the city east bound on Eureka. Furthermore, the location has a compatible relationship, through linkage, with the educational complex envisioned to the 10 �I I I I ii . • • •I I ii ii • • • • • west and the commercial office area envisioned to the north. This concept couples a new civic building to a parking deck directly east, closer to the CBD. The civic complex provides an opportunity to expand and tie-in with the yack arena area and to provide shared parking for the civic complex and for the CBD. OFFICE COMMERCIAL AREA This concept encompasses a rectangular area bounded by Maple, Oak, Second and Fourth Streets. A commercial office complex mixed with mid-rise housing is compatible with the civic activities proposed directly south and also serves as a use that buffers the residential district from the CBD. A plaza space connects the civic center to a mid-rise housing structure by a pedestrian mall that would otherwise be an alley. Three new office buildings that are integrated with existing buildings are proposed on the block between Third and Second and Maple and Elm. The placement of office use in this area implies greater emphasis on Second Street to make connections with the CBD. Every opportunity to invite direction east towards the CBD area is made and is further encouraged by the cross street enrichment paving and interior mall through ways. Downtown housing is preserved and integrated into this scheme by working with the existing housing units. The addition of a mid-rise housing structure on the east side of second Street between Maple and Elm, improves the population base in the downtown which supports retail activities and community vitality. With the addition of housing and the increase in office and commercial activity comes a greater demand for parking. A new parking deck is indicated on the south side of Oak street between First and Second streets. This deck located next to the Wyandotte theater would also serve the parking needs of the merchants on Oak street and in the whole retail core of the CBD. CBD CORE AND BIDDLE AVENUE The CBD core includes activities of major retailing, commercial services, financial institutions and offices. This area is vital as the major focal point of the community for the provision of retail goods and services to residents and its contribution to the community's tax base. Well designed and healthy commercial areas are a tremendous asset to any city, while incomplete, unhealthy and poorly designed areas can pose many land use problems and greatly hinder effective community preservation and development. This concentrated retail core area is the focus for the entire CBD study area and will continue to serve as the prime retail, service and event center for the Downriver area. Continued attention to maintenance and improvement is essential to its further prosperity . VAN ALSTYNE RESIDENTIAL BLOCKS A great deal of discussion has evolved around Van Alstyne. This block of residential houses offers some of the most desirable housing units in Wyandotte. The plan for the CBD recognizes the importance of preserving this small residential neighborhood. Linking 11 �i i ■ i 11 ■ II II II II • • • • • • • the CBD to the proposed marina development south of the CBD and to Bishop Park makes a great deal of sense when community vitality is at a premium. The sketches indicate a connection of the CBD by a tree lined pedestrian way on Elm, leading to Bishop park and focused on a fountain at Elm and Van Alstyne. This fountain is aligned to the center of Elm and is intended to draw people towards the river. It also serves as a terminus to the north end of Van Alstyne. The fountain is a focal point from all directions and ties a look out pier on the rivers edge to Biddle Avenue. Directly west of the Van Alstyne residential blocks is the alley and the back side of the CBD. The sketch (see elevation B) indicates a connection from the south through the alley to the park and represents an opportunity for businesses to establish dual exposure. A "privacy separation" between this improvement and the rear of residential properties on Van Alstyne would be made possible by a decorative wall. Further connection between the south area and the park is made by a suggested pedestrian oriented center island proposed through Van Alstyne (see elevation D) . EUREKA AND BIDDLE AVENUE INTERSECTION One of the most repeated comments made by workshop participants was that Wyandotte needs to capitalize on the Detroit River. The Eureka and Biddle intersection is vital to the CBD because it is ttie arrival zone to the CBD core and provides the first glimpse of the river for the east bound traveler. This zone welcomes, influences, directs and provides a sense of orientation and evokes participation in CBD activities. Expanding the properties on the east and south sides of Biddle and Eureka to include arrival and identification is highly recommend by this design study . This intersection is strategic to the CBD because it allows direct pedestrian access to the Detroit river and the developments to the south. A riverfront promenade and look out pier further embellishes this connection. PORTSIDE MARINA AND SOUTH RIVERFRONT AREAS Potential for developments south of Pine Street bordering the river are continuing to be explored. Environmental pollutants have hampered development feasibility and it is still questionable whether this site can perform to the extent of marina, housing and recreation purposes proposed in a recently completed Riverfront Study. If indeed these activities are implemented based upon the assurances of protecting the health safety and welfare of its occupants, the potential positive impact of this development for the CBD are significant. Public access to the river front via connections north and south have been explored and has been highlighted in the Riverfront study. It is envisioned that a direct link along the river front to the CBD without the impedance _of noise, and visual obtrusion of the 12 �I I I I I I • • • • • • " "• • • • automobile, would be an asset to the public and retail establishments. Additionally the open space environment that the riverfront setting offers is a prime location for festival and fair oriented activities which would provide additional shoppers for the CBD. The on-going construction of marina and housing units on the north side of Pine Street in the portside area is a positive development. This demonstrates that high quality waterfront projects can be successful for those with imagination and the initiative to pursue them. BISHOP PARK Bishop Park has been utilized for fishing, picnicking and festival space. A fishing pier was recently constructed for public use and is actively used. This CBD design plan depicts a redesigned configuration of the parking lot to allow for an arbored promenade, central sculpture and extension of an additional sea wall north in the direction of the fishing pier. This extension engulfs a new port of entry for Wyandotte for pleasure craft. This concept indicates a day use boat dockage although longer term stays may also be accommodated. Improvements to the American Legion facility and a joint agreement with the city would allow for the sale of goods and services catering to boaters and park users. The American Legion structure is the most visible element in the park as seen from the waterfront. If this structure can be viewed as a resource to the community and if the American Legion organization would be willing to participate in a program that supports marine activities, a day use boat dockage facility could provide an effective way of capitalizing on the transient boaters (see elevation A) . The extension of an additional pier would also mark a position for the dockage of an entertainment cruise vessel along the south edge of the park's waterfront. People in route from lower southeastern Great Lakes and Canadian communities would port temporarily and become a potential market group for the CBD . To accommodate increased demand for parking in this area, a parking structure is proposed where the tennis courts presently exist. The tennis courts would be reestablished on the roof top of this parking deck. In addition, some park frontage would be taken to allow for the boat slips. A study should be conducted to determine how much frontage is necessary for the special demands of the boaters. These waterfront proposals strengthen Wyandotte 's position in the boating community and provide opportunities for CBD merchants to capitalize on increased activity by providing goods, services and entertainment needs. PARKING Parking on Biddle Avenue has continued to be an issue focused on convenience. During recent holiday shopping seasons, Biddle Avenue has supplied a portion of the demand by allowing parking in the center of Biddle A,;,enue. A special design sketch was requested to depict the integration of center street parking, pedestrian safety and design 13 �I I I I I I I I I II II • • • • • • • • amenities, (see Biddle Avenue Street Parking Study). In this sketch, mid block crossing with depressed curbs, bollards and changes in paving materials and patterns at the intersection will help to ward off risk of accident. These elements provide a clue to the driver that they are in a highly pedestrian oriented zone and to proceed with greater awareness. Speed limits within these blocks should be reduced to further encourage safety. Within these blocks are planter boxes constructed of light weight concrete. The use of trees in planter boxes in the street adds significantly to an urban streetscape feeling by softening the hard environment and aids in increasing motorist awareness. These tree planter boxes are designed to be removed by truck so streets can be cleared for parades and street fair activities. PARKING STRUCTURES During the inventory and analysis phase of this study and in workshop sessions the project team observed that issues of parking convenience, supply and identification are most important. The merchants confided that many employees park in adjacent lots and at curbside all day, discouraging their use for potential customers. This problem can be corrected through each proprietors better management of staff parking needs. Additionally, rear store entrances could provide important access to the shopping street and store owners are encouraged to improve the rear entrances where parking accessibility can be improved. Shops that do not desire rear entrances could still benefit from an enhanced area that contributes to an improved parking environment. The cost-benefit of parking structures is directly linked to the vitality of businesses in the downtown. According to the presentation on parking structures by Carl Walker and Associates, these facilities are considered viable when a healthy market place exists and continues to provide a revenue base that can fund the expected debt service and maintenance. As a demand for more retail space increases the potential for conversion of parking lots to parking structures may prove feasible . 14 �• L THIRD ST. SECOND ST. · ltt:<tJ EXISTING BUILDINGS I 1 INFILL BUILDINGS 11111111 INTERIOR MALL SPACE \111\1111111111! POTENTIAL SKYWAY CONNECTION FIRST ST. a: 0 C 0 0 a: ~ C. z w ::::, (/') w > a: :5 Q. 0 Q. OK OUT LOOK OUT PIER-t-~- A SCULPTURE-_;;;_,,.c......._...- @iluW §IF ~IBilllQ)(Q)lfil~ VAN ALSTYNE -r1--PARKING DECK WITH ROOF TOP TENNIS BUFFER PLANTING �• • • •Ill ~~ ~ !(\ " 111· • •II • • • • ~ Iil I i IilltI I(gJ ~ .... ~ . .: ~ I d] TI@ @ @ i ~ t::l ~ i ~ Ib ~ i d] lfilIJ �• • . ■ ■ II • • •If • • • • • • • ~ \ m1r~~(g§ §~TI@JINIJ ~lfCUJ[g]D@~ �•ill •iii \\ -,~ ,-~ ~~U-~~>A ~ \ ~~, ~?--~- -=:;: .~ _-"}\\_ r--,---_ A:::.'✓--_E.-:::_-z:_-_~~,l ~-,- ,~•---=, ~~---.,1ff~" 11 I B== ID.::,D1l l--..-1 w ~ a: w a: ...J <( <( 2 ::::> w 1111 w a. 0 (.) >en Iii Iii ill w, '", 2 w ...J 2 ~@~~u ~ :it, CONCRETE BANDS D~ ~ -a DEPRESSED CURBS tr ,:,' EXISTING PLAN ~:~ ill Iii iii ~Q~~~Q> tJ MID-STREET CROSSING li'I' &' Ii ~ I(,' e,' 1111 BRICK PAVING EXHIBIT A 52 SPACES Iii 111111 EXHIBIT B 56 SPACES ~ II �~r t- ~ ALLEY :c l w > w en l~cc ::> 0 u. LL - -- ART DISPLAY ~ ENRICHMENT PAVEMENT ~ OUTDOOR CAF~ RDCSEVELT PLAZA PLAN~:~ §llJJ~l§IK~ ~~IgIRJJlUJ{§ §§llJJ@~1fIJ(g) .4--..--..... Ji p ~ �EFFECTUATION �• • • • • • .. • EFFECTUATION The most important effectuating tool centers around cooperative interaction between all of the players who are committed to preserving, improving and bringing new development activity to the Central Business Area. A strong cooperative spirit between City government and the business community exists in Wyandotte. As is expressed as one of the goals of the downtown area plan, various interests including the Mayor, City Council, Downtown Development Authority, Planning and Rehabilitation Commission and the Merchants Association will cooperatively continue to work toward improving downtown area. THE MASTER PLAN FOR FUTURE LAND USE The Master Plan For The Central Business District Area as adopted by the Wyandotte Planning and Rehabilitation Commission sets a policy framework for the long term land utilization of properties in the CBD area. It also reflects the goals and objectives for the downtown area established through numerous workshop sessions involving widespread community interests. A number of public hearings conducted by the Planning and Rehabilitation Commission provided further input prior to adoption of the plan. The plan is based on information gathered at the present time given the existing circumstances. If the circumstances which shaped this plan change in the future, the plan may need to change as well. It is not a rigid document. It should be allowed to change to adjust to new trends and information and to allow for alternatives which may be desirable. Daily decisions, as they are formed week after week, month after month, and year after year, are those which create downtown as it exists at a given point in time. There have been all too many instances of logical, even inspired plans which failed to change the community in any effective way. To be effective a plan must live in the minds of those who make daily decisions to guarantee that those decisions are constantly working toward the final goal. It must also be recognized that change is a process, not an event. it happens slowly over a long period of time. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL The legal devices for plan effectuation include zoning, and building and housing codes. Development controls are the tools by which the City directs the daily changes occurring in a community. It is important to note that such controls are a means to an end and not an end in themselves. This point is highly significant since no controls of this type can ever be successful unless they are based on a sound understanding of the community and reflect the citizens' desires, needs, and concepts of what the community should be. 15 �ZONING ORDINANCE Zoning is the most important common type of development control. It consists of the regulation by districts (under the police power) of the height, bulk and use of buildings, the use of land, and the density of population. • There are a number of objectives to be achieved through zoning. It is intended to conserve and protect property values by encouraging the most appropriate use of lands and by preventing the intrusion of objectionable or incompatible uses in any given area. Further objectives are to facilitate adequate and economical provisions of public improvements and to maintain a high quality of community living. Zoning regulations restrict the freedom of the property owner, but at the same time protect him from the uncontrolled freedom of others. They prevent development that might be objectionable to the community as a whole. It is in this way that property values are maintained. • Legally, courts have been emphasizing that zoning must be based on a plan before it can be valid . The Master Plan For Future Land Use for Wyandotte's Central Business District Area provides the plan on which the zoning district map and the ordinance are based. A review of zoning districting in the CBD Area should be undertaken to assure that zoning reflects plan objectives . BUILDING AND HOUSING CODES There are other codes which are instrumental in encouraging high standards of development. These include the building code, the housing code, fire codes, sanitation codes, smoke abatement codes, air pollution codes, and many others. Building and housing codes are separate, distinct items. The building code is designed to insure that a structure is sound from an engineering viewpoint. The technical requirements are such to adequately provide for fire protection, proper ventilation, necessary strength to prevent collapse, and similar things. Housing codes are designed to protect the occupant of the structure in a different way; their purpose is to insure that there will be no overcrowding, that there will be adequate separate sanitary facilities and adequate light and heat, and that the arrangement and design of rooms will provide adequate facilities for occupants. Administrators of these codes working closely, with the planning program, can aid in cooperative area planning and orderly development. 16 �•I •I I I • • • • • • CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMMING Improvement planning, consisting of a capital improvement program and a capital budget are prerequisites to sound planning in any community. These processes involve the orderly budgeting of community funds in conjunction with a logical scheduling of the various required community improvements. The capital improvement program is designed for a period of years (normally five years) and is prepared anew each year with a reevaluation of community needs. The capital improvement program lists those improvements required in the community and establishes a priority (timing or phasing) for their construction. The capital budget is designed to allocate funds for the right project at the right time. In private lives, people plan in advance for those large items to be bought whether it is a home, a car, or vacation. The community, too, must attempt to anticipate its needs in advance so as to plan the financial outlays for maximum value with a minimum of sacrifice to the taxpayer. Public improvements are financed through taxes, and in order to have the highest economy and utilization of tax monies, a planned budget must be prepared . Community needs are listed according to priority need, and projects are scheduled over a definite time-period, generally five or six years. These are given priority and indication is made as to what year they will be performed in whole or in part, with items of greatest urgency handled first. The Downtown Development Authority in consort with the Mayor and City Council should assure that downtown area long and short term improvements are programmed into the City's overall capital improvements program . PLANNING - A CONTINUING PROCESS As previously stated - change is a process, not an event. The downtown plan must be a continuing process through time in a community aware of its changing needs. There must be a periodic review of the plan and of the data supporting the plan, with the necessary updating of various proposals or provisions. Data of the kind used in the planning process is perishable; that is, it becomes invalid or simply obsolete as time passes. New data, therefore, must be acquired, analyzed, and integrated into a revised plan as conditions change. 17 �• • • • • • • • •II • APPENDIX �I I I APPENDIX A II II • • • • • DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF THE CITY OF WYANDOTTE WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN NOVEMBER, 1988 �I I I SUMMARY Itemized below are the key findings and conclusions from the Demographic Profile of the City of Wyandotte. POPULATION TRENDS • • • • 1. Between 1970 and 1980 the City experienced a decline in its population base of over 7,000 persons. In the 1980-1987 period, the City's population tlad a slight gain. Despite this recent gain, longer range forecasts indicate a continuation of the historic trend of gradual population loss. 2. Among the many factors contributing to this loss is a declining birth rate, increased divorced rates and greater longevity of the population such that more older people are living along rather than as part of families with young children. These factors combine to create a shrinkage in the average number of persons per household . ·HOUSEHOLD AND HOUSING TRENDS 1. A household is an occupied housing unit. From 1970 to 1980, the City had a slight loss in the number of housing units. With this decline came a corresponding decline in the number of households. Much of this loss can be contributed to demolition activity undertaken to make way for either new non-residential construction or to eliminate substandard, deteriorated housing in residential neighborhoods. 2. Minimal new housing construction has occurred in Wyandotte in recent years. As a result, current household estimates indicate only a small household gain of less than 150 households since 1980. 3. The vacancy rate among housing units in 1980 in the City was 3%, indicative of a healthy housing market but one which also borderlines on having a shortage of a variety of housing vacant and available for move-in by persons desiring immediate residency in the City. 4. Compared to the County at large, the City has substantially fewer housing complexes consisting of five or more units per structure. The majority of the City's housing stock consists of single- and two-family dwellings, creating a relative lack of variety of housing choices. Additionally, a major portion of the two-family homes are estimated to be located in structures converted from single-family use. While many of these conversions have been done well, with good materials and design, others are less well planned. In several neighborhoods, the creation of a large A-1 �I I I I • •I proportion of two-family homes from former single-family homes has created a shortage of both on and off-street parking, over-usage of lawn areas and a general appearance of congestion which could eventually lead to blight. 5. This blight and/or the potential for it to occur also exists as a result of the overall age of the bulk of the City's housing stock, of which over 65% were constructed prior to 1950. While most of these older homes are well maintained, a large number of them are oversized or of antiquated internal design by modern-day housing standards . AGE TRENDS AND LIFE CYCLES 1. Public school enrollment has declined in the City over the last several years with continued declines anticipated. Despite this decline in school age children, households containing such children -as well as pre-school children, are anticipated to increase both in actual number and proportion of all households in the City. The growing trend toward working mothers and/or single parent families indicates that additional consideration must be given by both the City and School District toward meeting the growing need for child care programs and facilities . 2. In contrast to many other communities in the Detroit metro ·area, in Wyandotte , future trends indicate a gradual reduction of the number and proportion of households containing persons in their middle or retirement years. Households containing seniors, from the early 1970's through the present, have seen the greatest increase in numbers. This trend is now reversing. A possible reason for this reversal is the relative lack of housing types both attractive to and affordable by persons, in or nearing their retirement years who may no longer desire (or be able) to care for the large, older homes in which they earlier raised their families . SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE 1. In comparison to Wayne County at large, Wyandotte has fewer of its residents employed as professionals, technicians, and managers than the County. These types of occupational classifications tend to be more stable and flexible, thus less susceptible to economic downturns which drastically effect areas tied to one sector of the economy. Wyandotte's large proportion of residents employed as craftsmen, operatives and laborers - many within the cyclic auto industry - is thus, more subject to economic downturns than would be the case with a more balanced resident labor force. 2. Keys for strengthening the earnings and occupational potential for Wyandotte residents may be education. Substantially fewer of the City's residents had any college education compared to the County at large. A-2 �I I DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE ,. I I • • • Knowing the characteristics of an area's population, especially with respect to its household composition and age group distribution, are of critical importance in the planning process. For example, the demand for larger or smaller housing and whether it is multiple or singe family is to a large extent dependant on the composition of households. Households with young children .generally prefer multiple bedroom homes with both inside and outside play space. Those households with older children may need additional on-site parking on a regular basis, but tend not to need large exterior play areas. Households whose members have reached or are approaching their retirement years may desire to move to new housing which is smaller and/or easier to maintain than the homes in which they have raised their families. Additionally, the changing household and age group composition of a community impacts the need for various types of commercial and community services and facilities, recreation programs and recreational facilities . These demographic factors affect the City of Wyandotte both now and in the future . As such , an understanding of recent demographic trends and future prospects needs to occur as part of the preparation of the Master Plan for Future Land Use. POPULATION TRENDS • Between 1970 and 1980 the Wyandotte area experienced a general decline in its population from approximately 41,000 to 34,000 people. An estimated loss of 7,055, this represents a decrease of 17% for the decade. As a whole, Wayne County experienced a decrease in its population base of approximately 332,500 people during the 1970's. This was 12.5% of the 1970 population base . Estimates of 1987 populations are shown on Table 1. These estimates are derived from population and household forecasts developed by the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG). They show that between 1980 and 1987, both the City of Wyandotte and Wayne County have experienced slight population gains. Wyandotte, with an estimated base population of 34,720 in 1987, increased by 714 people over 1980 figures. This represents a 2% gain. Wayne County with an increase of approximately 22,900 people for the period showed a gain of slightly less than 1%. Other population estimates for the City of Wyandotte and Wayne County prepared by Urban Decision Systems, Inc. estimates a population loss for both the City and the County for the period between 1980 and 1987. This is inconsistent with SEMCOG derived estimates which show a slight temporary gain for the period from 1980 to 1987. However, both data sources project decreases in population over the next several years. It may A-3 �I I I I • • • not be possible to resolve the inconsistency covering the 1980 to 1987 period between the two data sources until the next decennial census in 1990. For the purposes of this effort of community planning, the SEMCOG population and household estimates and forecasts will be utilized. Among the many factors which have contributed to Wyandotte's gradually declining population has been such factors as a declining birth rate, delayed age of marriage, a greater longevity of the population as a whole, increased divorced rates and the increase in two-earner couples. All of these factors and many others, have combined to create a smaller number of persons per household. When the average household size decreases, unless there are major numbers of new households being formed in a community, then a strong potential for population decline exists. In fully developed communities like Wyandotte, where there is a scarcity of vacant, residentially appropriate land, little room exists for new housing construction without major redevelopment. To date, this has not taken place. As a result, with a declining household size, the City's population has declined or remained essentially stable . Forecasts project that the City of Wyandotte will have a population of 30,294 in the year 2005. This is a loss of 4,426 people from 1987 SEMCOG estimates. As a point of comparison, Wayne County is also projected to experience a . general decline in population through the year 2005. The result will be a net population loss of 5,605 people for the County over this period. With the exception of neighboring Grosse lie and Brownstown Townships and the southern end of Trenton, relatively little vacant land exists in the immediate Wyandotte area either zoned or planned for significant amounts of new residential growth. This is not the case in the western and southernmost suburbs of the County. It is these latter areas which have been the focus of the County's recent growth and the anticipated location of most of its future population gains which may be insufficient to compensate for the losses expected to occur in the more heavily developed, older communities like Wyandotte, the rest of Downriver and Detroit. • A-4 �TABLE 1 POPULATION TRENDS: WYANDOTTE AREA NUMERIC CHANGE • • •II • 1970 1980 1987 2005 1970-1980 1980-1987 1987-2005 Wyandotte 41 ,061 34,006 34,720 30,294 -7,055 714 -4,426 Brownstown Twp. 7,088 14,447 21 ,467 35,767 -11,214 3,165 14,300 Ecorse 17,515 9,320 14,249 12,810 -3,068 -198 -1,439 Grosse Isle Twp . 8,306 45,105 9,566 11 ,451 -1 ,014 246 1,885 Lincoln Park 52,984 32,058 45,292 42,503 -7,879 187 -2,789 Southgate 33,909 22,762 32,371 30,630 -1,851 313 -12,741 Trenton 24 ,127 2,337,891 23,025 24,234 -1 ,365 263 1,209 Wayne County 2,670,368 2,337,891 2,360,759 2,355,154 -332,477 22,868 -5,605 HOUSEHOLD TRENDS A household is an occupied housing unit. From 1970 to 1980 the City of Wyandotte had a slight decline in the number of households from 12,922 to 12,889. This loss was due, in large part, to demolition of homes as part of various efforts by the City toward urban renewal. Thus, either older, often deteriorated housing located in primarily nonresidential areas of the City have been gradually removed to make way for new, non-residential development, or clearance of substandard housing in residential areas has occurred as part of neighborhood improvement efforts. Over the same period of time, Wayne County also experienced a loss in its total number of households from a total of 830,441 units in 1970 to 823,484 in 1980. The net loss for the decade was approximately 7,000 households. This is a loss of slightly less than 1%. According to SEMCOG estimates, Wayne County gained 34,508 households between 1980 and 1987. SEMCOG also projects that the County will gain another 133,632 households between 1987 and 2005. This translates to a 20% gain for the period between 1980 and 2005. The substantial household gain for the County as a whole is not, however, reflected in the City of Wyandotte which is anticipated by SEMC0G to see a household increase of less than 150 new households. Table 2 provides a summary of household trends in the City of Wyandotte, its neighboring communities, and Wayne County. A-5 �•I I II II Given the extensively developed character of the City, unless existing single family or two family homes are cleared to make way for new development, or, unless significantly new residential development occurs elsewhere in the City, such as along vacant or redeveloped former industrial areas of the Detroit River front, it is unlikely that this forecast of new household growth will be exceeded - or even come to pass. Indeed, household projections by Urban Decision Systems, which are based on recent U.S. Census estimates and projections, anticipate a gradual decline in the number of households in the City. In order to prevent the potential loss of population and housing from having a negative impact on the City's existing and planned industrial, commercial and office base, a serious attempt must be made to encourage the retention of the types of housing attractive to the City's present and future residents. An improved housing stock can substantially aid the City's potential support for its business community. Housing that is attractive to persons of middle and upper incomes, can retain or bring such people into the City. Thus, the extent of retail sales dollars that the City's merchants can pursue will be increased and the vitality of the City's downtown improved. Attractive and suitably designed housing can draw corporate decision makers into the City who desire to locate their businesses near their homes. Finally, attractive neighborhoods, containing appropriate mixes of housing with a range of value levels and structural characteristics will appeal to a range of lifestyle needs, enhancing the City's vitality and its quality of life. · TABLE 2 HOUSEHOLD TRENDS: WYANDOTTE AREA NUMERIC CHANGE • 1970 1980 1987 2005 1970-1980 1980-1987 1987-2005 Wyandotte 12,922 12,889 12,908 13,053 -33 19 145 Brownstown Twp. 2,039 6,070 7,098 15,285 4,031 1,028 8,187 Ecorse 5,326 5,076 5,140 5,477 -250 64 337 Gross Isle Twp. 2,167 2,976 3,235 11 ,451 809 259 8,216 Lincoln Park 15,999 16,583 16,650 17,358 584 67 708 Southgate 9,189 11,032 11,795 13,444 1,843 763 1,649 Trenton 6,530 7,691 8,155 10,590 1,161 464 2,435 Wayne County 830,441 823,484 857,992 991,624 -6,957 34,508 133,632 Source: U.S. Census; SEMCOG A-6 �I I TABLE 3 HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS I 1980 Total Housing Units I CITY OF WYANDOTTE I WAYNE COUNTY 13,287 875,018 3.0% 5.8% 12,889 824,267 Owner Occupied 67.3% 62.6% Renter Occupied 29.7% 31.6% 2.63 2.80 $35,058 $32,597 $195 "$166 One Unit 72.9% 68.5% Two Units 12.9% 11 .6% Three-Four Units 4.8% 3.7% Five+ Units 9.3% 16.2% 1970-1980 4.2% 10.1% 1960-1969 7.7% 12.2% 1950-1959 22.6% 23.9% 1949 or earlier 65.5% 53.9% Stability 66.7% 60.9% Turnover 6.6% 7.4% Estimated Occupied Housing Units 12,908 849,347 Estimated Persons Per Household 2.68 2.75 Percent Vacant Occupied Housing Units Persons Per Household Median Value Owner Occupied Non-Condominium Units Median Contract Rent Units in Structure Year Built • 1987 Source: U.S. Census; SEMCOG A-7 I �I • • • • • • • • • • TENURE OF OCCUPIED HOUSING 1980 70% ~ I b ~ ~ 50% renter 40% Fig. 1 30% 20% 10% 0% W'r'/>NOOTI[ WAYNE STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS 1980 ~ 5 • owner 60% ~b ~ 80% W',1',,@A 70% one fan ~ 60% two fan ~ 50% m.Jlti. fern 40% Fig. 2 30% 20% 10% 0% W'r'..ANDOTTE WAYNE �•I ii • • HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS HOUSING TENURE AND VACANCY LEVELS Table 3 presents an overview of some key 1980 housing characteristics for the City of Wyandotte and Wayne County. The table indicates that the City of Wyandotte has a vacancy rate of approximately 3.0%. This is almost half of Wayne County's 5.8%. The fact that Wyandotte has a greater percentage of owner occupied housing may be the reason for its lesser vacancy rates as compared to Wayne County . A vacancy rate within a range of 3 to 5% is indicative of a stable residential situation. Levels below this would correspond to a very tight housing market. This can have the ill effect of forcing people out of a community should they desire to change residences, due to a relative lack of available homes to buy or lease within their same community. The citywide vacancy rate in 1980 of 3% was about the lowest rate acceptabl~ for a healthy housing market. STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS • • • The Census concept of the number of units per structure does not provide a complete count of what is defined by urban planners as two-family housing. The planning definition of such a term is a housing situation in which there are two dwelling units, structurally connected in some fashion, located on the same parcel or lot. However, for the purposes of this planning effort, the Census definition of two units per structure is presumed to be the same as the planning definition. This is despite the fact that the Census definition would not consider side-by-side attached units, each with separate entrances from front and rear, as a two-unit structure. These type of units, commonly known as a townhouse or attached ranch style of units fall within the planning definition of two-family homes. The Census would consider as two-unit structures those cases in which one dwelling is located over the other (a flat arrangement) or situations in which a single exterior door leads to separate lower and upper units or to separate side-by-side units. Since these latter two situations are estimated to account for the great majority of the two-family housing situations found in Wyandotte, the Census count of two-family units is considered acceptable. The distribution of dwelling units by structural type, as shown on Table 3, indicates that there is a general similarity between the City and the County. The main difference which can be observed is the percentage of structures containing five or more units. 1980 Census counts indicate that only 9.3% of the City's total housing units were in structures containing five or more units compared to over 16% of units county-wide. This differential between City and County could be indicative of several situations. First, it may imply that the market has not shown sufficient pressure in Wyandotte for the construction of larger forms of multiple-family housing. At the same time, it may mean A-8 �•I I • that a market may exist in Wyandotte of which area residential developers may not have taken advantaye. Another reason for this differential may be the lack of sufficiently sized parcels in the City to accommodate larger multiple-family buildings. It should be noted that from a demographic standpoint there is a need .directed towards households containing fewer people. One possible means of accomplishing this is through the construction of multiple-family housing. Another means, and one which appears to have been extensively followed in Wyandotte, is for the subdivision of larger, former single-family homes into structures containing two or more dwelling units. If done effectively and well, with high quality of construction and design, and combined with adequate on-site parking and open space, this latter solution can positively contribute to the vitality of a community. If, however, converted units are poorly designed, constructed and located on undersized parcels of land, neighborhoods can begin to deteriorate as problems of structural deterioration and parking problems escalate. HOUSING TENURE Multiple-family housing is generally, either condominium or rental property. Figures show that there are more single-family homes in Wyandotte than homes which are owner occupied. When the number of homes for sale is included in the calculations, there is still a large extent of single-family homes not owner occupied. This indicates that there is a large number of such homes being rented. Estimates are that the proportion is about 7.7%. Thus, there are two possible conclusions. One, is that housing which cannot be sold is being rented. Given the low vacancy rates this is probably not true. The other conclusion, is that there is a need for rental housing which cannot be sufficiently met through the types of multiple-family housing now existing in the City. AGE OF HOUSING STOCK • • • The City of Wyandotte contains a large amount of older housing. In total, 65.5% of its housing was constructed before 1949. This is well above Wayne County's 53.9%. Older housing can be of great benefit to a community. If well maintained, it lends character to a community. Also, ·homes of this era tend to be of very solid construction with a number of homes being architecturally significant. At the same time older housing is, all too often, a disadvantage to communities. It tends to be much larger, suited to a larger or extended family lifestyle that is now obsolete. Thus, older housing may be abandoned or unkept which can lead to a blighting affect. Additionally, the presence of concentrations of such older, larger homes can create an impetus toward conversion to two-family homes in response to market demand and the financial needs of the owners. The next largest segment of the City's housing stock was constructed during the 1950's. An estimated 22.6% of the City's housing falls within this range, a proportion similar to A-9 �• • • • • • that of the County as a whole. This concentration of housing built in the 1950's is a reflection of the post-war housing boom and the large suburban growth characteristic of the 1950's . The City's housing stock appears to have few homes dated post 1960. Only 7. 7% of the City's total housing was constructed during the 1960's. Only 4.2% of the housing was built between 1970 and 1980. At a total of 11.9%, this lags behind Wayne County's post 1960 construction of estimates of 22.3% . PERSONS PER OCCUPIED HOUSING UNIT For the City of Wyandotte in 1980, there was an average of 2.63 persons per household. This is somewhat smaller than the figure of 2.80 persons per household in Wayne County. According to calculations based on SEMCOG estimates, the figure slightly increased over the period between 1980 and 1987 to 2.68 for Wyandotte. Wayne County 's figure declined to 2.75 persons per household. This slight increase for Wyandotte represents a slight bend in the curve but not a continuing trend. Projections from both SEMCOG and Urban Decision Systems, Inc. show a gradually declining number of persons per household for the City of Wyandotte as well as Wayne County. HOUSING VALUE • In 1980, housing values in the City of Wyandotte were significantly higher than comparable values in Wayne County. The median value of owner occupied , noncondominium units in the City of Wyandotte was $35,058 in 1980. This is about $2,500 above the median value of $32,597 in Wayne County. The 1980 median contract rent in Wyandotte was also higher than that for Wayne County as a whole. STABILITY AND TURNOVER Stability is a measure of the proportion of an area's households living in the area who also lived in the same house five years earlier. Thus, it is a measure of a neighborhood's transience . In 1980, the City of Wyandotte had a 66.7% stability rate. This is 5.8% above the rate for Wayne County. A high stability rate represents commitment to a community. It suggests job stability and faith in the community's future. • In contrast to the five year period measured by "stability," the term "turnover" is a measure of the percent of households who have moved into their residence within the single year prior to the Census. The turnover rate of both City and County are similar: 6.6% and 7.4 %, respectively. A-10 �•I I • • • • • • • • AGE TRENDS AND LIFE CYCLES Changes in the number and proportions of various age groups that make up the City's population can affect the housing needs, recreation needs, shopping preferences and other community concerns. The following is a discussion of Wyandotte's age and life cycle trends and their implications for planning and community development. Included are tables and graphs to help illustrate and summarize specific aspects of the analysis . PRESCHOOLERS In recent years, the number of preschoolers has remained relatively stable with only a slight decrease in both number and percentage between 1980 and 1987. Table 5 indicates that households containing very young children are anticipated to remain a relatively stable proportion of all households in the area. It is projected that after 1987 the number and proportion of preschoolers will increase until they represent 8.15% of the population in 2005. This is not a sizeable difference, but it demonstrates that a continuing community concern with facilities and programs directed to this age group is a necessity . (See Table 5 and Figures 1 and 2.) With the number of working mothers on the rise , daycare and other programs directed towards the very young have been a growing concern. The abiiity to provide good programs and services for preschoolers is not just a social, but an economic issue. It is in the best interest of the community to keep employed those who demonstrate an ability and desire to work. Through greater provision of preschool care programs by the School District and zoning standards in the City's Zoning Ordinance which encourage the development of well planned daycare facilities, the City can work to ensure that the needs of its citizens are met in a safe and responsible manner. SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN Citywide, total public school enrollment has declined from over 4,900 children in 1980 to less than 4,700 in 1987 as shown on Table 6. The lowest enrollment in the elementary grades K-6 since 1980 was in 1982, when 2,352 elementary school children attended the City's schools. Since 1982, however, the trend for elementary enrollment has been steadily upward such that by the 1987-1988 school year, the number elementary school children surpassed that found in 1980-81. We note, however, that since its peak in 1984, the number of kindergarten children has been decreasing and is now far less than 1980 levels - though still in excess of its lowest level, experienced in 1981. Recent enrollment at the City's junior high schools (grades 7-9) remains below that found in 1980. However, even at its lowest levels in· this decade, found in 1984, the total number of such children was only 133 less than the 1980 level. This is largely due to the A-11 �• • • • • • • • • fact that although the population is gradually declining, the proportion of school age children that are between the ages of 5 and 14 is increasing. In the near future , the growth at the elementary levels may soon be reflected in the junior high grades . High schoolers continue to decline in numbers in the City, from a 1980 level of over 1,200 children to 1,024 in 1987. While the rolling increase found at the elementary levels may eventually make its way forward to the high school grades, in the long run , there will continue to be an overall decrease of school age children in the City . In sum, while the sheer numbers of school age children in the City are anticipated to decline, households containing such children will account for an increased proportion of all households in the area. As a result, the possible willingness of residents to have the City and School District increase expenditures for child related programs and facilities , may increase over present levels . Because the overall decline in the number of children, the pressure to accommodate them in existing schools and city parks will decrease from current levels. Thus, there may be opportunities for alternative uses of school sites and small scale, neighborhood oriented, city parks for other than child related purposes . TABLE 4 HOUSEHOLDS BY LIFE CYCLE WYANDOTI'E 1980 • 2005 NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT Head aged less than 35 yrs. 1,915 14.86% 1,782 13.81% 1,788 13.70 Head aged 35-64 yrs. 4,239 32.90% 4,035 31 .26% 4,102 31 .43% Head aged 65 + yrs. 2,460 19.09% 2,422 18.76% 2,148 16.46% 8,614 66.85% 8,240 63.83% 8,038 61 .59% Youngest less than 6 yrs. 1,904 14.78% 1,987 15.39% 1,966 15.07% Youngest 6 + yrs. 2,367 18.37% 2,682 20.TT% 3,046 23.34% Total with children 4,271 33.15% 4,669 36.17% 5,012 38.41 % Total Households 12,885 100.00% 12,908 100.00% 13,050 100.00% LIFE CYCLE • 1987 Households without children (by age of household head) Total without children Households with children (by age of youngest child) Source: U.S. Census SEMCOG Small Area Forecasts, 1984 A-12 �•I I I • • • • • • TABLE 5 AGE GROUP DISTRIBUTION WYANDOTIE 1980 AGE GROUPS 1987 2005 NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT 0-4 2,377 6.99% 2,361 6.80% 2,470 8.15% 5-14 4,478 13.17% 5,069 14.60% 4,631 15.29% 15-19 3,023 8.89% 2,784 8.02% 2,307 7.62% 20-34 9,074 26.68% 8,326 23.98% 6,250 20.63% 35 -44 2,934 8.63% 4,524 13.03% 4,466 14.74% 45 -64 7,935 23.33% 7,362 21 .20% 7,288 24.06% 65 + 4,185 12.31% 4,296 12.37% 2,878 9.50% Total 34,006 100.00% 34,722 100.00% 30,290 100.00% Source: U.S. Census, 1980 SEMCOG Small Area Forecasts, 1984 FAMILY FORMING The age range between 20 and 34 years is labeled the family forming group. This group has seen a steady decline since 1980. This decline is anticipated to continue through the year 2005. In 1987, persons in this age group represented almost 24% of the population ; a decrease of about 3% since 1980 . MATURING FAMILIES The age range between 35 and 64 years old constitutes the maturing families group. Not surprisingly, this group has been increasing in number and proportion. Included in this age range are persons in the age group commonly called "baby boomers." Born in the period between 1946 and 1964, such persons are an inordinately large proportion of the nationwide population. It is this age group which is generally presumed to have entered their peak earning years, in contrast to younger adults and retirees whose incomes generally fall at lower ends of the economic scale. As they age, they will cause an increase in the proportion of persons in older age groups. SEMCOG estimates that by the year 2005, the age range from 45-64 years will constitute 24% of the City's population. The entire "maturing families" group will constitute almost 39% of the population by 2005. A-13 �I I I I •■ • • • • HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN CITY OF WYANDOTTE ~W"ff/43 <6 yrs. ~ 6+ yrs. Fig. 3 1980 1987 2005 BY /J.Gf. 0::- YCUNGEST 011..D AGE DISTRIBUTION TRENDS CITY OF WYANDOTTE • ~ 5-14~ W/ff/ffff/21 15-19~ ~ 20-34~ t1///ff//1//41 35-64~ 65+~ 1980 1987 ,t,,G£. GRCX.JP BY YEAR 2005 Fig. 4 �•II •I • • • • • • • •II • SENIOR CITIZENS Since 1980, the number and proportion of senior citizens has remained relatively stable . The number of seniors rose slightly from 4,185 in 1980 to 4,296 in 1987. Projections, however, show a decline in the number of seniors to 2,878 for the year 2005. This is a loss of 1,418 people from levels found in 1987. At the same time, the proportion of seniors in the City's population make-up is also projected to decrease from 12.37% in 1987 to 9.50% in 2005 . SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE An area's housing stock and the age and household composition of its residents impact that area's needs for community services and facilities. Additionally, from an economic standpoint, the employment pattern of its residents, their income and their educational levels all interact to determine the overall character of the area. Table 7 provides an overview of selected socioeconomic characteristics of the City of Wyandotte as compared to Wayne County . The City of Wyandotte, according to 1980 Census data, has a greater median income than Wayne County. According to 1987 statistics prepared be Urban Decision Systems, Inc. , based on Census data, this trend, though somewhat narrowed,·has continued. The City has a higher proportion of households with incomes between $10,000 and $35,000 in comparison to the County. The high number of households with incomes under $10,000 for Wayne County is one reason that Wyandotte's median income is higher. Furthermore, although Wayne County does have a slightly higher number of households in the upper income range, (greater than $50,000), it is not enough to compensate for the abundance of lower income households and lack of mid-income households. In terms of occupations, the City of Wyandotte has fewer people in the professional, technical, managerial and clerical areas than Wayne County. These jobs tend to be more stable and flexible and thus, less susceptible to economic downturns which drastically effect areas tied to one sector of the economy. Wayne County as a whole is still very dependent upon the automobile industry. Wyandotte, having a large segment of its population within the crafts, operatives, and laborers occupations may be especially susceptible. It is in the best interest of the people and the economy of the community to diversity industries and occupations. Keys for strengthening the earnings potential of Wyandotte residents may be greater education. The correlation between education and occupation is apparent from 1980 Census data. In the City of Wyandotte, only 19.0% of the population over 25 years of ·age has had some college education. This compares to the Wayne County statistic of 26.2% (a 7.2% difference). A-14 �I I •I •I • • • • • • • • • • • Greater education and job training can enhance job skills and create greater job flexibility. A variety of training programs exist, both for school age children and older persons , at public schools in the Downriver area at the Wayne County Community College , the Downriver Community Conference, and at area vocational specialty schools as well as through local school districts. Widespread distribution of information about such programs and financial assistance and/or child care assistance might assist Wyandotte residents to enhance their job skills and thus their earning potential. While such programs are not typically part of a Master Plan for Future Land Use, they form an integral part of a community's overall approach toward maintaining and increasing the quality of life and the economic climate within the community. A-15 �• • • • • • • • TABLE 7 CENTRAL SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CHARACfERISTICS: 1980 I I CITY OF WYANDOTTE Income : Median Household $19,463 I WAYNE COUNTY $18,629 Income: Distribution (Household) Less than $10,000 26.1% 28.9% $10,000-$19,000 25.2% 24.4% $20,000-$24 ,999 13.5% 12.0% $25,000-$29,999 11 .8% 10.1% $30,000-$34 ,999 8.9% 7.7% $35,000-$39,999 5.7% 5.6% $40.000-$44,999 6.2% 6.2% $50,000-$74,999 2.1% 4.1% $75,000+ 0.4% 1.0% 12.17 ·12.32 19 26.2 Professional , Technical , Managerial 16.8% 22.2% Clerical 16.9% 19.1~ Sales 8.6% 8.5% Crafts 17.3% 12.3% Operatives 19.4% 17.9% Service 14.4% 15.5% Laborer 6.3% 4.2% Other 0.4% 0.3% 28.4% 28.2% Median Years of School Completed Any College• In College 1980 as % of persons 18-34 yrs. Occupation Non Family Households * Based on persons 25 + years. Source: U.S. Census A-16 I �• • • • • • • • • APPENDIX B AN OVERVIEW OF THE MARKET POTENTIAL FOR DOWNTOWN WYANDOTTE SEPTEMBER, 1989 �• • • • • • • COMMERCIAL MARKET ANALYSIS This commercial market analysis is undertaken to provide the City of Wyandotte with realistic guidelines by which to determine the future course of commercial development in the City's Central Business District. Such planning will enable the City to meet the challenges of a strong business climate by providing ample land area, good parking and a good circulation system capable of attracting new businesses to the CBD while retaining viable existing businesses . EXISTING COMMERCIAL LAND USE Before the commencement of any demographic or economic analysis of the CBD's commercial potential, a land use survey was conducted to ascertain the extent of the existing commercial base. Commercial uses were divided into four main categories ; convenience, comparison, and general commercial, and restaurants & taverns. The following table presents an accounting of the gross floor area associated with almost 120 commercial establishments located in or near the Wyandotte CBD. It should be noted that floor area has been allocated to the CBD and to the "fringe" area. The latter is the commercial area that lies outside the main clustering of commercial development within the CBD . • • B-1 �• • • • • TABLE 1 EXISTING COMMERCIAL FLOOR AREA WYANDOTTE CBD AND FRINGE GROSS FLOOR AREA I I I CBD FRINGE I TOTAL I Convenience Establishments Food 14,568 2,157 16,725 Drug 18,510 -- 18,510 Personal Service 5,596 3,020 8,616 - - -- 38,674 5,177 43,851 General Merchandise -- -- Furniture, Appliances 131 ,612 Apparel 40,413 Shoes 4,605 Other Comparison 77,349 ----- 253,979 -- 253 ,979 General Commercial 149,434 14,984 164,418 Restaurants and Taverns 91 ,137 -- 91 ,137 533,224 20,161 553,385 Hardware TOTAL Comparison Establishments TOTAL GRAND TOTAL SOURCE : 131 ,612 40,413 4,605 77,349 Vilican-Leman & Associates, Inc. field survey, April 1982 - Wyandotte Assessor's records, May, 1982. PRIMARY MARKET AREA One of the first steps involved in a commercial market analysis is the determination of the Primary Market Area (P.M.A.) of the area under study. Generally, shopping centers that contain a mix of convenience, comparison and restaurant establishments of a scale similar to Wyandotte's will have a trade area extending five to ten miles. The former distance is believed to be applicable to Wyandotte's CBD due to its lack of a major name anchor in the form of a department store. This estimate was confirmed by interviews with selected CBD retail businessmen who indicated ttiat roughly 70- 80 percent of their trade appears to be drawn from within !ive miles. B-2 �I· 94 TAYLOR •Iii • • • • • • • ....• ll) ..... I : ·- , WOODHAVEN 0 2MI. iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!5iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil TRADE AREA �Ii II Ii II Ill Ill II II The P.M.A. of the Wyandotte CBD contains all or portions of twelve communities. However, nine communities form the bulk of the P.M.A. These communities include: Wyandotte, Allen Park, Ecorse, Grosse lie Township, Lincoln Park, River Rouge, Riverview, Southgate and Trenton. MARKET SHARE The sales potential of the P.M.A. 's residents was estimated and translated into supportable floor area. This floor area was then compared to the floor area of the CBD to obtain an evaluation of the CBD's strengths and weakness. A similar operation was conducted with the sales potential of the City of Wyandotte's 30,000 + residents. Table 2 presents the results of this analysis. Due to the widely diverse nature of general commercial uses and their relatively low ties to specifics of geographic location, no market share is computed for these uses nor are sales estimated for their respective supportable floor areas at this time. Table 2 is the result of comparing the floor area existing within the CBD to that supportable by the residents of the two different geographic areas (City of Wyandotte and P.M.A.) . •II ii 8-3 �• • • • • • • • ~ TABLE 2 CBD MARKET SHARE OF SUPPORTABLE FLOOR AREA CBD MARKET SHARE* CITY OF WYANDOTTE PRIMARY MARKET AREA Food 10.1% 1.6% Drug 47.5% 7.9% Personal Service 14.6% 2.5% -- -- 14.1% 2.3% General Merchandise -- -- Furniture, Appliances 345.9% 53.6% Apparel 89.5% 13.9% Shoes 60.7% 9.4% Other Comparison 104.3% 18.0% 77.4% 12.3% 78.1% 12.4% 53.5% 8.3% Convenience Establishments Hardware TOTAL Comparison TOTAL •II • • • Restaurants and Taverns TOTAL SOURCE: Vilican-Leman & Associates, Inc. from estimates of sales from Urban Decision Systems; 1977 Census of Retail Trade; 1977 Census of Selected Services; and Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers, Urban Land Institute . * Includes market share attributable to CBD core and fringe area. ANALYSIS CONVENIENCE MARKET Generally, convenience stores in a CBD serve the residents and employees of a fairly restrictive geographic area (two - three mile drive). To the extent that other supermarkets serve the same geographic area, the population of that area must be larger since its sales potential is "shared" between the different stores: 8-4 �• • ■ ■ ■ ■ • • Therefore, it becomes obvious why the convenience stores in the CBD are small and do not exert a suustantial draw to either P.M.A. residents or to the City as a whole . The presence of full sized conveniently located competition probably contributed to the closure of the CBD's only grocery. There are five specialty stores within the CBD and two in the fringe area. These food stores are generally small party stores as well as a limited few food specialty stores selling baked goods and the like. The other convenience stores are generally scattered throughout the CBD and the fringe area. It appears that the CBD does not exert strong convenience commercial draw to an area much beyond its boundaries. Unless the resident population of the CBD were augmented substantially, most likely through the development of high rise housing, and that augmented resident base were of at least moderate income, significant additional convenience floor area would not be warranted although the total convenience floor space may increase over time with uses shifting in nature and to new locations . It is likely that over a period of time, several of the smaller family run personal service establishments and food stores may close. Since several of them are surrounded by single or two family residential uses, their reuse for residential, rather than commercial purposes, is desirable. COMPARISON MARKET It can be seen from Tables 1 and 2, that while the CBD no longer offers P.M.A. and City residents a department or general merchandise store, its mix of other comparison uses is strong. With recent retail trends creating a shift in demand away from traditional department stores to discount and catalogue stores and to small specialty shops, the CBD's concentration of miscellaneous comparison stores, apparel and shoe stores should continue to prove quite viable. In addition, when a percentage of market share is greater than 100 percent, it means that the CBD's floor area is providing more space than that directly supportable by the specific geographic area, indicating a substantial draw beyond that geography. Thus, the 345+ percent share of the City's furniture store potential suggests that the CBD's draw of sales is to an area well beyond the City limits. To take advantage of the trend away from the department store's impersonal service to the individualized attention found at many smaller specialty shops, additional comparison floor space could be developed in the CBD, such as more shoe and specialized apparel stores. The CBD's proximity to several downriver marinas could act as a theme promoting boating wear and fishing equipment stores. The recent and apparently pervasive emergence of the trend toward jogging or running for recreation lends support to the establishment of an athletic footwear stor~. B-5 �• • • • • •II • •.. II • •II • • • • • As indicated in Table 2, the unusual strength of the CBD's furniture stores warrants the opportunity for furnishing accessory establishments such as art galleries that offer sculpture, glass and wall hanging and other related accessories that would serve to complement furniture stores. These facilities could be developed either as entirely new stores or expansions of present stores . As noted earlier, restaurants and taverns play a large and growing role in the CBD's commercial base. As the City of Plymouth, in northwestern Wayne County, has grown into a major furniture, specialty store and restaurant center, capitalizing on its historic structures and viable residential base, it appears Wyandotte's CBD is becoming the main non-shopping center commercial force for the downriver area . FUTURE POTENTIAL Over the next two decades, regional planning officials at SEMCOG have projected a continuing decline in the P.M.A. population while, at the same time, an increase in actual number of households. This seeming discrepancy is a direct result of decreasing household size resulting from a variety of factors. Generally, while fewer people mean a lower aggregate sales volume of some goods and services, the potential sales volume of other goods and services may increase, being tied not to population but to households. Types of commercial establishments such as furniture and home furnishing stores are generally not as adversely effected by a population decline as food stores when such population decline is coupled with a household increase. However, the amount of furnishings and scale of such materials sold to smaller households is generally less. Thus, the overall aggregate sales of furniture stores might decline unless the product mix is changed to match the changing market. Table 3 presents projections for the floor area supportable by the projected population of the P.M.A. for the years 1990 and 2000 and Table 4 shows potential targets of market share for such floor area compared to the current market share . It should be noted that all projected floor area targets are approximations of what could happen provided sufficient land area and parking were available. Neither the projected floor area nor the market share are hard and fast numbers. This is especially true with regard to the distributions of floor area among commercial subcategories. Instead, the numbers are intended to reflect the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the CBD so that recommendations regarding the future direction of growth can be made . B-6 �• • • • • •II • • • • • • • •II • TABLE 3 PROJECTED SUPPORTABLE CONVENIENCE AND COMPARISON COMMERCIAL FLOOR AREA WYANDOTIE CBD PRIMARY MARKET AREA COMMERCIAL CATEGORY CBD & FRINGE EXISTING FLOOR AREA (SQUARE FEET) SQUARE FOOTAGE, PRIMARY MARKET AREA 1981 1990 2000 Convenience Establishments Food 16,725 1,023,400 948,400 944,300 Drug 18,510 237,400 220,CXXl 219,000 Personal Services 8,616 347,CXXl 321 ,500 -:. 20 ,100 - 111 ,500 103,400 103,000 43,851 1,719,300 1,593,300 1,586,400 General Merchandise - 1,046,300 969,600 965,400 Furnitu re, Appl iances 131 ,612 245,500 227,500 226,500 Apparel 40,413 291 ,CXX) 269,700 268,500 Shoes 4,605 48,800 45,100 44,900 n ,349 430,500 398,900 397,200 253,979 2,062,100 1,910,800 1,902,500 91 ,137 736,900 682,900 680,CXXl 388,967 4,518,300 4 ,187,CXXl 4,1 68,900 Hardware TOTAL Comparison Establishments Other Comparison TOTAL Restaurants TOTAL SOURCE: Vilican-Leman & Associates, Inc. estimates. NOTE: It should be noted that the 1990 and 2000 projections represent a conservative projection solely based on per capita sales. The changing character of the population and its households will most likely increase the sales potential somewhat in at least the comparison categories since children's clothes, furnishings, etc. are generally less expensive than those for adults. Children will represent a smaller proportion of the population than at present. Also, drugstore sales will increase since an older population generally requires more pharmaceutical goods. Personal services will also likely be higher than projected since older persons tend to use tailors, barbers, beauty shops, dry cleaners and the like more frequently than younger persons . B-7 �ii • • •Ill -ii •II • •II II • • • TABLE 4 PROJECTED MARKET SHARE TARGETS WYANDOTIE CBD OF THE CBD PRIMARY MARKET AREA 1990 1981 I I SHARE I SQ.FT. I SHARE I 2000 SQ.FT. I SHARE I SQ.FT. I Conven ience Establishments Food 1.6% 16,725 2.3% 24,000 2.5% 24,000 Drug 7.9% 18,510 8.4% 18,500 8.5% 18,500 Personal Services 2.5% 8,616 2.2% 7,000 1.7% 5,600 - - - - - - 2.3% 43,851 49,500 3.0% 48,1 00 General Merchandise - - - - - - Furn iture, Appl iances 53.6% 131 ,612 61 .1% 139,100 64.4% 145,900 Appare l 13.9% 40,413 17.8% 48,000 19.4% 52,000 Shoes 9.4% 4,605 14.6% 6,600 22.3% 10,000 Other Comparison 18.0% TT,349 21 .7% 86,700 23.9% 95,000 12.3% 253,979 14.7% 280,400 15.9% 302,900 12.4% 91 ,137 13.9% 95,100 14.6% 99,000 8.6% 388,967 10.2% 425,000 10.8% 450,000 Hardware TOTAL 2.8% Comparison Establishments TOTAL Restaurants TOTAL SOURCE: Vilican-Leman & Associates , Inc. It can be seen from Table 4 that an additional 36,000 square feet of floor space is recommended for development by 1990 followed by 25,000 by the year 2000. The higher increase by 1990, then between 1990 and 2000, reflects the reuse of the 11,200 square foot Lucky Strike Market for convenience commercial. The distribution of CBD (and fringe) floor space will shift to a higher proportion of comparison uses over time. The increase in floor area for food is somewhat misleading since instead of "new" convenience space, it included retention of the Lucky Strike Market as a food store or grouping of food stores. B-8 �There are almost 43,000 1 square feet of first floor building area vacant in the CBD. Much of this floor space may be too small, in poor condition or too far off the main commercial streets to be suitable for many commercial uses. It is anticipated that at least one-quarter of this vacant space can be used to meet the projected targeted floor space. Utilization of this area would then leave approximately 50,500 square feet of additional floor space to be developed by the year 2000. It is further anticipated that over a period of time some of the existing general commercial uses in the CBD will be phased out. While these floor areas may offer expansion potential for other commercial uses, the extent cannot be readily projected. = II It is concluded that at the minimum, to meet the expansion/relocation requirements of present CBD businesses and allow for new concerns, a minimum land area capable of accommodating between 40,000 and 50,000 square feet of commercial floor area be designated for such use. Determination of the amount of land required depends on analyzing the parking and other site plan requirements for business uses. Further, this analysis is closely allied to the examination of parking availability for present commercial uses. I II II II •II II II -II • This included the Lucky Strike Market which was vacant at the time this study was undertaken. 8-9 �•Ill •II •II II •II •II • •Ill • • •II • APPENDIX C AN OVERVIEW OF PARKING NEEDS FOR DOWNTOWN WYANDO'ITE DECEMBER, 1989 �• PARKING NEEDS II •II II II II II II II This element of the design study of the CBD will review and discuss the following basic parking concerns relative to the Wyandotte CBD . 1. Existing parking need to meet present demands. 2. The proper distribution of parking. 3. Providing adequate parking to meet projected development. commercial growth and The attached parking study map provides peripheral lines involving two basic areas of study. These two areas include the delineated critical CBD core area and an overall study area. The overall study area contains 46 blocks and extends from Orchard Street to Superior Street, between Fourth and Biddle; from Eureka Road to Poplar Street, between Biddle and the Detroit River and from Superior Street to Mulberry Street, between First and Van Alstyne. EXISTING PARKING INVENTORY Within the designated study area there presently exists a total of 67 off-street parking lots. These lots range in size from two and three car parking areas adjacent to an individual business, to large improved lots containing hundreds of marked parking spaces. • • •II II , At the present time there exists a total of 3,683 parking spaces within the total study area . The numerical breakdown between on-street and off-street parking is as follows: II C-1 II On-street parking Off-street parking - 1,238 2.445 3,683 Most of the off-street parking lots are improved lots and contain marked parking spaces for vehicles. Several parking areas are not improved lots, however. These parking facilities are less efficient since random undelineated parking exists which results in fewer usable parking spaces and poor vehicle circulation. The unimproved off-street parking lots are small lots which lie outside the CBD core, towards the periphery of the study area. �~ ~ ~ -I II II II i I UJ ~ 0 C z <t i I II • • • • ~ I <t UJ a: <t > C :::, t- en C, -z ~ a: <t C. �I • ,• • • - EXISTING PARKING - WYANDOTTE CBD �•I II I II II Ill • I • • •I • EXISTING PARKING NEEDS Parking needs within the designated study area, and more particularly within the CBD core area, can be determined in part by applying the off-street parking standards of the City 's Zoning Ordinance to the collective square footage of applicable floor area that presently exists within the study area. For the purposes of this study, applicable area includes retail commercial, office and public land uses. The parking to floor area ratios that were applied to the various uses were, as noted, taken from the Wyandotte zoning standards. These standards include: Retail Commercial Uses - One (1) space for each 150 square feet of usable floor area. Office Uses - One (1) space for each 400 square feet of usable floor area. Public Uses - One (1) space for each four (4) seats, or in the case of a public office, i.e., City Hall, the ratio for offices was uses. These standards were then applied to the known square footage of ·floor area data from the commercial market analysis. As such, the exercise of determining parking need in this manner must be regarded, to a certain extent, as theoretical in its approach . The theoretical technique provides us with a numerical evaluation of parking needs, it cannot and is not intended to provide a practical evaluation of what may ultimately become the number of parking spaces that can be provided. Nevertheless, the theoretical evaluation provides a technically sound methodology for determining parking need and a basis from which to plan actual parking capability. Actual parking development, of course, will be based on what the community can afford to spend on new parking areas and the physical limitations that exist with respect to locating future parking with the least disruption of existing land use. As an example, the block in which the Yack Arena is located can be used to provide a comparison between theoretical need and what can ultimately be provided from a practical standpoint. Theoretically, the total numerical parking need for this block (C-2) is 1,055 spaces . However, since most of the activities held in the arena are held in the evening after the stores and offices are closed, the entire 216 parking spaces available for the block can be used by both the arena as well as the stores and offices. Furthermore, the arena can also count on the 255 car parking capacity of the block to the south and the 95 car offstreet parking capacity of the parking lot north across Maple street from the arena. This brings the total potential existing parking for Yack Arena to 566 spaces. This exceeds the C-2 �. . lllt - - - •• •• • • • ..... JDD DD DD DD DD Do dD DD DD DD-E9 PD DD DD DL rn DD 5I] DD DD [I] DD DD DD og [ · · ·□·t3.;w-~ ~n n~ ~ □□ DD DD DD ttJ w , [ J ·;· ~ J: I~': l~,[]J!tE{E:FlJiDD DD DQ [ jl]i~iDD,G□irn --~---.:......._ ~ ::::.i·'.; .............,. :g • ~ ' 0 .· • ~ . u=LJ:J 45 " 1 DD.. 1 E· 1 1 .. , ~~Nl2 CIO ~ " _ - ·, 11-?A lh I , ~ " ",,. O:tSTINI •a•11tNe L0TS STUDT - · - STUOT aftta 1ou•o•t1tT -.;, ••• 11 •• 11 - ---·-- ~c!!] ro 63 0 ..., ~ ~ ,,. , ~ -·- ,, , • ' •• ". -- ~5 _:¾t [!]6 ;ae , 33 ,1 I~---+-' e,p ~ - NI ~~ - ·- -, d , --.. -~ ... 0 - '•••ovr• •••• 0 -••• 11 t ••••• ••• 3 .' Alt(A OUAOIUNU c-c .. , •• ,. • . ,. . "~· . . . . . . ,. I 4 2 e :,.----- - ~ _ -,. 000 0NU11tt1:Tl'AltlllNG 000 OIi Sflll(T l'AltKING 000 TOUL l'A/IIKINO IY ILOCIII: c:::J c:J ~'ff~ pWYAHOOTT[ A R K ING AN A Ly s I s C(NTRAt. 8US I N[SS DISTRICT ICIOI ....._ --~- --"" - I J~: rp-==~·. l' - .........- �• •I • • 550 space numerical parking need noted above. Hence, parking for the Yack Arena may be adequate at this time. This conclusion is, of course, based on the premise that the arena's programs are held at times when the stores and offices within the designated CBD core area, and particularly on blocks C-1 and C-2 are closed. When programs or activities are held during store and office hours, then an obvious shortage of parking capacity for the arena and the commercial uses of these two blocks is going to exist. The question is whether or not it is practical to provide the theoretical number of parking spaces to meet the combined needs of all these uses. It would seem to hinge on the frequency of activities at the arena going on during store and office hours . CBD CORE AREA The core area of the CBD as noted previously consists of 14 blocks located near the geographic center of the designated study area. It is within this core area that the greatest concentration of commercial floor area exists. It is also the area in which the greatest lack of adequate parking exists. At the present time a total of 1,548 parking spaces exist within the core area. Of this total 449 are on-street parking spaces. The remaining 1,099 spaces are in off-street parking lots located within the CBD core. Table 5 indicates that there is a theoretical need for 2,069 parking spaces to meet all needs. Based on the preceding discussion of the Yack Arena parking , a possible 550 space need reduction still leaves a theoretical need for 1,519 parking spaces. This represents a need for nearly twice as many parking spaces as presently exists within the core area. I I I I Table 6 further indicates that there are five blocks within the CBD Core that have the least amount of convenient parking available to them. These blocks are nearly built up with commercial land use, leaving little area available for convenient off-street parking. The lack of parking for these blocks is further complicated by extensive ancillary use of the parking lot on Van Alstyne between Elm and Oak. The frontage along the west side of Van Alstyne between Eureka Road and Oak Street has been considered in the past for off-street parking and some small lots have been developed in this area. The feasibility of expanding these lots should be explored. The addition of expanded on-street parking on Biddle also deserves consideration to help alleviate the shortage of convenient parking space in the key shortage blocks in this area. Even with these areas being utilized for added off-street parking , it may ultimately be necessary to consider the construction of a parking deck. The great advantage of parking decks is their ability to provide a maximum number of parking s·paces on minimum land area. This approach to resolving the numerical parking problem as well as the problem of convenient distribution is being used more frequently in many older downtown areas similar to Wyandotte's throughout the metropolitan area. I I I C-3 �-----------------1111111111-- • I I I ' I f c:::l BLOCKS WITH SHORTAGE THEORETICAL PARKING SHORTAGE - BY BLOCK �• Ill PARKING DISTRIBUTION In order to more easily discuss parking distribution throughout the designated study area, the area has been divided into the four quadrants previously noted. These quadrants include: The CBD Core Area. The North Area - being the area of the CBD lying north of Oak Street. The West Area - being the area of the CBD lying west of Third Street between Oak Street and Eureka Road. The South Area - being the area of the CBD lying south of Eureka Road . THE CORE AREA For the east side of Biddle, off-street parking lot expansion on the west side of Van Alstyne from Eureka Road to Oak Street should be pursued. This parking corridor will provide for convenient access either directly into the rear of the stores or via the block ends and into the front of the stores. The re-routing of through truck traffic from Biddle Avenue would offer the opportunity for the wide street right-of-way of Biddle from Eureka Road to Oak Street to be used for increased parking . The street could take on the proportion of a large elongated parking lot with local traffic movements only. This would create more parking spaces immediately in front of the stores along both sides of Biddle. The other major resolution of the numerical as well as the parking distribution problem is geared to serving the blocks within the CBD west of Biddle. This improvement involves the expansion and improvement of the parking lot located at the northwest corner of Maple and Second. This lot would be expanded northward to Elm. Ultimately it may become necessary to erect a parking deck in this general area to meet increased parking demand for those blocks. In addition to customer parking needs a concerted effort must be made to provide convenient employee parking. Should a parking deck be feasible in the downtown area a portion of the deck could be set aside for employees. As an interim solution some of the more remote CBD parking lots should be utilized by employees and a shuttle bus service provided to places of employment. THE NORTH AREA The north portion of the designated study area _is composed of 19 blocks. This area contains the greatest number of residential uses as well as public and quasi-public uses within the total study area. C-4 �• Based on the data provided in Table 5, there exists a total of 1,070 parking spaces within the 19 block area. There is a present numerical need for a total of 873 spaces. This would indicate a numerical excess of some 138 spaces. In other words there are 138 more parking spaces within the north area than is theoretically needed to provide adequate parking. Even though there is numerically sufficient parking to serve the north area, its distribution is limited. Those uses near the park, including the City Museum should be provided with adequate off-street parking facilities. This is particularly true of the mid-rise co-op apartment building next to the public library. Possibly an off-street parking lot for the apartment building can be developed south across Superior Street from the co-op. The co-op 's present lot at the corner of Superior and First Streets could then be made available for public use. Providing adequate nearby parking for the co-op should in turn make the library parking lot adequate for library parking needs. This will also free the diagonal parking spaces for park use. THE WEST AREA The west portion of the designated study area is the smallest of all the quadrants. consists of four blocks in which the predominant use of land is residential. It The four blocks combined presently provide a total of 105 parking spaces. All of these parking spaces are on-street spaces with the exception of a 23 car parking lot at the northwest corner of Eureka Road and Third Street. The estimated numerical parking needs for this area is 47 spaces. In the case of this area, existing parking is well in excess of existing need. It should be noted, however, that these blocks lie directly west of Yack Arena making these parking spaces accessible for arena parking. I At the present time no extensive future commercial growth and development is expected to take place in this area. This is not to say that the dwellings located along the west side of Third Street may not become commercial or office oriented in time. Providing adequate off-street parking to serve these conversions could then become a problem. • • A more practical use of this four block area could be for expanded off-street parking at the east block ends for the Yack Arena. Conversions that may take place within the four block area near expanded arena parking would be able to utilize these parking spaces in much the same manner as appears to exist within the CBD core, that is on a nonconflicting shared basis . SOUTH AREA The southern portion of the designated study area is composed of nine blocks, much of which contains the newer commercial and office· uses within the study area. C-5 �• •II • There are presently 1,037 parking spaces available within the southern portion . This represents an excess of some 370 spaces over the estimated numerical need of 697 spaces. Since the bulk of the south area contains newer land use, adequate off-street parking is provided on site or near these newer uses. As noted previously much of the parking within this area, particularly at its north end, is used by the Yack Arena on a shared basis. With the exception of some scattered commercial uses, the five blocks west of Third Street in the south area are residentially oriented, with much of the parking consisting of on-street spaces. However, should the residential dwellings fronting Third Street convert, in time, to commercial or office use, sufficient on-site parking will need to be provided . This may require the assemblage of two or more parcels together in order to provide adequate on-site parking . PROJECTED PARKING NEEDS II •II • The preceding study element dealt with an analysis of the CBD's market capability and its future growth and development potential. This report estimated that approximately 40,000 to 50,000 square feet of additional comparison and convenience commercial floor area could be added to the present commercial floor area of the CBD . Based on the off-street parking ratios presented earlier in this report, the following additional parking spaces would be needed to properly accommodate the new floor areas . 40,000 sq. ft. of floor area = 267 spaces 50,000 sq . ft. of floor area = 333 spaces Based on these figures , the overall numerical parking needs of the CBD could range from 5,408 to 5,474 spaces . II • II C-6 �.. .. - - .. - • - •• - • • llt. TABLE 5 PARKING HEEDS WYANDOTTE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PERIPHERAL AREA nirr. Existing Ex ls tine Retail Existing BLOCK OH StrHt HO . Parking Exist Inc OFF Street Parking TOTAL PARKIHO Commercial Floor Area BLOCK HO . Exlstlnc Office Floor Area TOTAL FLOOR AREA -Other- --- Com mercial Parkins HHd Ex ls tine Olllca Parkins ~ BLK . HO. TOTAL COMM/ OFFICE PARKIHO HEEDS Detw~~n Public Use Perkins Heed TOTAL PARKING HEED Ex ist ing Parklnc & Par~lnc :-feed HORTH AREA 0 51 0 HI 0 0 0 0 0 HI 0 0 0 0 ' 23 0 H2 b 0 0 0 0 HZ 0 0 0 ·o 31 13 1,941 H3 0 0 1,941 13 0 Hl 13 0 13 •50 2 20 0 H4 1,314 0 1,314 0 3 H4 3 0 3 • 11 2 44 41 0 HS 0 (C) 0 0 0 HS 0 0 0 +46 21 5 33 2,014 HI 0 0 2,014 14 0 HI 14 0 14 •19 - 48 HI 51 H2 14 H3 32 H4 11 HS HI H7 21 4 25 HT T,161 0 15,384 55 II HT 13 0 13 HI 32 90 122 23,531 HI 3,751 0 27,211 1$1 I 165 0 166 - 44 H9 23 13 105 13,542 H9 1,211 0 14,850 91 3 94 0 94 •12 SI 13 HI Ht HID 11 0 71 •4 Hll 99 0 99 •13 -121 1,191(0 HID 35 40 TS HIO 5,078 0 13,191 HII 11 95 112 14,111 Hll 0 0 14,111 Hl2 22 31 59 21,953 H12 0 0 21,953 " 0 110 0 Hl2 110 0 110 Hl3 35 S9 104 Hll 11,'50 (Fl 11,HZ 40 30 Hll 10 11 91 ., Hl4 34 49 u Hl4 0 0 11114 0 0 0 •13 23 0 u 0 HIS 0 0 0 HU 0 0 0 •23 31 0 35 0 HU 0 0 0 HU 0 0 0 •35 Hl7 19 0 19 172 HIT 0 0 0 0 172 0 HU HU 0 0 0 0 s 0 HlT 5 0 5 •14 NII 30 0 30 0 HU 0 0 0 0 0 HU 0 0 0 +30 Hl9 • 33 0 33 1,524 H19 0 0 1,524 ST 0 HU 57 0 57 - 24 l,T22!el 1,032 · 0 WEST AREA W?O 20 0 20 W21 15 56 11 W20 0 0 2,912 20 0 W20 20 0 20 0 0 W2l 0 0 0 0 0 W21 0 0 0 •II 5,281 0 0 W22 0 0 0 •JO 4,078 27 0 W23 27 0 27 •13 •26 2,912(k) 5,281(1) W22 30 0 30 0 W22 0 103 17 23 40 4,071 W23 0 S24 10 27 37 1,270 S24 0 2,151 S24 11 0 11 21 5 33 2,910 S25 0 0 2,910 ' 2 S25 u 0 S25 II 0 19 •14 S21 29 31 1,190 S26 0 0 1,190 13 0 S26 13 0 13 •II ... 0 SOUTH AREA S27 27 34 1,722 S27 0 0 1,722 12 0 S27 12 0 11 •22 S21 33 82 115 1,310 S21 0 0 1,310 0 0 S21 0 0 0 •72 S29 27 123 21,544 S29 1,718 0 30,332 144 22 S29 IU 0 166 - 16 S30 17 250 150 211 26,353(a) S30 5,922 0 32,285 171 IS S30 191 0 191 +76 S31 5 203 201 17,131 S31 10,500 0 27,631 114 27 Sll 141 0 141 •67 S32 19 4 23 0 S32 3,003 0 3,003 0 I S32 8 0 8 •15 512 551 1,070 115,IIT 30,541 0 145,651 16' 1' 145 21 873 12 19 171 7,0IO 0 5,261 12,321 41 0 47 0 4T TOTALS: Horth 11tst • 116 South 115 703 .,, 79,210 29,101 0 IOl,311 530 14 604 0 604 •294 Core 499 1.099 1,541 372,416 144,251 0 515,174 2,414 360 2,144 773 3,117 - 2,069 GRANO TOTAL 1.231 2. 449 3,517 573,803 203,900 5,261 712 ,971 3,130 510 ◄ ,340 801 5, 141 - I .SH ♦ 124 �- 'illl~ - ~ .. , , .. .. _ _ -- - - - lllllf T/\llLF. 6 P/\Hl{ING NEEl1S WY ANDO1TE CENTHAL £1USINESS DISTRICT CORE AREA Existing BLOCK ON Street NO. Parking Existing OFF Street Parking TOTAL PARKING Existing Re tell Commerciel Floor Area BLOCK NO. Cl 49 206 255 C2 45 171 216 CJ 31 95 126 C4 31 42 73 cs 43 126 cs 54 82 C7 26 0 26 11,433(c) C8 29 2 31 54,080(d) C9 30 128 158 44,934(g) C9 Cl0 30 4 34 56,248 Cl0 Cll 33 54 87 l5,912(h) C12 19 23 42 Cl3 2 0 C14 -11. Core 499 0 Other TOTAL FLOOR AREA Existing Office Perking Need BLK. NO. TOTAL COMM/ OFFICE PARKING NEEDS Public Use Perking Need TOT/\l, P/\Hl<ING NEED Dirr. Between Existing Purldng & l'orking Need 54,361 0 54,361 0 136 Cl 136 0 136 •119 C2 3,102 (B) 77,579 497 8 C2 505 550 1,055 -839 7,189 C3 0 (G) 7,189 48 0 C3 48 0 48 •78 12,25~(j) C4 3,500 15,759 82 9 C4 91 0 91 -18 169 26,428 C5 0 0 (E) 26,428 176 0 cs 176 19 195 -26 136 41,463(i) C6 21,344 0 62,807 276 53 cs 329 0 329 -193 C7 4,151 0 15,584 76 10 C7 86 0 86 -60 CB I 2,947 0 67,027 361 32 C8 393 0 393 -362 20,050 0 64,984 300 50 C9 350 0 350 -192 20,972 (D) 77,220 375 52 Cl0 427 79 506 -4H Cll 3,831 0 19,743 106 10 Cll 116 0 116 -29 27,993 Cl2 0 0 27,993 187 0 C12 187 0 187 -145 2 0 Cl3 0 0 0 0 C13 0 0 0 •2 166 193 _ _o 0 C14 (A} 0 0 0 C14 0 125 125 •68 1,099 1,548 372,416 0 516,674 2,484 360 2,844 773 3,617 -2,069 74,477(b) Cl Existing Office Floor Area Existing Commerciel Perking Need·- - - ~ _ _o_ 144,258 �• • APPENDIX D CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ASSET & LIABILITY RESPONSES II II CBD WORKSHOP SESSION JULY 18, 1990 II I I I I I I I I Conducted by: Vilican-Leman & Associates, Inc. �WYANDOTTE C.B.D. WORKSHOP SURVEY· 7/18/89 RESPONSE COUNT PERCENT OF TOTAL 1 Accnalblllty (neighborhood and " - Y pa,tdng p,oxlmlty) 3 3.3,t, Ael&tMI MClu•lon 1 1.1,r, ' 4 .4,t, ASSET RESPONSES ii ACCESSIBILITY TOTAL GOVERNMENT • II II Concemect and eflact,,.. mayo, (and gowm....nt) 2 2-3 Crty..-..d utllttln r -11 run) 2 2-3 Public lalety 2 2.2'!1. a 11.8'1. TOTAL BUSINESSES Frler>dty buolneu / owner r.lalionahip a 8.11%' Variety of buslnMMI 2 2.2,r, Bu•lneu community concem 1 1.1,t, 9 9.9% TOTAL APPEARANCE His1oric 7 1.1•w.1 Appearance of dowr>t"""' (and ci.ar,Hnea) 8 8.8'1.' Small t°""' -boance 4 4_4,r,.S Recent -hetlc building lmp,""'""'8nll 3 3.3,t, St•-• and •-ks on good condKlon 2 2-3 Lack of vaea,,t storn 2 2-3 AdequaJ• algnage 1 1.1,r, ughtlng 1 1. 1,r, 2e 21.11% The m,eo1ront 22 24.2'!1.1 Nucleut of exi.tlng retail thope a a.a,r,1 Fn1illals and actMtln 7 7.7'143 Yack Ar- 2 2.2'!1. Major employers (Cily Hall, Hospllal, etc.) 2 2.2'!1. 41 45.1,t, TOTAL SITES ANO ACTMTIES I I I I TOTAL OTHER -Untapped potentoar p.e., gl'ffle< shop d.....ity) 2 2.2'!1. Cttlzeno 1 1.1,r, Changing land UM 1 1. 1~ 1 1.1,r, Easily manageable arH TOTAL TOTAL RESPONSES I • lr>dicatn rank order (Top r,,.. only). I I I 0-1 5 5.5,t, 91 100.00% �i • • • I I UABIUTY RESPONSES RESPONSE COUNT I PERCENT OF TOTAL. ACCESSlBIUT'Y General aceeulbttlly 5 NOi CondU91W lo pedfltnan Ira/lie; 4 5.4% 1 1.1% e e.5"- 4 4.3"'J 1/acanl build,nga 4 4.3%.l S1ore fronlt 2 2.2% Pr0•1mity lo amo•..1ack 1ndustn.. (a,ghl, odor) 2 2.2"' Cieanlll''MtU 2 22"' 2 2.2% 1 1. 1% Eureka Road blighl 1 1.1% Viaduct ayes<>r• 1 1.1% 18 20.4% lna<Mquale 1)811dng (palrona and employfftl 14 15. 1%1 On s1r- parldng (Stddl<t) 2 2.2"' Lack of par1dng 1 1.1% 17 18.3"' TOTAL APPEARANCE General appearance Ratlroed btMCltOn ol lown Visual problema cauted by lhe - ot Biddle TOTAL PAAKJNG Alff definttton TOTAL BUSINESS ot 2 22"' Bus,nes,i owner empalhy 2 2.2% Lack ol ewnlng commercial hou~ 2 2.2"' 6 8.5% Lack ol an anchor store 7 7.5%1 Poor commercial di....rslly e 8.5%) Lack ol "'AfO' food SIO<e 4 4.3"'-' Lack of adequ&1• ad\lenls,ng 3 3.2"' I.Ack ol growth a,eas 1 1.1"' Lack of an eUI aid. mantel 1 1.1"' Umiled mas1<eting area 1 1.1"' Marllel lna1al>lllty 1 1.1"' 24 25.8"' Btddle 1ruck lralfte 7 7.5%1 Building S1C1Ck quallly 4 4.3"'-' Dtsruplion al n,ghl by young people 3 3.2% Lack _,.,han1 operallonal unity TOTAL MARKET I I I I I I I I I TOTAL OTHER road■ 2 2.2"' Lack of h,gh densny housing 1 1.1% Lack of quality housing 1 1.1% Walerfron1 localion 1 1.1"' Community &lt~ude 1 1.1"' Poor Ou1side pedalrian nelwor1c (allec!ed by -••hell 1 1.1% TOTAL 21 22.8" TOTAL RESPONSES 93 100.0% D-2 I �I I APPENDIX E I I -II II I II I I I I I I MASTER PLAN FOR FUTURE LAND USE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT DECEMBER, 1990 �I I I I I I I I I INTRODUCTION .......:... Within the Wyandotte CBD and its immediate fringe some 500,000 square feet of retail space services a sizeable portion of some 200,000 people who reside in Wyandotte's primary trade area. The continued health and prosperity of the central business district is a prime concern in providing a direction for present and future uses of land in and around the CBD. Central Business Districts throughout history have represented the "Image of the City." In a sense it is "Everyone's Neighborhood" and should be preserved and nurtured to be a source of pride to all of the City's residents. Over the past several decades (1960, 1970, 1980) strong inroads have been made by new shopping centers in competing for the retail shopping dollar. While the Wyandotte CBD cannot hope to directly compete with large scale regional oriented, enclosed shopping malls like Southland or Fairlane, it can serve a separate need. Most of the current shopping center complexes in the downriver area are of contemporary design and unspecialized in tenant mix or "theme." This mass appeal meets many needs. However, a shopping area attuned to its rich architectural history, ethnic diversity and waterfront access such as the Wyandotte CBD can also meet shopper needs ·tor the "unique," the "colorful" and the "different." A combination of well designed store facades, a complementary streetscape, adequate and convenient parking and a strong linkage to the CBD's unique natural resource - the riverfront, coupled with vigorous self promotion by CBD businessmen should enable the CBD to expand its commercial base while retaining its urban small town atmosphere. A strong sense of community exists in downtown Wyandotte as is evidenced by efforts to keep the CBD not only a strong retail center but also through a continuing program to make it an attractive activity center. Building maintenance, streetscape improvements, pleasant lighting and a solid business/government partnership have all played significant roles in the preservation of downtown Wyandotte and in making it more than just a regional retail center. Past accomplishments with regard to the improvement of the CBD, while laudable, should not lull the community into a false sense of security regarding the well being of downtown for the years ahead. Times and conditions are constantly changing. With this thought in mind the Wyandotte Planning and Rehabilitation Commission, with the assistance of the Downtown Development Authority, have undertaken the establishment of a series of goals and objectives to give direction to the Future Land Use Plan (Master Plan) for the central business area of Wyandotte. E-1 �I GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR WYANDOTTE'S CBD AREA I I The Future Land Use Plan (Master Plan) for Downtown Wyandotte is a statement of basic goals and objectives to be achieved, from which a plan for action can evolve. Action toward plan implementation is often best expressed through a series of policy statements relating to overall goals and objectives. The relationship among goals, objectives, policies and alternative implementation techniques is as follows: Goal - A goal is a destination, a final purpose which a community seeks to attain. A goal is the most general level of policy and by itself is not very helpful to decision makers. It needs further refinement to assist decision makers to reach their selected destination. I -I I I I II I I Objective - An objective is the route which specifies in general terms the way (route) by which the goal (destination) can be reached . An objective indicates the kinds of actions that should be used to achieve the goal. Policy - A policy is a means of transportation along the route. It is a course of action which , if followed, will achieve an objective. A policy is more detailed than an objective and can be readily translated into specific action recommendations or design proposals. Implementation Alternatives - These are the specific action recommendations suggested by policies. Among the more commonly used implementation techniques are zoning and subdivision ordinances, capital improvement programs, and site-specific proposals or programs. A plan will suggest alternative ways to implement policies. City officials must make the choice of which implementation techniques to actually use . Goals, and objectives which shape the Master Plan for the Central Business District area and the eleven sectors relating to the CBD, are expressed as follows: PRIMARY GOAL FOR WYANDOTTE'S CBD THROUGH GOVERNMENT/BUSINESS COOPERATION, ENHANCE CBD GROWTH OPPORTUNITIES TO ENABLE IT TO CONTINUE AS THE PRIME RETAIL, SERVICE AND COMMUNITY EVENT CENTER FOR THE DOWNRIVER AREA. THIS WILL BE DONE IN A FASHION SENSITIVE TO THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE DOWNTOWN AREA AND SURROUNDING RESIDENT/AL AREA AND WITH EMPHASIS ON RIVER ACCESS AND PROXIMIT-Y. I I EACH NEW DEVELOPMENT WILL BE EXPECTED TO CONTRIBUTE TO . THE ECONOMIC VITALITY, SERVICE CAPABILITY AND ATTRACTIVENESS OF THE CBD. I E-2 �I SPECIFIC GOALS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I GOALI I. ACCESSIBILITY- Access from the south and west as well as north should be improved. Routes to the CBD should be distinctively identified. A. OBJECTIVES: 1. 2. FROM NORTH a. An attractive entrance to the City is provided as you leave Ecorse however, the Ecorse Creek bridge should be improved and beautified as an entrance feature to Wyandotte. b. The appearance of marina and boat storage areas along Biddle Avenue should be improved to create a more attractive image. C. Encourage the continued improvement qf the appearance of the industrial districts bordering on Biddle Avenue. d. Intensify tree planting in all residential, business and industrial areas along Biddle Avenue from Ecorse Creek to the CBD. e. A study should be undertaken to determine the feasibility of boulevarding Biddle Avenue north of the CBD. f. CBD identification signage should be provided. g. An extension of pedestrian level lighting north to the hospital should be considered. FROM SOUTH a. Factory blight as you enter Wyandotte on Biddle Avenue provides a poor image which needs improvement. b. Street pavement conditions should be improved, particularly at the Riverview /Wyandotte entrance to the City. c. Boulevarding of Biddl~ Avenue will improve the appearance of this street from Pennsylvania to the south edge of the CBD. E-3 �I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3. d. Attractive Wyandotte identification signage and landscape treatment at the intersection of Pennsylvania and Biddle should be provided. e. Pennsylvania Avenue Street conditions should be improved to encourage traffic to utilize Biddle Avenue as an entrance to downtown. f. Additional tree planting on both sides of Biddle Avenue should be provided. g. CBD style pedestrian lighting should be extended from Eureka to Plum Street. h. CBD identification signage should be provided at Plum Street. FROM WEST a. Identification signage and downtown event announcement signage should be provided at or near Eureka and Fort Street. b. Access by way of Eureka is the most important western entrance to the CBD and needs to be improved in appearance with particular emphasis on the area from railroad tracks eastward. c. The railroad viaduct and the underpass embankments should be rehabilitated to a pleasant appearing entrance to the CBD. d. Boulevarding of Eureka with a landscaped center island between Biddle Avenue and Fourth Street should be considered. e. The improvement and parking plan for Eureka prepared in 1990 should be implemented as appropriate. f. Identification of the entrance to the CBD should be provided at or near the railroad . g. CBD style pedestrian lighting should be provided on Eureka from Biddle Avenue to Fourth Street. h. Street tree planting should be intensified on Eureka between the railroad and Biddle Avenue . E-4 �• i. I 4. II I I I I I I Both Oak Street and Northline are important CBD feeder streets and should be improved to increase their traffic carrying ability into the CBD. Excessive turning movement options on Northline appear to diminish its traffic flow potential. Excessive truck traffic should be discouraged on Oak Street. RIVER ACCESS a. Create access for boaters wherever possible, particularly as it relates to encouraging canadian tourism and trade. b. Explore the potential for ferry service to Canada. C. Pursue· the potential for the use of grassy island as a recreation facility with a downtown connecting ferry service. GOAL II 11. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION - Downtown streets should provide easy access and smooth traffic flow for the downtown visitor and shopper -with a minimum of pedestrian and vehicle traffic conflict. A. OBJECTIVES: 1. VEHICLE a. Every effort to eliminate through truck traffic from Biddle Avenue should be made. b. A study of the origin and destination of trucks entering and leaving the CBD on Biddle Avenue should be undertaken as a basis for determining alternate truck routing. c. The speed limit for traffic on Biddle Avenue in the CBD should be evaluated. d. Turning movements to and from Biddle Avenue need to be clearly identified. e. Parking lot access points need to be identified. E-5 �I f. Night time traffic looping should be discouraged. The possibility of extended signalization times, curfew hours and restricted turning movement should all be explored. g. Semi-truck turning movements create traffic blockages . Semitruck servicing of stores should be discouraged. h. Alleys should serve auto, service vehicles and pedestrians and should be designed to provide shopper safety. I I 2. I I I I I I I I I I I I PEDESTRIAN a. A comfortable safe and inviting pedestrian atmosphere is essential to all shopping streets in the CBD and should receive the highest priority for the enhancement of features that promote these aspects. b. Street pedestrian crossings should be visually identified (by brick pavers, paint, or other means). C. Signalization of cross walks should favor ·the pedestrian on all streets and particularly on Biddle Avenue. d. Pedestrian safety in parking lots and at rears of stores should be evaluated relative to night lighting. e. Vehicle conflicts with pedestrian access to rear store entrances should be minimized. GOAL Ill 111. PARKING - Every effort should be made to increase convenient safe and attractive customer parking particularly in areas where a deficiency in parking exists . A. OBJECTIVES: 1. EMPLOYEES a. Continued effort must be made to discourage use of prime parking spaces by employees in the CBD. b. The provision of shuttle bus service from more remote parking lots for employees should be explored. E-6 �I 2. I I CUSTOMERS a. Parking areas should be expanded wherever feasible with particular attention to the core area of the CBD. (Eureka, Third, Oak to the River). b. Customer walking distances should be no greater than 500 feet between any store and a parking facility. C. Parking standards as specified in the zoning ordinance should be re-evaluated particularly as they relate to business and office uses. d. The area of greatest parking deficiency, the east side of Biddle Avenue from Oak to Eureka, should receive a high priority for addition of parking. e. In order to provide early relief for areas of high parking deficiency the provision of a shuttle bus which circulates throughout the CBD should be implemented. f. The possibility of providing additional parking on Biddle Avenue should be analyzed. g. The financial feasibility of deck parking for employees and customers should be explored. h. Existing parking lots should be landscaped and screened to lessen the visual impact of expansive areas of parking and to provide an attractive appearance in keeping with CBD character. i. Parking lot lighting should be evaluated to assure a safe atmosphere for the parking lot user. I 1B I I I I I I I I I I GOAL IV IV. SIZE OF CBD - The CBD will need to expand to keep pace with market area growth. Future growth should be concentrated as a compact business area conducive to walk-in business and through careful interaction with developers provide for the continuation of the unique character which typifies Wyandotte 's CBD. An additional 50,000 square feet of retail and supporting business activity in the Wyandotte CBD should be achieved by the year 2000. E-7 �I I I A. OBJECTIVES: 1. CBD GROWTH AREAS a. The major retailing activities in the CBD should be concentrated and should include both sides of Biddle Avenue from Eureka to Chestnut and all of the area between Eureka and Oak west to Third Street. b. Through careful interaction with developers, new developments should be encouraged to relate to the river front and its park like setting. c. Under utilized blocks or buildings with retail user potential within the CBD should be upgraded thcough land and building assembly and marketed for uses that will strengthen the CBD. i I I I I I I I I I I 2. CBD FRINGE a. Close in areas immediately adjacent to the CBD serve as areas for higher ·density housi.ng and They should be developed with sensitivity to the neighborhood and which will reinforce the downtown business and services. b. CBD related and supporting activities, particularly housing, entertainment and waterfront related activities should be encouraged in the areas south of Eureka to Plum Street, west to Third and east to the river. · C. The Eureka Avenue frontage from Fourth to the railroad should be upgraded as a high school business and campus area with emphasis on the provision of activities operated by and serving the student population. d. Development of new multiple-family housing, pursuant to current zoning standards, should be considered for the area adjacent to the CBD on the west side of Third Street from Oak to Sycamore and in the area between Third and Fourth Streets between Plum and Orange. e. The north entrance t9 the CBD along Biddle Avenue from Poplar south should be carefully monitored as changes in uses occur. The preservation of historic structures in this I I I I E-8 core should office uses. surrounding market for �I I I area is essential. The area should become a special historic preservation district which emphasizes this entrance to the CBD. f. Ii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3. A change in uses of isolated properties which are out of character with the area in which they are located, such as general and automotive types of business, should be encouraged. OTHER BUSINESS GENERATORS a. The CBD as an activity center should be the location for varied area wide events. Not less than one major event per month should take place in downtown Wyandotte. b. Yack Arena should continue to serve as a multi purpose event center and should be a major focal point for the expansion of other civic facilities and appropriately related business in the blocks to the south and west between Sycamore and Eureka. C. The provision of bed and breakfast facilities in close proximity to the CBD should be encouraged. d. On going activities, in addition to currently programmed events, which promote the ambience of downtown should be encouraged such as: (1) Waterfront activities - In water boat shows, tall ships display, naval or coast guard ship visits. (2) Musical events in the park and at various street locations downtown. (3) Street vendors and outdoor cafes. (4) Outdoor art displays at various locations. (5) Farmers market. GOALV V. CBD APPEARANCE - Provide a clean, efficient and tasteful environment that will enhance the Central Business District as ·a place to do business and a place in which all the citizens of Wyandotte take pride. E-9 �I I I I I I a I I I I I I I I I I A. OBJECTIVES: 1. ARCHITECTURAL a. The whole of downtown Wyandotte creates a town center character which should be preserved and nurtured through all possible means including: (1) Individual existing building architecture should reflect initial building design. Store front remodelling should be encouraged to reflect a unifying architectural theme . (2) No single motif should be promoted ; however, the style of the early tradition of the City should be respected as it relates to new construction in the CBD. A chronology of building construction in the downtown area should be prepared. (3) Color coordination in both new construction and in remodeling is essential. (4) The two-story character of downtown, particularly along Biddle Avenue, should be preserved and encouraged for both building remodelling and new developments. (5) Efforts should be made to promote the use of second floor space for activities which will lend support to downtown's primary retail function i.e. , offices and dwellings. (6) Awnings which obscure building facades or obliterate the true nature of the building design should be discouraged. (7) Awnings which serve as signs should be discouraged and should be carefully scrutinized under the City's sign ordinance for compliance with sign size provisions. (8) Awnings when provided should be so designed as to provide a unifying effect to the downtown area. (9) All new permanent signs should be reviewed by a design professional or a committee of the ODA to assure compatibility with the character of downtown. E-10 �•I •II 2. I I -11 I I I I I I I I I I - 3. THE SHOPPING STREET a. Additional decorative paving should be programmed for installation on sidewalks where none now exists to add a unifying effect to all of downtown Wyandotte. b. Additional street tree planting should be undertaken. C. Downtown pedestrian level lighting in keeping with that provided on Biddle Avenue should be considered for additional downtown streets and for streets bordering the CBD for both its utility and its decorative appeal. d. Side street lighting should be restricted to pedestrian level lights whenever possible. e. Additional well designed street furniture (benches, directional kiosks, trash receptacles, etc.,) should be added at appropriate locations throughout the downtown area. f. Street and traffic signage should be effectively located and be distinctively designed to give direction and not create excessive clutter in the downtown area. g. The use of "Downtown Wyandotte" street banners should be limited to the CBD area and major approaching streets. ALLEYWAYS a. A long term program should be instituted to place all overhead utility lines underground. b. A continuing emphasis should be placed on the improvement of rear store facades and entrances to the rear of stores providing convenient access to parking facilities. C. Alleys at the rear of businesses should serve for both service access and as an attractive and safe pedestrian area. d. Alley service delivery hours should be restricted to off peak shopping hours. e. Trash receptacles behind businesses should be screened from public view. E-11 �I I I I I I GOAL VI VI. THE RIVERFRONT - The Detroit River is Wyandotte's most attractive natural feature. Every effort should be made to make the river accessible to the public with particular emphasis on tieing the downtown area more intimately to the river. A. -fl I I I I I II II I I I OBJECTIVES: 1. Physical ties to the river in the downtown area through pedestrian ways, visual access and events need to be encouraged. 2. Every opportunity for the development of a river walk, or portions thereof, should be pursued. 3. Downtown Wyandotte will be one of the major terminuses in a river walk system . 4. Encourage the development of lands near the river in the CBD area and its fringe to develop with exposure to the river which will provide for public access. 5. Waterfront activities and events should continue to be stressed as a downtown activity. 6. Encourage events and provide transportation to the CBD for people utilizing the waterfront from marina's, the yacht club, and other remote riverfront locations. 7. Bishop Park should be designed to serve as an event center including the addition of some daily use facilities such as an outdoor ice and roller skating rink, music event center, and additional senior citizen recreation facilities. 8. Improved pedestrian access from the CBD by way of specially designed walkways or sidewalks on streets leading to the riverfront (Eureka, Elm, Oak, Chestnut and Superior) should be undertaken. 9. Explore the potential for State assisted marina development. GOAL VII VII. CBD MAINTENANCE - It is essential to keep a neat, orderly and safe downtown which attracts and keeps high quality businesses and maintains a comfortable retail atmosphere for the shopper. E-12 �•I I! I I I I 5. Support for programs and activities which will assist in improving downtown including the following, among others, will be essential: a. Wyandotte Community Alliance. b. Programs for financing building improvements. c. Assistance in financing from lender institutions. d. Explore the use of P.A. 120 of 1961 maintenance, promotion and operation. e. Support efforts to revive Act 255 of 1978 Commercial Redevelopment District Act relative to tax incentives for real property improvements. f. Explore the development of a bank holding company Community Development Corporation as a possible tool for assisting in developing activities. g. Explore the potential for tax credits iri the restoration of historic structures in the downtown area. Community Revitalization Tax Act. h. Pursue the ramifications of licensing Wyandotte businesses to provide an inventory and record of active businesses and to provide assistance in code enforcement. fl I I I I I I I I I I - E-14 on Downtown �I I I! I I I II I & I I I I I I I I THE CENTRAL BUSINESS AREA FUTURE LAND USE PLAN The Future Land Use Plan for the Central Business District Area, as shown on the Master Plan for Future Land Use, presents a composite of land use decisions that resulted from studies of current land use, land and building value studies, a population analysis, a potential retail market analysis and a parking study all conducted with the Downtown Development Authority, Planning and Rehabilitation Commission, residents, property owners, business owners, City Officials and City staff. The resulting land use plan and the goals and objective statements will serve as a guide for improvement and the maintenance of a strong, growing and vital central business district. Achieving the long-range goals and objectives set forth in the Future Land Use Plan requires that planning be carried out on a continuing basis. The Planning and Rehabilitation Commission must continue to take an active role in reviewing each new development in light of the long-range objectives of the Plan. The planning program must also provide for continual reevaluation of the Plan to take into account changing conditions, trends and technology. In this way, the Plan will remain a dynamic instrument for guiding the development and redevelopment of Wyandotte. The City planning process, of which land use planning is but one part, involves a continuing program of assessing development and redevelopment projects that bring about change to the existing fabric of the community. The objectives of communities change over time and unforseen events sometimes make the best plans obsolete. The process of plan making should try to guide the direction and rate of change in keeping with the overall goals and objectives of the plan. The planning process thus becomes time oriented in three ways: (1) It is continuous, without termination. (2) It seeks to affect and make use of change, rather than provide for a static future land use plan. (3) It is expressed in part in long- and short- range programs of action through capital improvements programming. IMPLEMENTATION The Future Land Use Plan for Wyandotte is of little value unless it can be realistically implemented. The first and most important factor in effectuation of the Plan is reflected in the independent actions of the people who live in Wyandotte and by the developers who buy and sell property, homes, businesses and industries. Overall, the Plan will serve as a framework within which these individual actions can take place, thereby lending stability to them. Other factors which can serve as means for implementing the Plan include: · I I E-15 �I I i! II I I rl r. ZONING ORDINANCE The Zoning Ordinance is the most powerful legal instrument available to the City for controlling the development of land. The proper administration of a sound zoning ordinance will bring about a pattern of development called for in the Future Land Use Plan. In addition, zoning regulates the density of population and structures, lot sizes and coverage of lots by buildings, building setbacks and off-street parking, in order to serve the best interests of community at large. The City's zoning ordinance is structured to assist in accomplishing the objectives of the Future Land Use Plan. Application of the Planned Development District, as new development takes place for specific projects, will provide property use and design flexibility to accomplish plan objectives. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM There are three basic purposes for having a capital improvements program : (1) To assist in the development of a realistic program of capital spending relating proposed projects to the City's fiscal ability to support such ventures. Therefore, all proposed projects must be related to the City's debt outstanding, the tax base, and the wealth of the community. (2) To coordinate the various public works projects and improvements with one another. (3) To accomplish the community's Future Land Use Plan in providir)g the improvements contemplated therein in a practical, economic and timely manner. I I I I I I I I - E-16 �I I I! I I I I I Ii I I PROPOSED LAND USE FOR THE CBD AREA The Central Business District for the City of Wyandotte, and its immediately bordering area, is composed of 11 land use sectors. These are depicted on the accompanying Master Plan of Future Land Use Map. A mixture of land uses exist in the Central Business District with a primary emphasis on retail activity. The core retail area, sector 5, is bordered by areas having a direct impact on the core area and are considered a part of the Central Business District Area in order to provide a well integrated Master Plan which respects the effects of abutting land use activities. This large Central Business District Area overlaps to some degree the Southeast Neighborhood in Sectors 1, 2 and 3 and due to its close proximity to the CBD the Roosevelt High School campus area in Sector 11. On the north, Sector 8 exists as a sound residential neighborhood which should continue to be preserved as such. The Master Plan For Future Land Use which is portrayed on the accompanying map reflects the land utilization policy, which if effectuated, will support the Goals and Objectives established for Wyandotte's CBD. The proposed land use for the various sectors of the Master Plan are further explained in the following text: CBD AREA LAND USE BY SECTOR 1. The adopted southeast Neighborhood Master Plan recommends the revital ization of this area as a single-family residential neighborhood and the blocks fronting on the south side of Eureka from 7th to 3rd are designated as central business district. This plan proposes three blocks from 7th to 4th as part of the high school campus area with 4th to 3rd as part of a civic development area. 2. The adopted Southeast Neighborhood Master plan has this area designated for multiple-family housing. This plan proposes that single-family housing and multiplefamily be encouraged in this area. Block ends such as on Third and Fourth Streets are well suited for multi-family dwelling when properly buffered with walls and landscaping in harmony with single-family dwellings on abutting properties. 3. The adopted Southeast Neighborhood Master Plan has this area designated waterfront-mixed use; no change is proposed for this area. This is an important entry point into the CBD and land uses should compliment the CBD retail core. 4. This area is proposed to be preserved as an existing single-family /multiple-family residential area. Existing off-street parking areas are proposed to remain. I I I I I I I - E-17 �5. The CBD will be strengthened by more intense development on underutilized properties and by in filling on vacant parcels. Where off-street parking can be provided through multi level systems some current surface parking areas may be utilized for more intense retail development. New uses of property that provide retail or service to the pedestrian shopping public will be encouraged. Downtown should return to its early heritage as a place in which to "shop around." 6. Bishop Park is Wyandotte's most important public waterfront access point. Enhancement of the CBD relationship to Bishop Park and to other riverfront access points will be paramount. 7. The north entrance to the CBD on Biddle Avenue contains significant historic structures. Enhancement of this area through the elimination of non-compatible uses and promotion of a historic theme is proposed. 8. This residential neighborhood located northwest of the CBD area, while not specifically the subject matter of the current master plan revision, is viewed as a sound , low density single-family residential neighborhood which will be encouraged to continue as such. This neighborhood and all other residential neighborhoods will need to be part of further master plan analysis. 9. This predominantly single-family residential area with its close proximity to the high school, though envisioned as a high density residential area in previous plans, is proposed to be changed to a low density single-family neighborhood in keeping with the existing character of the area. Current multiple-family zoning between Third and Fourth Streets and on the Oak Street frontage should be evaluated. 10. The Yack Arena serves as an anchor element in this 3-1/2 block area. Additional civic uses will be encouraged in this area as well as CBD supporting business and office activities. 11 . A campus area expansion is proposed for Roosevelt High School with efforts made to enhance high school surroundings. Activities on Eureka that stress a high school campus orientation will be encouraged, i.e.; businesses, offices, activity centers, etc. Expansion of the high school's physical plant is not proposed for this portion of the campus area south of Eureka. Visual and environmental improvement of this important entrance corridor to the CBD will be pursued. I! I I I I I ii I i I I I I I I I I E-18 �- - - .i- -j Jo~oo~oo~oo~ ■J ■i ■1 ■i 1!1 ■1 ■i ■1 JD DD DD DD DD JD DDI DD □[10010 l.J NEIGHBORHOOL.J JD D LJLJ LJLJ ,--,,----, ]DIDO D r-,~==== . ~ E:g~. ,i, ~U~++ 21 [) ST. ST. g THIRD ST 3 ~ l____ LI ~ : 3: --...:::::::::, 11 ST . ) ■1 II I~== I.____ _ ;,.!.!,'"'" '::..------ - HIGH SCHOOL :;;.---. CAMPUSAREAi . .' .--::,___ , -- 1r1 I FIFTH i'xir I j ii ............--,L 9 ST ~ RESID~tiriA~n r ..... u u 1□ ~00~00~ i~F I ~I CB 1870000 NEIGHBORHOOD ST FOURTH LJLJEN-LJLJLJOLJLJD CIVI~ ST ..-THIRD---.. 1~=10 LIii NTRAL SINESS T .___, ~ci . - - . bci DD DD DD § nrl!nn~nn~oo~□ r-1-~h~ 1 • FIRST l==L-.{ R;vER ~-6 .......,_ CBD AREA MASTER PLAN Jg~[ THIRD 7 . L-lyj DECEMBER 1990 ■i I 1c= oYo;;..::....••----, - '---11"- RESIDENTIAL ■: • VA L-JL-J HISTORIC ENTRY N ALSTYNE 11 PARK ~ II I I I □ DO c=JI CJC I IF=~I BLVD � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Wyckoff Planning and Zoning Collection Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Planning & Zoning Center (Lansing, Mich.) (Organization) Wyckoff, Mark A. Description An account of the resource Municipal master plans and zoning ordinances from across the state of Michigan, spanning from the 1960s to the early 2020s. The bulk of the collection was compiled by urban planner Mark Wyckoff over the course of his career as the founder and principal planner of the Planning and Zoning Center in Lansing, Michigan. Some additions have been made to the collection by municipalities since it was transferred to Grand Valley State University. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Michigan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1960/2023 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Subject The topic of the resource Michigan Comprehensive plan publications Master plan reports Zoning--Michigan Zoning--Maps Maps Land use--planning Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-240 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Wyandotte_Business-District-Plan_1991 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Vilican-Leman & Associates, Inc. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1991-02 Title A name given to the resource A Plan for Wyandotte's Central Business District Description An account of the resource A Plan for Wyandotte's Central Business District was prepared for the City of Wyandotte by Vilican-Leman & Associates in February 1991. Subject The topic of the resource Business districts, Central Wyandotte (Mich.) Wayne County (Mich.) Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/158b0aed4b095b86ff2626c7ea2bc1ea.pdf e798df54097bb56d88739cfafbb69079 PDF Text Text . reenways Greenways ... A Prescription for Vital Communities in Southeast Michigan • • • ••••• • ••• •• •••••• • •• •• •••••••••••••••••••••• Access to our natural and cultural treasures is part of the prescription for invigorating our communities in southeast Michigan. Greenways reinforce community efforts to develop strong and sustainable economies as well as clean, safe, and accessible environments. The Southeast Michigan Greenways project seeks to improve the quality oflife, economic vitality, and environmental health of the region by creating an interconnected greenway system. Greenways are open-space connectors linking parks, nature reserves, cultural features, or historic sites with each other and with populated areas. Greenways connect wildlife to habitat and conservation to economic development. They connect people to nature and to each other... Are you one of the 100 million Americans who walk for pleasure, 100 million who bike, 135 million who watch wildlife, 17 million who horseback ride, 12.5 million who in-line skate, 9 million who canoe, or 6 million who cross-country ski? Ifso, you are a potential greenway user. The creation ofgreenways throughout southeast Michigan will provide residents with access to outdoor recreation close to home. ~ ~ RAILS - LO - 1RAILS CONSERVANCl Michigan Field Offic(' ·Green\vays Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assist:mce Program Greenways ... Greenways ... An Investment in Our Communities A Network of Community Benefits •• •• •••• •• • •••• •••••• •••• • •••••• • ••••• • ••• • •• •••• ••••••••••• • •••• •• ••• ••• • •••• • • • • • •••••• •••••• • •••• • • ••••••••• • ••••• ••••• •••••••••••••• •••• All across the country, greenways are proving to be a wise economic investment for the communities that create them. Greenways have broad appeal because they cross a variety of landscapes, provide a wide range ofbenefits, and give residents ofsoutheast Michigan a way to define and preserve their community's quality oflife. ATTRACTING NEW BUSINESSES. Quality of life for employees the second most important tourist attraction in the scare. In Vermont, statistics show chat tourists stay an average one day longer in Stowe than in ocher was the third most important factor in locating a business, according resort areas in the scare; this extra co an annual survey of chief executives conducted by Cushman and day and revenue are attributed ro Wakefield in 1989. This view is echoed by Jim Alexander, the man- the Stowe Recreation Path. ager of industrial marketing at Cleveland Electric and Illuminating Company and supporter of the Ohio and Erie Canal Corridor, an 87-mile multi-use recreational trail along the Ohio and Erie Canal and Cuyahoga River. Jim stares, "If it's good for residents, then ir's good for my company's business ... it's a way to market the area more aggressively ... ir's a way of selling rhe community." BOOS1 ING TOURISM DOLLARS. In San Antonio, Texas, the Riverwalk is considered the anchor of char city's annual 1.2 billion dollar tourist industry. A user survey concluded chat che Riverwalk is STEWARDSHIP OF LAND AND WILDLIFE. Greenways protect environmentally important lands and native planes and animals. Greenways can connect fragmented wildlife habitat and create access co different kinds of habitat. These linkages are beneficial for wildlife breeding and foraging. Greenways provide opportunities for people to experience the natural world and better understand their place in it. PLANNING FOR THE HEALTH AND RECREATION. Greenways provide opportunities and FUTURE. Greenways provide places for a variety of close-to-home recreation chat helps community a way for communities co help residents keep fie, thereby reducing health care coses. In 1992, Men's direct the future of development. and greenways are essential ingrediencs of any serious metropolitan revitalization plan. Such a 'green Fitness Magazine reported chat every mile a person walks or runs will The Southeast Michigan save society 24 cents in medical and ocher costs. Also the Corporate Council of Governments infrastructure' has become the central reason for the continued vitality Wellness Study done in the city of San Jose in 1988 found char people projects a 6% population of many prominent cities in the United States and throughout the who exercise regularly have 14% lower claims against their medical growth between 1980 and world," states David Burwell, President of Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. insurance, spend 30% fewer days in the hospital, and file 41 % fewer 20 IO accompanied by a 40% increase in developed land. Existing A Trust for Public Land survey confirms this statement. It found claims greater than $5,000. open space and agricultural lands will continue to disappear without CATALYST FOR COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION. "Public trails chat virtually every city with a major industrial waterfront sought ro improve public access and attract new commercial development ro the waterfront. For example, the Tennessee RiverPark, a 22mile greenway in Chattanooga, has sparked rhe city's renaissance. The River Park and the new Tennessee Aquarium have attracted 275 million dollars in adjacent, mainly private, investment in the past ten years. ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION. Greenways with trails provide pedestrians and bicyclists with safe routes ro and from school, work, shopping cencers, and parks, thereby reducing congestion on roads. A recent nationwide public opinion poll, conducted by the Louis Harris Polling firm, found dm 52% of all Americans would be willing co ride a bicycle to work, at least occasionally, if they could do so on a separate, safe, designated bicycle path. INCREASING PROPERTY VALUES. A 1995 study of home buyers, conducted by American Lives, Inc., for the real WATER QUALITY AND FLOOD CONTROL. Greenways along river planning and citizen action. There is increasing evidence chat lowdensity residential development coses communities. For example, a 1993 study in suburban Cleveland (Lake County) found chat for every dollar of residential tax revenue, $1.54 was spent on public services. By contrast, farm, forest, and open lands required $0.34 in services for each dollar collected. SENSE OF PLACE. Greenways provide communities an opportunity ro have growth and development chat respects the character and quality of the landscape. Ed McMahon of The Conservation Fund asks, estate industry, showed that consumers desire more interac- corridors provide natural flood "Why do people feel a sense of loss like losing a loved one or a friend tion with the outdoor environment. The features chat will control by preserving floodplains when a historic building is demolished, a scenic view is destroyed, or command premium prices and were ranked as "essential" and reduce public coses associated a grove of trees bulldozed? ... The justifica_tion for preserving natural include lots of natural open space and plenty of walking with structural flood control mea- areas, historic buildings, special landscapes, and scenic views has as and biking paths linking homes to wooded areas and park- sures. '. 1 southeast Michigan, green- much to do with our need for psychological stability and cultural lands. "Non-essential amenities" such as tennis courcs and ways along rivers help to protect continuity as it does with beauty and ecology. The farmland, forests, golf courses were ranked 28th and 29th out of 39 features. che quality of drinking water by open spaces, and historic buildings of southeast Michigan are a In addition, numerous studies have demonstrated that providing vegetative buffers chat resource both co the economy and to the psychology of the area." parks, greenways, and trails increase nearby property values. filcer out pollutants. �Greenwa •• • • The vision or southeast Michigan • Greenwayas • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• The Southeast Michigan Greenways project presents a bold vision for the future: a seven-county interconnected greenway network, that links communities to existing parks, trails, and open space; protects natural and cultural resources; and improves the quality of life throughout the region. The project builds upon the foresight ofstate, county, and local park agencies and Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority's halfcentury of recreation and A pro1ect of Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, Michigan Chapter, in partnership with. The New Directions ln1t1at1ve. The Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan, DALMAC Fund, Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Michigan Department of Transportation's Transportation Enhancement Program, National Park Service - Rivers, Trails. and Conservation Assistance Program. U-M School of Natural Resources and Environment, Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, the Detroit River Greenway Partnership, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality's Coastal Zone Management Program, ICI Americas Inc., Chapman Forestry Foundation, Deloitte & Touche Company, Hewlett-Packard Corporation, The Conservation Fund • American Greenways Dupont Awards Program, Michigan Environmental Council. Brighton Township, Hamburg Township, Green Oak Township, Genoa Township, and the City of Brig hton. Substantial technical assistance has been received from the Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority, county and city parks and planning agencies in southeast Michigan, and other public and private organizations The project's public-private partnership has helped to harness the distinctive strengths that both public and private The Southeast Michigan Greenways project is a collaborative effort with citizens, public officials, public institu- and assessment ofgreenway opportunities along rivers, abandoned railroad lines, parks, utility corridors, and tions, non-profit organizations, and the private sector. other routes in Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, The project provides the leadership to address the issues St. Clair, Washtenaw, and ~yne Counties. Many com- of regional coordination, funding, and building public munities are using this information to develop their own support for creating an interconnected regional greenway greenway plans and to work toward a regional greenway network. network. The project has completed a resource inventory conservation efforts in the region. A regional greenway network will be a gift to future generations. ent1t1es can offer. Legend ........................................................ ............. . ,I ( Existing Significant Open Space ""· Existing or Partially Existing Greenway ~ 1e, and Villages ( ' c1111 y lake Boundaries Planned or Proposed Greenway Conceptual Greenway <J.ID Oakland County is rich in natural and recreational resources, including the headwaters of four river systems, over 400 natural lakes, eight stare parks and recreation areas, three Metroparks, ten county parks, and numerous local parks. In addition, the county has approximately 25 miles of rail-trails, including the popular Paint Creek Trail and West Bloomfield Trail Network. County officials are working with local groups to extend and connect existing greenways in a county-wide green way system. ro The Bridge to Bay Trail is being planned and built along the shorelines of Lake Huron, the Sr. Clair River, and Lake St. Clair. This trail will connect many of the county's rivers, cities, hisroric sites, and state park and wildlife areas. The public and private secrors are working together internationally ro improve wildlife habitat on the St. Clair River. Citizen groups and county officials are assessing additional greenway opportunities, including 75 miles of abandoned railroad corridors and biologically rich wildlife refuges and state game areas. Lake St. Clair Ca n ada ~ Officials and citizens in Livingston County are working to creare a county-wide greenway network to complement county's rapid economic development. A greenway vision has been prepared which proposes co link the county's wealth of natural and recreational resources, which include three state recreation areas, two state game areas, and two Merroparks. The LakeLands Trail State Park provides safe trail access to inland lakes, rivers, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities. l I-e I Work is under way on rhe Macomb County Bikeway, which is ro connect three Metroparks, one state park, and several local parks. The Bikeway will provide a loop of green space and trails through the county using the Clinton River, its tributaries, and ocher corridors. ..-.. North Miles ~ 2 10 •. .· ·. . /':7"i ·~• t~; . ; _ _; _ • · : • : . : _ : ; .. j : ~\ , ~ .. • ~ ~~ '4e-· ·• f . .·.,. , ' ~ ,...a ,,•r· "' -- •..>. . ~·- f' ~;• i.. , ·. ; .... ,' " ,· . ,l;.;.,-~,,.: ~\ i - '. ',. • ,, • --C• . ' , _ , .... . - ........- , -.. • . • • •-• ' -:v. Q ' .· !J.•• f' . • . ,Ji- .,,• .,, C; ;:.: - ,.;. •·"••.~; • ---.., ~-.. -· /~ ~-.' I )_ .. · ·:-- ~F - .,.- r . D A greenway and linked park system has been developed along considerable portions of the Huron River. Extension of the river greenway system is planned to connect Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti with outlying Metroparks and scare recreation areas. Greenway efforts are enhanced by dedicated organizations such as the local land trust, watershed council, and city and county agencies. With nearly half of the region's population, Wayne County is recognizing that greenways are a catalyst for community revitalization. Downriver communities are providing greater public access to che Detroit River. The Detroit River Greenway Partnership has been formed to connect existing riverfront parks and cultural resources with a continuous greenway from Lake Sr. Clair to Lake Erie. The Rouge River is a national and regional model for community action to restore and enhance natural, cultural, and recreational resources. The city of Monroe is creating a multi-r crail network along and near the River Raisin to improve public access to arural areas and the city's significant historic sires an~ oursranding archit crure. There are numerous other green way opporrunmes that could conn t residents of Monroe County to a state park, three state game areas, and e Lake Erie shoreline. Funding for this ~osrer provided by The Chapman Forestry Foundation, the National Park Se~ ice-Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program, and the Rails-to-Trails Consecvancy-Michigan Field Office. A project of: In collaboration wi th and suppon from: e New Directions Initiative RAILS - to TRAILS CONSERVANCY M1ch1g~n fi(IJ Offic< In Detroit, the Mayor's Land Use Task Force recommends establishing a greenway system which will double or triple the city's open space, link major parks, and incorporate a variety of uses such as bikeways, boulevards, nature areas, community gardens, golf courses, and commercial activities. Rive rs, Trails, and Conservatio n Assistance Program e Community F~undatign l-01 Soulheasle rn \'hchiHa n I cam5 DE€\ ~ DN~ DetroitRegionalChamber - - . . - ~ruts tlw uonomy ,..._,.. for Southeast Michiion sNR&E School of Natural & sourses and En vironment SEMCOG ... � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Wyckoff Planning and Zoning Collection Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Planning & Zoning Center (Lansing, Mich.) (Organization) Wyckoff, Mark A. Description An account of the resource Municipal master plans and zoning ordinances from across the state of Michigan, spanning from the 1960s to the early 2020s. The bulk of the collection was compiled by urban planner Mark Wyckoff over the course of his career as the founder and principal planner of the Planning and Zoning Center in Lansing, Michigan. Some additions have been made to the collection by municipalities since it was transferred to Grand Valley State University. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Michigan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1960/2023 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Subject The topic of the resource Michigan Comprehensive plan publications Master plan reports Zoning--Michigan Zoning--Maps Maps Land use--planning Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-240 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Detroit_Greenways-Pamphlet_undated Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Rails-to-Trails Conservancy Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program Title A name given to the resource A Vision for Southeast Michigan Greenways Description An account of the resource A Vision for Southeast Michigan Greenways pamphlet poster was created by the Rails to Trails Conservancy and the Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program Subject The topic of the resource Recreation areas--Michigan--Detroit Region--Maps Detroit, Michigan Wayne County (Mich.) Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/793af802d4b44eafbf19c4534da7732a.pdf 03fe9675742fffbb96773415dc79e81a PDF Text Text Ada Township Cotnprehensive Plan Executive Sutntnary �Ada Township Cotnprehensive Plan Executive Surrtinary July, 1985 �I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 ADA - PAST AND PRESENT 2 PEOPLE 2 LAND USE 2 NATURAL FEATURES 2 TRANSPORTATION 4 COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES 4 BUSINESS DISTRICT 4 ADA - FUTURE 5 PROSPECTS FOR THE FUTURE 5 LAND USE 5 TRANSPORT ATI ON 8 COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES 8 BUSINESS DISTRICT 9 �I I INTRODUCTION I The purpose of the Township's Comp re hens i ve Pl an is to guide 1and use and development-related decisions. It provides an overall framework for those decisions shaped by the trends of the past and the goals for the future. The plan should be consulted as part of all zoning decisions in the community. Despite its long-range emphasis, however, the Plan should be frequently evaluated and updated as necessary to ensure its continued applicability and usefulness as a policy guide. Considerable effort went into the preparation of .the Comprehensive Plan. The Township Planning Commission worked for over eighteen months analyzing data, considering citizen input, and evaluating alternate plans. The Township Board, likewise, carefully studied draft versions of the plan and worked with the Planning Commission to refine those drafts into the final adopted Plan. Citizen involvement was stressed throughout the planning process, as well. A community attitude survey, frequent meetings with the Ada Business Association, and several public meetings all provided valuable input for the final Plan. This summary is a condensed version of the Township's Comprehensive Plan. provides the highlights but not the detail of the complete Plan document. - 1 - It �ADA - PAST AND PRESENT PEOPLE I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I In recent years, Ada Township's population has mushroomed. Having grown from a sparsely settled rural town of less than 2,000 people (1,966) in 1950 to a suburb of 6,472 people in 1980, Ada Township is among the fastest growing communities in Kent County. While numerically it is smaller than many other area communities, Ada's rate of growth is substantial. Increases of nearly 50% have been the norm every decade since 1950. TABLE 1 POPULATION GROWTH TRENDS UNIT OF GOVERNMENT 1950 Ada 1,966 Cannon 1,600 Cascade 1,691 Grand Rapids Township 9,241 Grattan 1,022 Kentwood N/A Lowell Twp. 3,534 Plainfield 6,021 Vergennes 760 Kent County 288,292 State of MI 6,371,800 1960 % CHG. 1970 2,887 2,525 3,333 46.8 57.8 97.1 4,479 3,690* 5,243 16,738* 1,346 N/A 1,567* 11,680 945 363,187 7,823,200 81.1 31. 7 N/A -55.7 94.0 24.3 26.0 22.8 6,823 1,893 20,310 2,160* 16,935* 1,400* 411,044 8,879,862 % CHG. % CHG. 1980 55.1 46.1 57.3 6,472 4,983 10,120 44.5 35.0 93.0 9,294 -59.2 2,575 40.6 30,438 N/A 3,972 37.8 20,611 45.0 1,819 48.1 44,506 13.2 13.5 9,262,078 36.2 36.0 49.9 83.9 21. 7 29.9 8.1 4.3 Source: U.S. Census * Affected by Annexation or Incorporation LAND USE The transformation of Ada in the past 20 years from farm community to suburb is quite evident when actual land use comparisons are made. Obviously, the most significant change has been the increase in residential land use with a corresponding decrease in the amount of vacant land. Industrial and business uses also increased significantly. Despite the presence of one very large employer and a number of much smaller ones, Ada is primarily a bedroom community, i.e., people live here and work elsewhere. Therefore, residences (almost entirely conventional single family homes) occupy considerably more land than any other for~ of development in the community. NATURAL FEATURES According to its residents, Ada's greatest assets are its natural features. In a survey of community attitudes, 75% of the respondants cited the Township's "rural environment" as the most important reason for selecting Ada as their place of residence. In the same survey, 85% of the people felt that "preserving - 2 - �~ II I COMPARISON OF PERCENT OF LAND OCCUPIED BY VARIOUS USES - 1963 AND 1982 ---._,,_ 59.4 I 24 23 22 21 20 19 I I I I I I I 18 --- 18.7 18.0 1= 17 16 0... 15 ...... :::c 14 z & V) 3 0 t- 13 ......J 12 t0 t- 11 LL 10 c:( 0 tz w u 0::: w 0... ;I ii 1-~ 24.0= & 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 o.8 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 I• D 03 · ~ 0.0 ......I ......J V) ...... => c:( c:( tz w 0 ...... w u ...... V) LL LL 0::: 0 w V) V) >- C' ...___ w 0::: z ...... t- uu V) ............ V) 0 => co => z ...... ......J ......1 z 0 ...... tc:( w 0::: co co u 0... 0... 0::: => => w w 0::: => z t- 0 ...... => u ......J t- u c:( 0::: ...... 0::: t.!:l c:( t>< w ......J ...... 0 z c:( 0::: c:( ...___ ......1 V) tw w 0::: t- V) 0::: V) c:( 0 0 3 w t3 0 t- z u c:( > c:( �I I I I I rural areas" should be the most important goal of the Township. The abundance of natural features in a relatively unspoiled setting is a strong attraction to prospective residents. Rolling hills, dense forests, dra~atic views rushing streams and rivers, deep ravines, and many other cherished aspects of country living combine to create a truly unique living environment. This natural bounty is, of course, the irony of Ada's growth. While it is the natural beauty and country setting that attracts new residents to the area, each new resident in some way diminishes these assets. The continuation of past rural development trends is not compat·ible with the goal of preserving rural areas. TRANSPORTATION Because of its nature as a suburban satellite community, Ada is dependant upon efficient road links with the City of Grand Rapids and other commuter destinations within the metro area. Convenient, safe, and efficient access is also important, however, to serve those people commuting into Ada to places of employment. Ada's natural features pose a serious impediment to convenient traffic movement. Hilly terrain, wetlands, and, of course, the Grand and Thornapple Rivers dictate roadway locations. The area south of M-21, however, is generally more accessible and better served by the roadway network than the area north of M-21. This is only logical as the southern part of the Township is where the majority of the population resides and where future urban growth is likely to continue. The northern two-thirds of the Township is developing but still sparsely populated. In this area, rural two 1ane roads are adequate to handle traffic and are in character with the rural environment. Less direct travel through these areas may be irritating at times but the mi nor inconvenience is more than offset by preservation of the country charm of rural Ada--a major feature which drew the new residents to the area. COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES As a rural community facing the growing pains of urbanization, Ada is com i ng to grips with the increased demands of its new residents for a variety of public services and facilities. A certain paradox exists as residents who move to Ada to escape the congestion and problems of "city life" increase in number and thereby begin to seek the services and conveniences often taken for granted in the "city". Police, refuse collection, and other urban services are frequently cited as inadequate by Township residents. BUSINESS DISTRICT Ada's business district is in what was the original settlement of Ada. Even now many of the buildings reflect the character of that early period. Businesses range from personal services to retail shops to professional offices. While it has many features which attract people and create a sense of place - - an identifiable character--that character has not fully emerged; problems exist; and improvements should be made. - 4 - �I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ADA - FUTURE PROSPECTS FOR THE FUTURE Based on the growth of previous years, the abundance of undeveloped land, and the availability of utilities, Ada can expect to experience continued growth. The purpose of this Plan, therefore, is not to stifle such growth but to direct it where it can be easily accommodated and serviced without disruption to the natural environment. The accompanying figure illustrates the effect of three growth alternatives. For planning purposes, the third alternative (which projects a population of 10,400 by the year 2000) is considered most reasonable. LAND USE The Plan for future use of the Township's land resources attempts to balance two broad interests -- providing for continued growth and protecting the natural character and beauty of the community. These need not be mutually exclusive interests and the Plan provides for both. The physical character of Ada combined with current land use and available public services naturally delineates certain broad areas that are obviously suited to development. Whereas, it is equally obvious that other areas should remain undeveloped or sparsely developed. Therefore, the Plan establishes a framework for future land use by establishing what might be called "development areas" and "preservation areas". Within each of these areas varying levels of deve 1opment intensity are recommended so that even the "preservation area" can accommodate some new development, but at a level that will not be disruptive to the natural attributes of that area. - Goals Provide distinct living environments within the Township ranging from urban neighborhood to rural countryside. Preserve the Township's rural character where urban services are not already programmed or land use changes have not already occurred. Provide for alternative housing types to satisfy the varying lifestyles of existing and future residents. Strengthen the village business district as the focal point for the Township and the primary location for new business and activity in the community. Confine commercial development along M-21 to those areas where it already exists and avoids any tendency toward extending commercial development outward along the street. Provide for limited expansion of office and industrial development in appropriate areas without diminishing the basic res i dential character or high standards of livability of the Township. - 5 - �I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ADA TOWNSHIP POPULATION PROJECTIONS 1980 TO 2000 14500 14000 13500 13000 12500 12000 11500 11000 10500 10000 9500 9000 8500 8000 7500 7000 6500 6000 5500 5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 14,300, •• ••• •• ••• •• ••• • •• • •• ••• •• ••• • 10,400 ••• • . 9600,, •• •• • •• •• .... ••• •• ••• ••♦ ♦••• ------- ----- -- ____ . . . . 7600 --- 7000 ALTERNATIVES 1. - - - - - 2. ,.•.......... 3.--1---------------------------- 1950 Source: 1960 WBOC 1970 1980 1990 2000 �I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - Rural Preservation In order to ensure a certain level of protection for the rural environment, the Plan contains four classifications based on existing uses and natural characteristics which establish varying levels of development potential. These are described below. Fragile Resource Area: The natural environment in this area cannot tolerate any amount of development, and therefore, none should be permitted. The primary characteristics of this area are water and wetlands and the wildlife found there. One area of the Township has been given this designation--the extensive wetland surrounding Chase Lake in the northeastern part of the Township. Rural Preservation Area: This area generally lies north and east of the Grand River. It contains forest lands, hilly terrain, and extensive public recreation lands. Some development has occurred but tends to be scattered. It residential densities in the Rural Preservation Area be no per five acres. of Conservation Road agricultural lands, non-farm residential is recommended that higher than one unit Rural Development Area: The land south of Conservation Road and the area west of the Grand River is designated for Rural Development. While it exhibits many of the same characteristics as the Rural Preservation Area, the density of development that has occurred is much greater. Though more intense development is to be permitted in this area, because of the already established development pattern, it is still intended to remain rural in character. Recommended density for development is one unit per two acres. Rural View Corridor: This is a designation encompassing the Grand River floodplain and a scenic road network (including designated Natural Beauty Roads) which is intended to preserve the rural scenery and views in certain locations of the Township. It is the intent of the Plan to discourage the encroachment of development within these corridors in order to maintain the image of rural serenity. - Urban Development 1 Not all of Ada is rolling hills and country pastures. Most of the Township s 6,500 people live in a relatively small area of land south of M-21 on lots of one-quarter acre or smaller. Many other uses including industry and business occupy prominent locations along M-21 and elsewhere in the Township. The Plan, therefore, provides for several categories of urban development. Low Density Urban Residential: This category is intended to maintain the low dens 1 ty res, dent, a I character that has been established throughout much of the urban area. Current lot sizes vary considerably from the earliest development to the most recent. However, to remain consistent with the overall average densities, it is recommended that up to four units per acre be permitted. The majority of development in this category will be serviced with public water and sewer. - 7 - �I I Medium Density Urban Residential: This designation is intended to permit flexibility in the design of residential developments and to provide ~ransitional areas between low density and various non-residential uses. It 1s also intended to afford a reasonable use for areas that may be difficult to develop such as sites formerly mined or partially in the floodplain. At a recomme~ded density of up to eight units per acre, these areas could accommodate a variety of housing types to meet local needs. All such areas should be served by public water and sewer prior to development. Office: While offices may be located in industrial or commercial areas, two specific areas of the Township lend themselves to office development, per se. One area is located along Cascade Road where patterns have already been established for office use. This area is not intended to allow retail or other business uses to intrude. The other area is located within the Village business district. Commercial: This term refers to retail and service establishments and similar commercial uses. It is the intention of the Plan to concentrate business activity of a commerical nature within the Ada business district. Some additional business area is designated along M-21 to the extent that businesses already exist in those locations. It is specifically not the intent of this Plan to encourage further commercial development along M-21. Industry: The Plan provides for industrial development in those locations where trends have already been established. An additional area along the western boundary of the Township south of the railroad tracks has also been designated for future industrial development. TRANSPORTATION Based on the projected population growth and the distribution of development throughout the Township, it is unlikely that major new roads will be required. Consideration should be given, however, to constructing a connector between M-21 Thornapple River Drive/Buttrick Avenue east of the Thornapple River. Such a new road would allow thru traffic to avoid the narrow, winding stretch of Thornapple River Drive between the river and Buttrick Avenue and would relieve congestion at the Ada Drive/Thornapple River intersection in the Village business district. Some improvements such as turning lanes and traffic signals may be required along existing roads to handle isolated problems. The major concern relative to traffic and vehicular circulation should be focused on new residential subdivision development. Township review of new plats should thoroughly evaluate circulation and movement to and within those plats. COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES While Ada's infrastructure -- sewer, water, streets, etc. -- is generally adequate to serve the projected growth, some of the public buildings in the Township are not adequate and will require renovation or replacement. These buildings include the Township Hall and U.S. Post Office. In addition, a need exists for a new public works building. It is strongly recommended that any future new const ruction or expansion of - 8 - �I I I I the Township Hall or Post Office occur within the Village business district. These uses are centrally located now and serve as "magnets 11 , bringing people into the business district. If the existing Township Hall is expanded, such expansion will likely encompass the existing fire barn. In such case, it is recommended that a new fire barn be constructed within the business district, preferrably next to the Township Hall. The Township is also in need of a public works building. Such a facility need not be located in the business district but could be, if incorporated with the Township Hall and fire barn as a part of a civic complex. Other potential sites include Ada Park or Covered Bridge Park. BUSINESS DISTRICT The fo 11 owing section presents objectives and recommendations for the village business district. These are intended not only to respond to existing problems but to reinforce the assets of the area, as well. The accompanying pl an map illustrates the recommendations described herein. - Goals Strengthen the village's position as the focal point of Ada Township. Provide for business district expansion but within the confines of a cohesive planned district. Preserve and reinforce the turn-of-the-century character of the district. Create a pedestrian-oriented environment. Integrate the business district with other nearby features such as the Thornapple River, covered bridge, and Leonard Park. - Recommendations Land Use. A number of changes are recommended here relative to the mixture of uses and the location of those uses within the business district. The business district should be expanded to encompass the existing mixed use areas north of Thornapple River Drive between Headley and the Thornapple River. The frontage along Ada Ori ve should be devoted to retail or similar uses which require the kind of high visibility location that Ada Drive provides. Other uses such as offices and some services should be located outside this prime area. Headley and Thornapple River Drive offer suitable alternatives for these other uses. Essential public uses such as the Township's Administrative Offices and the U.S. Post Office draw large numbers of users and provide an identity for the community. For these reasons, the Township Offices and Post Office should remain within the business district, though it may not be necessary for them to remain in their present locations. - 9 - �Architectural Style. It is recommended that all future construction or renovation within the business district reflect a single architectural style, as typified by the Franciscan Rhythmns, Ada Cleaners, Tattersol, and others. HOl<'I Z 0NTA L.. 1 -------- 1'-W-!~ -'H ~OuD <::> IDlr-1~ ,..JH l1 E O jL f'A,,Tl=-1--'S 'l'::l11'~1=-~l2i:..Al,J" W'.X)O T 12 •tvl I I I I Streetscape. The term "streetscape" refers to the appearance of the street and those open spaces that 1 i e between the street and the bui 1dings that front on it. Appropriate design of the streetscape is especially important in a setting such as the Ada business district for severa 1 reasons. First, the street scape design can establish an appropriate scale--pedestrian, intimate, village-like. Second, it can create a positive visual impression for visitors. Finally, a well designed streetscape can unify the entire district by providing common physical elements throughout the district. l.-lU{]" IN6r FO F2 cN '::> AND PED J:.-'::>n,.1Ai-.1s 2 1--1 r ·1. · , .1 1,N MA11-,r,A1r--1 ADA' S -HAf2A_,e,,i., I �Expanded Business District * Complement Existing Village Character (Scale &c Character of Structures, Streetscape, Parallel Parking, Etc.) * Separate Retail &. Office Related Businesses - Preserve Prime, High Visibility Locations Along Ada Drive for * Retail &: Service Businesses Provide Additional Parking in Rear Yards &: Share Among Several Neighboring Businesses. Entry Treatment Amway r t~ent Bmc:h on Brick Pad Streetscaee Business District /0~' * Furniture, Signage, Lighting, Sidewalk Encourage Coordinated Streetscape: * * LEGEND D nIIllII !!RI ····· ~ ~ EXISTING BUILDING NEW BUILDING OR EXfANSION OF EXISTING BUILDING BUILDING TO OTHER USE RAZE EXISTING BUILDING SIDEWALKS/ PEDESTRIAN PATHS STREET TREES LANDSCAPING RIVER OVERLOOK Village District ADA Comprehensive Plan * ~:~\rStmJ~~fied Image for ~ ~ •--. Paving, Landscaping and Facade . Treatment Retain Parallel Parking Extend Sidewalks Continue Streetscape Along Ada Drive to M-21 to Define and Extend Village Character and Prevent Major Street from Adversely Affecting Downtown _.,...,o ~ •~ - ,,, Thornap-ple V ~ ~ **-Define Parking to Increase Efficiency Landscaping to Make Area More Pleasant Remove Parking From Near Schoolhouse Develop River Edge for Pedestrian Use: Walkway, Overlooks, Lighting, Tables * * All Buildings Village Park * * ~~~~;;;;e~fJv~~~e ** * Create a More Formal Park, Better Utilization of River Edge &c Improved if· with Walkway, Overlook, Tables and Benches Landscape Screen Along Road Eliminate Ball Diamond Bridge Area North of River - Indude Overlook, Walkway &. Landscaping * * [~~:~~~e1:~~~~~:c1~~:~ * & Benches, Etc. Retain "Village Common " but Buffer w/ Trees and Add an Undulating Within the Area, to Downtown and Define Access from Amway. Remove "Highway Character" and ,Develop the Area as a Visual. Extension of ~--=-·· ~ ~ ........ =-~-=:,-:. ~ - - AJICH!l(("fl �Signage. Signs in the district should be limited to on-site identification signs only. That is, only the name of the business on the premises where the sign is located should be displayed on the sign. A logo or graphic symbol may also be included to identify the type of business. Billboards and portable signs should be avoided. ":::>tvfA,_1-~ :.:;IG,rt---1 HU I'! , ff?/'JM F'i<'AM!:- ["AJNTl:.-P W OOL ·A -=il'I~ ',f,:JT Uc;rHTl:.-t) IF NEL.Ec-., , A k, ~£12 01C;;N 1{)t.N1lfY K-TIYITY Dil2i=C-TL.Y C>N FK.ADf-.. "0W >· fA -, H 1 >NSD'' µ..,TI-HH ., "?T1 ~I.:. , A ? •. ,1c-1-,17 'Trff-, ~,u,_, , ~,16!N HUH~ Fl<OM FA~P e. Signage I I I - 12 - ~our--rrro 0"(MB0i--"=> Lhl::P TO �-------LEGEND------- COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ~ Ii: i ·---=c'-'iiil-==----4000' SCALE 1"•800' RURAL PRESERVATION AREA FRAGILE RESOURCE AREA PARKS & RECREATION RIVER FLOOD PLAIN PUBLIC / QUASI· PUBLIC RURAL VIEW CORRIDOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT AREA LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL INDUSTRIAL OFFICE COMMERCIAL PROPOSED STREET � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Wyckoff Planning and Zoning Collection Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Planning & Zoning Center (Lansing, Mich.) (Organization) Wyckoff, Mark A. Description An account of the resource Municipal master plans and zoning ordinances from across the state of Michigan, spanning from the 1960s to the early 2020s. The bulk of the collection was compiled by urban planner Mark Wyckoff over the course of his career as the founder and principal planner of the Planning and Zoning Center in Lansing, Michigan. Some additions have been made to the collection by municipalities since it was transferred to Grand Valley State University. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Michigan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1960/2023 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Subject The topic of the resource Michigan Comprehensive plan publications Master plan reports Zoning--Michigan Zoning--Maps Maps Land use--planning Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-240 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Ada-Twp_Comprehensive-Plan-Executive-Summary_1985 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource WBDC, Inc. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1985-07 Title A name given to the resource Ada Township Comprehensive Plan Executive Summary Description An account of the resource The Ada Township Comprehensive Plan Executive Summary was prepared in July 1985 by WBDC, Inc. Subject The topic of the resource Comprehensive plan publications Ada Township (Mich.) Kent County (Mich.) Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/9b8c528adf09a07a87df85e863428947.pdf 1b02cd40fd56e50b2b70178fd69f5c26 PDF Text Text I ½ uarn 3 7 7r.} Pu 73 3 * • :..' /y - THE CONSERVANCY DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS LADD LAND CORPORATION of 6300 East Fulton, P.O. Box 241, Ada, Michigan 49301 (the "Developer") desires to impose certain building and use restrictions and related terms and provisions upon the following real estate owned by the Developer and located in Ada Township, Kent County, Michigan ("The Conservancy"): "Lots 1 to 11, both inclusive, of The Conservancy, being part of Section 13, Town 7 North, Range 10 West, Ada Township, Kent County, Michigan, according to the recorded plat thereof" NOW, THEREFORE, the Developer hereby declared The Conservancy will be subject to the following conditions, reservations, restrictions, covenants, terms and provisions ( collectively the "Restrictions"): I. BUILDING RESTRICTIONS 1.1 Minimum Square Footage. No one story residence will be constructed on any Lot with a fully enclosed first floor area of less than one thousand seven hundred (1,700) square feet, exclusive of carport, garage, and open porches. No one and one-half or two story residence will be constructed on any Lot with a fully enclosed floor area of less than one thousand eight hundred (1,800) square feet, exclusive of carport, garage and open porches, including a fully enclosed first floor area of not less than one thousand (1,000) square feet, exclusive of carport, garage and open porches. The height of any building will be not more than two and one-half full stories above ground elevation at building line. If any portion of a level or floor within a residence is below grade, all of that level or floor shall be considered a basement level. No mobile home, tent, shack, barn, temporary building, outbuildings, or guest house will be erected on any of the Lots without the prior written approval of the Developer. 1.2 Approval of Plans. The Developer in designing The Conservancy, including the location and contour of the streets, has taken into consideration the following criteria: (a) The Conservancy is designed for residential living on large residential sites in a rural atmosphere. (b) The existing contour of the land and the existing wooded vegetation should be preserved where practicabl_e. (c) The dwelling site on each of the Lots should be located so as to preserve the existing contours and vegetation where practicable. (d) The architecture of the dwelling and landscaping located on any Lot should be compatible with the criteria as established hereby and also should be compatible and �UBER 3 77 t1 Pu 7 3 4 harmonious to the external design and general quality of other dwellings constructed and to be constructed within The Conservancy. (e) The design and general quality of the construction shall be first class. Consequently, the Developer reserves the right to control the buildings, structures, and other improvements placed on each Lot, as well as to make such exceptions to as the Developer will deem necessary and proper. Each residence must include a garage for at least two vehicles. No building, wall, or other improvement (including storage buildings, playhouses, dog runs and play structures) or landscaping will be placed upon a Lot unless and until the plans and specifications therefor showing the nature, kind, shape, height, color, materials and location of the improvements (including floor plan and exterior colors) and the plot plan including elevations have the prior written approval of the Developer and no changes or deviations in or from such plans and specifications as approved will be made without the prior written consent of the Developer. Approved exterior materials include cedar, brick, field stone, drivit and any other material expressly approved by the Developer in writing. Flat roofs will be approved only in exceptional circumstances in the sole discretion of the Developer and the approved roof pitch is not less than a 8/12 pitch. Two sets of complete plans and specifications must be submitted; one will be retained by the Developer and one will be returned to the applicant. Along with the plans and specifications, the owner will submit the name of its proposed builder for approval. Any such plans for construction or alteration referred to above will include a plan for restoration after construction or alteration to a condition satisfactory to the Developer. Developer may, if it determines that the plans and specifications are inadequate, require that they be submitted in greater detail by either a licensed builder or architect or landscape architect in the case of landscaping. No landscaping may be commenced prior to submission and approval of a landscaping plan by the Developer. Each such building, wall, or structure will be placed on a Lot only in accordance with the plans and specifications and plot plan as approved by the Developer. Refusal of approval of plans and specifications by the Developer may be based on any ground, including purely aesthetic grounds, which in the sole and uncontrolled discretion of the Developer seem sufficient. No alteration in the exterior appearance of the buildings or structures constructed with such approval will be made without like approval of the Developer. If the Developer will fail to approve or disapprove any plans and specifications within thirty (30) days after written request therefor, then such approval will not be required; provided that no building or other improvement will be made which violates any of these Restrictions. The Developer will not be responsible for any defects in plans or specifications approved by Developer or in any building or structure erected according to such plans and . specifications or in any changes in drainage resulting from such construction. Developer may construct any improvements within The Conservancy that it may, in its sole discretion, elect to make without the necessity of prior consent from any other person or entity. 2 �UBER 1 77 L} P6 7 35 1.3 Construction Process. All construction of all buildings and structures will be done only by residential home builders licensed by the State of Michigan and approved in writing by the Developer. When the construction of any building is once begun, work thereon must be diligently continued and must be completed within a reasonable time. In any event, all construction and grass seeding and landscaping must be completed within one year from the start thereof, provided that the Developer may extend such time when in Developer's opinion conditions warrant an extension. 1.4 Garages and Outbuildings. Garages, which will be for the use only of the occupants of the residence to which they are appurtenant, must be attached to the residence and constructed in accordance with the plans approved in Section 1.2. No garage or other outbuilding will be placed, erected, or maintained upon any Lot except for use in connection with a residence on that Lot or on an adjoining Lot already constructed or under construction at the time that such garage or other outbuilding is placed or erected upon the Lot. 1.5 Walls and Fences. No wall or fence of any height will be constructed on any Lot until after the height, type, design, and approximate location therefor will have been approved in writing by the Developer. The heights or elevations of any wall or fence will be measured from the existing elevations of the property at or along the applicable points or lines. Any question as to such heights may be completely determined by the Developer. 1.6 Occupancy. No building erected upon any Lot will be occupied in any manner while in the course of construction, nor at any time prior to its being fully completed and a certificate of occupancy issued by Ada Township. Nor will any residence, when completed, be in any manner occupied until made to comply with the approved plans and all of the Restrictions. 1.7 Elevations. No substantial changes in the elevations of the land will be made on a Lot without the prior written consent of the Developer. Any change which materially affects the surface elevation, grade or drainage of the surrounding Lots will be considered a substantial change. 1.8 Soil from Excavation. All soil to be removed from any of the Lots either in grading or excavating will, at the option of the Developer, become the property of the Developer and when removed will be placed by the owner of the Lot in such place or places within The Conservancy as the Developer will designate at the Lot owner's expense. 1.9 Letter and Delivery Boxes. The Developer will determine the location, color, size, design, lettering, and all other permitted particulars of all mail or paper delivery boxes, and standards and brackets and name signs for such boxes. Each Lot owner will pay to the Developer the cost of the owner's mailbox installed by Developer as reasonably determined by Developer. The owner will maintain the owner's mailbox in its original style and color. 1.10 Lighting. No vapor lights, dusk to dawn lights or other lights regularly left on during the night may be installed or maintained on any Lot without consent from the Developer. Street lights may be installed at the entrance by the Developer. · 3 �UBER 3 7 7 t1 P6 7 3 6 1.11 Fuel Storage Tanks. No oil, fuel or propane gas storage tanks may be installed on any Lot, except one propane gas storage tank on each Lot surrounded by a wooden fence high and solid enough to completely screen the tank from view, and located so that none of the tank or fence is visible from any street in The Conservancy. Because it is believed to be the environmentally sensitive decision and in order to minimize the number and size of propane gas tanks in The Conservancy, it is hoped that most homes will be constructed with heat pumps, but this decision is to be made by the individual Lot owners exercising their own discretion. 1.12 Water Systems. Individual water supply systems will be permitted on a Lot solely to provide water for domestic consumption at the residence on the Lot and for irrigation purposes, swimming pools, or other non-domestic uses on the Lot. Because of elevated levels of hardness that can occur in well water, owners may want to consider installation and utilization of water treatment devices to reduce the hardness concentration. All wells installed for private water supply must penetrate an adequate protective continuous clay overburden of at least ten ( 10) feet in thickness. All wells are to be grouted in accordance with Michigan Department of Public Health water well grouting requirements. The owner of each Lot shall be responsible for the installation, operation, and repair of the water system on the Lot. For informational purposes only, owners are advised that wells adjacent to The Conservancy indicate the water supply appears to be 90 - 100 feet deep. The restrictions imposed in this Section 1.12 by the Kent County Health Department are perpetual and shall run with the land. No part of this Section may be amended, altered, modified or terminated without the prior written consent of the Kent County Health Department. 1.13 Septic Systems. It will be the responsibility of the owner to maintain the septic system in good order and working condition and comply with all applicable governmental regulations and neither the Developer nor the Association will have any responsibility with respect to the septic system on any individual Lot. Each owner must pump out the owner's septic system at least once every three years. With the application to obtain a permit from the Kent County Health Department ("KCHD") for a septic tank and drainfield, the owner will submit to the KCHD a lot development plan drawn to scale which will locate the structure, private drives and right-of-ways, utilities, Lot lines, building site and proposed well and septic location. As part of the application the KCHD may require a topographical map showing existing and proposed contours. Contour intervals will not exceed two feet. Site modification in the area of the initial and replacement wastewater disposal systems (drainfields) may be required by the KCHD whic would typically include soil removal and backfill with approved sand (2 NS) or raised mound type systems. Utilities, buildings, drives or other structures which may interfere with the installation and operation of the on-site sewage disposal system shall not be permitted within the designated and replacement sewage disposal areas as indicated on the permit issued by the KCHD. The restrictions imposed in this Section 1.13 by the KCHD are perpetual and shall run with the land. No part of this Section may be amended, altered, modified or terminated without the prior written consent of the KCHD . 1.14 Paved Areas. All driveways, driving approaches, and off-street parking areas shall be surfaced with an asphalt, bituminous, or portland cement binder pavement. 4 �UBER 3 7 7 ~i P6 7 3 7 1.15 Developer's Option to Repurchase. If a single family residence is not substantially completed on a Lot in accordance with this Declaration within eighteen (18) months from the date the Lot is sold by Developer pursuant to a land contract which grants possession of the Lot to the vendee or from the date on which the Lot is conveyed by the Developer to a purchaser (unless such eighteen (18) months is extended in writing by the Developer), the Developer will have the option to purchase back the Lot from the then current owner. The Developer's option to purchase back the Lot will continue until such time as construction is commenced of a residence which has been approved as contemplated by this Declaration. The option will be exercised by written notice to the owner of record of the Lot and the purchase price will be equal to the net cash proceeds received by the Developer from the sale of the Lot (sales price less closing costs of Developer), without increase for interest or any other charge. If the option is exercised, Developer is to receive marketable title by warranty deed subject only to restrictions or encumbrances affecting the Lot on the earlier of the date of the land contract or date of conveyance by the Developer, and with all taxes and assessments which are due and payable or a lien on the Lot, and/or any other amounts which are a lien against the Lot, paid as of the date of conveyance back to the Developer. The closing of the re-purchase shall take place in Kent County, Michigan at a place and time specified by Developer not later than thirty (30) days after the date of exercise of the option. The then current owner of the Lot will take such actions and shall execute such documents, including a warranty deed to the Lot, as the attorneys for the Developer will deem reasonably necessary to convey marketable title to the Lot to the Developer, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances as aforesaid. II. SETBACKS AND BUILDING LINES 2.1 Setback Lines. The location of any structure constructed on each of Lots 1 through 11 as depicted on the recorded plat of The Conservancy shall be subject to front, side and rear yard setback requirements as specified in the Ada Township Zoning Ordinance for the AG District unless a variance for such location is obtained from the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Township of Ada and further there is obtained a written consent thereto either from the Developer or from the immediately adjoining Lot owners. If the Developer should amend this Declaration as contemplated by Section 9.4(b) to add any or all of the lands depicted on Exhibit A adjoining Lots 1 through 11 to the east as subject to these Restrictions and they are platted and/or parceled as depicted on Exhibit A and the amendment adding such lands makes no different or contrary provision, then the location of any structure constructed on any of such Lots must satisfy the following setback requirements unless a variance for such location is obtained from the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Township of Ada and further there is obtained a written consent thereto either from the Developer or from th~ immediately adjoining Lot owners: (a) Lots 12 through 30 depicted on Exhibit A shall be subject to front, side and rear yard setback requirements as specified in the Ada Township Zoning Ordinance for the AG District. 5 �(b) Parcels A through F depicted on Exhibit A shall be subject to front, side and rear setbacks for principal and accessory buildings as determined by the areas designated as "Building Envelope" on Exhibit A. (c) Minimum setbacks from the South property line as depicted on Exhibit A for Parcels A, B and C shall be 100 feet. 2.2 Swimming Pools. Swimming pools will not be nearer than five feet to any Lot line and will not project with their coping more than two feet above the established grade. No aboveground swimming pools will be permitted. 2.3 Walls, Fences and Hedges. Walls and fences may be erected with the approval contemplated by Section 1.5 and hedges grown but they will be no higher than four feet from the street to the building line and six feet from the building line to the rear property line without the prior written consent of the Developer. 2.4 Waivers. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the Developer, in the sole discretion of the Developer, may waive or permit reasonable modifications of the setback requirements. ill. USE RESTRICTIONS 3.1 Residential Use. The Lots are for single-family residential purposes only. There will not exist on any Lot at any time more than one residence. No building or structure intended for or adapted to business purposes, and no apartment house, double house, lodging house, rooming house, half-way house, hospital, sanitarium or doctor's office, or any multiple-family dwelling of any kind will be erected, placed, permitted, or maintained on any Lot. No improvement or structure whatever, other than a first class private dwelling house, patio walls, swimming pool, and customary outbuildings, may be erected, placed, or maintained on any Lot. No Lot will be used or occupied by other than a single family, its temporary guests and household employees and no Lot will be used for other than residential use. 3.2 Home Occupations. Although all Lots are to be used only for single-family residential purposes, nonetheless home occupations will be considered part of a single-family residential use if, and only if, the home occupation is conducted entirely within the residence and participated in solely by members of the immediate family residing in the residence, which use is clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the residence for dwelling purposes and does not change the character thereof. To qualify as a home occupation, there must be (i) no sign or display that indicates from the exterior that the residence is being utilized in whole or in part for any purpose other than that of a dwelling; (ii) no commodities sold upon the premises; (iii) no person is employed other than a member of the immediate family residing on the premises, and (iv) no mechanical or electrical equipment is used, other than personal computers and other office type equipment. In no event shall a barber shop, styling salon, beauty parlor, tea room, fortunetelling parlor, day care center, animal hospital, or any form of animal care or treatment such as dog trimming, be construed as a home occupation. Although garage sales are included within the 6 �l!BER 37 7 l} Pu 7 3 9 prohibited uses since commodities are sold at garage sales, garage sales may nonetheless be conducted unless and until the Developer determines to prohibit garage sales, so long as conducted in accordance with any rules or conditions adopted by the Developer. 3.3 Garage Doors. For security and aesthetic reasons, garage doors will be kept closed at all times except as may be reasonably necessary to gain access to and from any garage. 3.4 Recreational and Commercial Vehicles. No house trailers, trailers, boats, camping vehicles, motorcycles, all terrain vehicles, snowmobiles, or vehicles other than automobiles or vehicles used primarily for general personal transportation use may be parked or stored upon any Lot or adjoining areas, unless parked in a garage with the door closed or with the written consent of the Developer, except that a pleasure boat on its trailer may be temporarily parked or stored on a Lot for no longer than an aggregate of two weeks each year without prior written consent. No inoperable vehicles of any type may be brought or stored upon any Lot, either temporarily or permanently, unless within a garage with the door closed. No trucks over 3/4 ton will be parked overnight on any Lot, except in an enclosed garage without the prior written consent of the Developer. No snowmobile, motorcycles or all terrain vehicles will be used on any Lot or any part of The Conservancy without the prior written approval of the Developer. 3.5 Zoning. The use of any Lot and any structure constructed on any Lot must satisfy the requirements of the zoning ordinance of the Township of Ada, Kent County, Michigan, which is in effect at the time of the contemplated use or construction of any structure unless a variance for such use or structure is obtained from the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Township of Ada and further there is obtained a written consent thereto from the Developer so long as Developer owns any Lot and from the immediately adjoining Lot owners. 3.6 Nuisances. No owner of any Lot will do or permit to be done any act or condition upon his or her Lot which may be or is or may become a nuisance. No Lot will be used in whole or in part for the storage of rubbish of any character whatsoever, nor for the storage of any property or thing that will cause the Lot to appear in an unclean or untidy condition or that will be obnoxious to the eye; nor will any substance, thing, or material be kept upon any Lot that will emit foul or obnoxious odors, or that will cause any noise that will or might disturb the peace, quiet, comfort, or serenity of the occupants of surrounding Lots. No firearm will be discharged on any Lot, even though periodically the noise from discharge of firearms is heard in The Conservancy from adjoining properties, including the firing range maintained by the Kent County Conservation League on its property to the east of The Conservancy. No weeds, underbrush, or other unsightly growths will be permitted to grow or remain upon any part of a Lot except to the extent it is natural undergrowth in a wooded area that the owner does not disturb in the construction of the owner's residence and no refuse pile or unsightly objects will be allowed to be placed or suffered to remain anywhere on a Lot. In the event that any owner of any Lot will fail or refuse to keep a Lot free from -weeds, underbrush, or refuse piles or other unsightly growths or objects, then the Developer may enter upon the Lot and remove the same and such entry will not be a trespass; the owner of the Lot will reimburse the Developer all costs of such removal. In addition, if any owner of any Lot fails to mow at least four times each summer, then the Developer may enter upon the Lot and mow the Lot and such entry will not be a trespass; the 7 �UBER 3 7 7 4 PB l l+ 0 owner of the Lot will reimburse the Developer all costs of such mowing. Any firewood stored within a Lot will be in limited and reasonable quantities and kept in a neat and orderly manner, all as may be further specified by the Developer. 3. 7 Existing Vegetation. Existing vegetation on all Lots shall be retained to the extent practicable and portions of each Lot in excess of one hundred feet to the rear of the residence on the Lot shall be retained in a natural condition. Included within the activities not permitted in these areas more than 100 feet to the rear of residences are grass seeding and construction activity or stockpiling, unless the Developer grants prior written approval for exceptional circumstances such as grade constraints. 3.8 Tree Removal. No trees three inches in diameter or larger shall be removed from any Lot unless one of the following conditions exist: (a) It is within 20 feet of a building or permanent structure, (b) It is diseased or dead, (c) It is a hazard to building, structure, or human life; or ( d) I ts removal would encourage healthier growth of surrounding trees. 3.9 Garbage and Refuse Disposal. All trash, garbage and other waste is to be kept only in sanitary containers inside garages or otherwise within fully enclosed areas at all times and will not be permitted to remain elsewhere on the Lot, except for such short periods of time as may be reasonably necessary to permit periodic collection. All trash, garbage and other waste must be removed from the Unit at least once each week. The Developer may adopt rules and regulations to control the style and size of the sanitary containers placed outside of fully enclosed areas for collection and may require specific pick-up times and/or specify a required contractor for all owners to use for waste removal and/or recycling pick-ups. 3.10 Animals. No animals, birds or fowl will be kept or maintained on any Lot, except dogs, cats and pet birds which may be kept thereon in reasonable numbers as pets for the pleasure and use of the occupants but not for any commercial use or purpose. 3.11 Signs. No signs or other advertising will be displayed on any Lot unless their size, form, and number are first approved in writing by the Developer, except that one 'For Sale" and/or one 'Garage Sale" sign referring only to the Lot on which displayed and not exceeding two (2) square feet in size may be displayed without approval. A name and address sign will be permitted after approval of the design by Developer. Nothing herein will be construed to prevent the Developer from erecting, placing, or maintaining signs and offices as may be deemed necessary by the Developer in connection with the sale of Lots. 3.12 Mineral Extraction. No derrick or other structures designed for use in boring for oil or natural gas shall be erected, placed, or permitted upon any Lot, nor shall any oil, natural 8 �UBER 3 7 7 ~ PG 74 I gas, petroleum, asphaltum, or hydrocarbon products or minerals of any kind be produced or extracted from or through the surface of any Lot. Rock, gravel, and/or clay will not be excavated or removed from any Lot for commercial purposes. 3.13 Owner Maintenance. Each owner will maintain his or her Lot and the improvements thereon in a safe, clean and sanitary condition. Also, each owner will use due care to avoid damaging any of the common improvements or systems serving The Conservancy including, but not limited to, the telephone, water, gas, plumbing, electrical or other utility conduits and systems. Each owner will be responsible to reimburse damages or costs to the Developer resulting from negligent damage to or misuse of any of such common improvements on systems by him or her, or their family, guests, uninvited visitors, agents or invitees, unless such damages or costs are covered by insurance carried by the Developer (in which case there will be no such responsibility, unless reimbursement to the Developer is limited by virtue of a deductible provision, in which case the responsible owner will bear the expense to the extent of the deductible amount). 3.14 Storm Sewer and Drain Restrictions. The following restrictions are imposed pursuant to the requirements of the Kent County Drain Commission: (a) A storm water drainage district, which includes all Lots, has been established by the Kent County Drain Commissioner. At some point in the future, the Lots within the drain district may become subject to a special assessment for the improvements and maintenance of the drain serving the drainage district. The drainage district boundary is shown on Exhibit A attached hereto. (b) A few of the Lots are subject to private easements for drainage, or drainage and ponding. Other Lots are subject to broad or very general drainage swale routes. These drainage easements and general drainage swales shall be protected and maintained by all of the affected Lot owners and shall not be the responsibility of the Kent County Drain Commission. The drainage easements, general drainage swales, and the general direction of surface water flow along these routes are shown on the Block Grading Plan, Exhibit B, attached hereto. The easements and drainage swales are for the continuous passage of surface water across the Lots and are for the benefit of all adjacent Lots. The imposition of such easements and the location of the general drainage swales shall not, however, prevent the alteration, development and improvement of the Lots, or the construction of permanent buildings and structures, provided that no such alteration, development, improvement or construction unreasonably interferes with the continuous passage of surface drainage across the Lots. Care shall be taken when final yard grading and landscaping is performed to insure that no major plantings, earth moving, structures, swimming pools, fences or shrubs be installed which will jeopardize the effectiveness of the drainage course or storm sewer system. Each Lot owner shall be responsible to maintain that portion of the drainage swale or easement on his property, except that the 9 �UBER '..:i / / t~ ru ,4 '- cost of repairs to the detention pond and the underground piping shall be the responsibility of the Drain District. (c) To eliminate the potential of flooding from backyard surface drainage of storm water from backyard surface drainage and ponding of storm water, the following Lots shall maintain the minimum building opening elevations listed for each Lot. The elevations listed below are shown on the block grading plan, Exhibit B, and are based on N .G.V. Datum; a bench mark is available in the plat. Lot Number 8 9 Minimum Opening Elevation 840.0 840.0 The foregoing restrictions imposed by the Kent County Drain Commission are perpetual and shall run with the land. They may not be amended or modified without the prior written approval from the Kent County Drain Commission. IV. UTILITIES AND RECEIVING DEVICES 4.1 Utility Lines and Antennas. All electrical service, cable television and telephone lines will be placed underground and no outside lines will be placed overhead without the prior written approval of Developer. No exposed or exterior radio or television transmission or receiving antennas will be erected, placed, or maintained on any Lot without the prior written approval of Developer. Any waiver of these restrictions will not constitute a waiver as to other Lots or lines or antennas. 4.2 Solar Panels and Satellite Dishes. Solar panel and satellite dish installation and location must be approved in writing by Developer prior to construction, which approval may be withheld in the sole discretion of the Developer. V. SUBDIVISION OF LOTS AND EASEMENTS 5.1 Developer. Subdivision of Lots. No Lot will be subdivided except as approved by the 5.2 Future Easements. No Lot owner shall be permitted to grant any right-of-way or easement across the owner's Lot to any person to benefit any parcel of property which is not a part of The Conservancy except as approved by the Developer. This restriction shall not include the usual utility easements. �VI. COMMON AREAS 6.1 Common Areas. 'Common Areas" shall mean all areas within or adjoining The Conservancy reserved for the common use and enjoyment of all Lot owners, such as open space areas, conservation areas, boulevards, and such other areas or facilities (including any later-added recreational facilities, such as a gazebo, picnic area or the like) as may by the Developer (so long as the Developer owns at least one Lot) or a majority in number of the Lot owners be designated as Common Areas in a designation recorded in the office of the Kent County Register of Deeds. 6.2 Maintenance. The Developer shall keep and maintain the Common Areas in a good, clean and serviceable condition and in accordance with this Declaration and such other standards as are from time to time established by the Developer, including maintenance of an entrance sign and decorative fencing and planting, pruning, removal, and replacement of trees and shrubs as determined by the Developer. The Developer shall also be responsible for supervising the construction, maintenance, repair, and reconstruction of any improvements that may from time to time be placed upon the Common Areas. Full rights of ingress and egress for the Developer and Developer's agents, employees and assigns, including any landscaping company hired to maintain the open space area, are hereby reserved over all Common Areas. No Lot owner may construct any improvements or make any change to the grade or plantings in the Common Areas without the prior written consent of the Developer. Each owner of a Lot with a residence either located on the Lot or with a residence under construction on the Lot will reimburse the Developer a proportionate share of the cost of maintenance of the Common Areas, with each such Lot bearing an equal share of such costs. The costs of maintenance will include real estate taxes on the Common Areas and general liability insurance covering the Common Areas. 6.3 Boulevard Maintenance. The Common Areas to be maintained by the Association include the boulevard areas located in the public right of way as shown on the recorded plat. The Kent County Road Commission is to approve the basic landscape plan for the boulevard area and the Association will maintain the landscaping consistent with that plan including pruning to prevent any plantings from being more than three feet high, without the prior consent of the Kent County Road Commission. The Association may replace dead or diseased plants to maintain the approved landscape plan, but any change from the landscape plan as approved will require the approval of the Kent County Road Commission. If the Association maintenance is deficient such that plantings are more than three feet high or lack of maintenance adversely affects safety of the roadway, the Kent County Road Commission will give notice of the deficiency to Ada Township and Ada Township will give notice to the Association. If the Developer or the Association does not perform the necessary maintenance, either the Township or the Road Commission may undertake the necessary maintenance or remove the landscaping and the Association shall pay the cost of such maintenance or removal. If the Association does not pay such cost within ninety (90) days, the Township or the Road Commission may act on behalf of the Association to make an equal pro-rata share of the cost a lien against each Lot subject to foreclosure as provided in Section 7.5. The Association shall also maintain general liability insurance of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence covering the boulevard area as part of the Common Areas naming the Kent County Road Commission and Ada Township as additional insureds as to the boulevard area. The Restrictions imposed in this Section 6.3 by the Kent 11 �UBER 3 7 7 L} PG 7 4 4 County Road Commission are perpetual and shall run with the land. No part of this Section may be amended, altered, modified or terminated without the prior written consent of the Kent County Road Commission. 6.4 Rules and Regulations. The Developer may establish reasonable rules and regulations concerning the use and enjoyment of the Common Areas. 6.5 Conservation Areas. Some parts of the Common Areas may be designated as conservation areas by the Developer and subjected to recorded conservation easements or restrictions. In the even of a conflict between any provision of this Declaration of Restrictions and such a recorded conservation easement or restriction, the provision of the recorded conservation easement or restriction shall govern as to the Common Areas subject to such recorded conservation easement or restriction without regard to the order of execution or recording. VII. LOT OWNERS' ASSOCIATION 7.1 The Conservancy Association. Every owner of a Lot by the acceptance of a deed or a land contract for a deed, will thereby automatically become a member of The Conservancy Association, a Michigan non-profit corporation organized by the Developer (the 'J'\.ssociation'). The Association will be controlled entirely by the Developer and is expected to be inactive until the Developer no longer owns any property in The Conservancy. After the Developer no longer owns any property in The Conservancy or gives written notice that the Developer is turning over control of the Association to the owners, the owner of each Lot will thereafter collectively have one vote for each Lot owned by voting Association members such as electing the Board of Directors. The owner of each portion of any subdivided Lot will have a fractional vote based on the square feet of the Lot included in each portion. 7.2 Association Facilities. All of the individual Lot owners and members of their immediate families or their tenants or guests will have the right to use facilities owned by the Association subject, however, to such rules and regulations covering the use thereof as may be set forth in the Articles of Incorporation and By-laws of the Association or otherwise established by the Association. 7.3 Dues and Assessments. Each Lot owner in accepting a deed or a land contract for a deed of any Lot, further agrees for himself, his heirs, successors and assigns to pay to the Association annual dues and any special assessments levied by the Association for that Lot, in such amount as may be determined by the Association for each year, for the purpose of paying or creating a fund to pay any taxes and assessments levied on land owned by the Association, maintenance and improvement costs associated with Association facilities, insurance premiums for insurance maintained by the Association and administrative expenses of the Association, provided an equal annual amount is assessed each year against each Lot. Notice of the amount and due date of the annual dues and any assessments will be given to each Lot owner. 12 �UBER 3 7 7 l~ PG 7 4 5 7.4 Collection of Assessments. Each Lot owner shall be obligated to pay all dues and assessments levied with regard to his Lot during the time that he is the owner thereof, and no Lot owner may exempt himself from liability for his dues and/or assessments by waiver of the use or enjoyment of any of the Association facilities. In the event of default by any Lot owner in paying the dues or assessments, the Association may impose reasonable fines and/or charge interest up to the highest rate permitted by law (not exceeding fifteen percent (15%) per annum) on such dues or assessment from the due date thereof Unpaid dues and assessments, together with such fines and interest, shall constitute a lien on the Lot prior to all other liens except sums unpaid upon a first mortgage of record recorded prior to the recording of any notice of lien by the Association. Upon the sale or conveyance of a Lot, all unpaid dues and assessments against the Lot shall be paid out of the sale price by the purchaser in preference over any other assessment or charge. A purchaser or grantee shall be entitled to a written statement from the Association setting forth the amount of unpaid Association dues and assessments against the seller or grantor and such purchaser or grantee shall not be liable for, nor shall the Lot conveyed or granted be subject to a lien for any unpaid dues or assessments against the seller or grantor in excess of the amount set forth in such written statement. Unless the purchaser or grantee requests a written statement from the Association at least five (5) days before sale and pays the amount of the statement from the purchase price, the purchaser or grantee shall be liable for any unpaid dues or assessments against the Lot together with interest, costs, and attorneys fees incurred in the collection thereof The Association may discontinue the furnishing of any services and/or deny access to Association facilities to a Lot owner in default in dues or assessments upon seven (7) days written notice to such Lot owner. A Lot owner in default of dues or assessments shall not be entitled to vote at any meeting of the Association so long as such default continues. 7.5 Lien Foreclosures. In the event of default in payment of any of the Association dues or assessments, the Association, its successors and assigns, may file a notice of claim of lien in the office of the Register of Deeds, Kent County, Michigan, for the amount of the unpaid dues or assessments. The notice of cl~im of lien will state the amount of the unpaid dues or assessment, the legal description of the Lot affected thereby and the name of the delinquent member of the Association. The lien may be foreclosed against the Lot by an action in law or equity or by any other legal proceedings which are or may be permitted by law, including foreclosure in the same manner as a mortgage may be foreclosed under the laws of the State of Michigan; in addition to the foreclosure of the lien, a personal decree for deficiency may be obtained against a member of the Association who is delinquent in the payment of dues or assessments. In an action for foreclosure, a receiver may be appointed and reasonable rental for the Lot may be collected from the Lot owner or anyone claiming under him, and all expenses incurred in collection, including interest, costs and actual attorney's fees, and any advances for taxes or other liens paid by the Association to protect its lien, shall be chargeable to the Lot owner in default. The lien of the Association will not have priority over a recorded first mortgage upon the Lot unless the notice of claim of lien has been filed with the Register of Deeds' Office prior to the date of recording of the mortgage. The sale or transfer of any Lot will not affect the lien of the Association; however, the foreclosure of any such prior recorded first mortgage as 13 �UBER 3 7 74 PG 74 6 permitted by the laws of the State of Michigan or the acceptance of a deed in lieu of foreclosure of such first mortgage will extinguish the Association lien as to payments thereof which become due prior to the expiration of the redemption period under said foreclosure or by the acceptance of a deed in lieu of foreclosure. The foreclosure of any mortgage or the acceptance of a deed in lieu of foreclosure of any mortgage will not relieve such Lot for liability of any assessment thereafter becoming due or from the lien thereof 7 .6 Association as Successor to Developer Rights. The Developer will have the right to assign any or all rights or powers as Developer to enforce these Restrictions or grant approvals, consents, or waivers as provided in these Restrictions to the Association at such time as the Developer determines in the sole discretion of the Developer. Upon such assignment, the Association will have and will succeed to all such granted rights and powers with the same powers as if the Association had been named as Developer in this Declaration. At such time as the Developer has sold by deed or land contract all of the Lots, then whenever in this Declaration consent or approval of the Developer is required or permitted, such consent or approval will be obtained from the Association. 7.7 Common Lands. The Developer may deed any lands within or adjoining The Conservancy to the Association and the Association will accept title and possession of such lands including boulevard parks and Common Areas. VIII. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS 8.1 Remedies for Violations. In the event of a breach or attempted or threatened breach of any Restriction by any Lot owner, the Developer, Association and/or other Lot owners, or any of them, shall be entitled forthwith to full and adequate relief by injunction and all other available legal and equitable remedies from the consequences of such breach, specifically including a court order enjoining commencement or continuance of construction on any Lot if the plans, the builder or any other aspect of construction required to be approved by the Developer prior to commencement of construction by Article I were not approved by Developer as required by Article I or are not being implemented as approved. 8.2 Costs to Enforce. All costs incurred in enforcing the Restrictions, including reasonable attorneys fees, will be reimbursed by the owner of the Lot or Lots in breach of the Restrictions to the Developer, Association or other Lot owners enforcing the Restrictions. 8.3 Payments and Liens. Payment for all reimbursable costs incurred as provided in this Declaration shall be due and payable thirty (30) days after receipt of a statement therefor, which statement shall detail the reimbursement sought, the manner of its calculation, and evidence of payment of the reimbursable costs. Any such claim for reimbursement, together with interest at the rate of seven percent (7%) per annum and actual costs including attorney's fees incurred in efforts to collect such reimbursement, shall be a secured right and a lien therefor shall attach to the Lot, and improvements thereon, owned by the defaulting Lot owner. After written notice to all owners of record and all mortgagees of record of that Lot, the party having paid such costs 14 �UBER 3 7 7 L~ PG 7 4 7 may foreclose the lien established hereby in the same manner as a mortgage may be foreclosed under the laws of the State of Michigan, provided such liens shall be subject and subordinated to any prior first mortgage of record with any purchaser at any foreclosure sale (as well as any grantee by deed in lieu of foreclosure sale) under any such prior first mortgage taking title free and clear from any such then existing lien, but otherwise subordinated to the provisions hereof. 8.4 Failure to Enforce. No delay or omission on the part of the Developer, Association or the owners of other Lots in exercising any rights, power, or remedy herein provided, will be construed as a waiver thereof or acquiescence in any breach of the Restrictions. No right of action will accrue nor will any action be brought or maintained by anyone whatsoever against the Developer or the Association for or on account of a failure to bring any action on account of any breach of these Restrictions, or for imposing Restrictions which may be unenforceable. 8.5 Severability. Invalidation of any one of the Restrictions by a court of competent jurisdiction will not affect any of the other Restrictions which will remain in full force and effect. IX. MISCELLANEOUS 9.1 Binding Effect. Developer hereby declares that this Declaration shall be binding upon the Developer, his grantees, successors and assigns, and that the Restrictions created herein shall run with the land. Each owner of a Lot or any portion of a Lot by acceptance of a deed, land contract or other conveyance to a Lot or any portion of a Lot thereby agrees to all Restrictions. 9.2 Waivers. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the Developer, in the sole discretion of the Developer, may waive or permit reasonable modifications of the Restrictions as applicable to particular Lots. 9.3 References Lots and to Lot Owners. Each part of The Conservancy conveyed by Developer for construction of a single family residence, whether a platted lot, a metes and bounds parcel, other area or any combination will constitute a 'Lot". Wherever reference is made in this Declaration to the owner of a Lot or a Lot owner, such reference shall be deemed to include all owners collectively with any ownership interest in the respective Lots respectively owned by them, whether there shall be one or more such owners. 9.4 Amendment and Te,::mination. Except as provided in Article X, this Declaration may be amended, altered, modified or terminated only in the following ways and subject to the following limitations: (a) Amendments may be made with the mutual written agreement of all parties, including mortgagees, then owning or having an interest of record in the Lots. 15 �llOER 37 7 I} PG 748 (b) Amendments may be made without the consent of owners or mortgagees of Lots by the Developer alone as long as the amendment does not materially alter or change the rights of the owner or mortgagee of a Lot, including, but not limited to, amendments for the purpose of facilitating conventional mortgage loan financing for existing or prospective owners of Lots and/or to enable or facilitate the purchase of such mortgage loans by any agency of the federal government or the State of Michigan or other third party. Amendments may be made without the consent of owners or mortgagees of Lots by the Developer alone even if such amendment will materially alter or change the rights of the owners or mortgagees of Lots, to achieve compliance with the laws of the State of Michigan or with ordinances, rules, interpretations or orders of any government body or agency or any court of competent jurisdiction, or to amend Exhibit ''A" attached hereto either to remove lands owned by Developer which may be designated as subject to this Declaration or to add adjoining lands which may be designated as subject to this Declaration. Any amendment adding adjoining lands may also amend any of the Restrictions as applicable to such adjoining lands and/or add additional restrictions applicable only to such added lands. (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Declaration, the Restrictions contained in Section 1.12 titled Water Systems and Section 1.13 titled Septic Systems may not be amended, altered, modified or terminated without the prior written consent of the Kent County Health Department, the Restrictions contained in Section 3 .14 titled Storm Sewer and Drain Restrictions may not be amended, altered, modified or terminated without the prior written consent of the Kent County Drain Commission and the Restrictions contained in Section 6.3 titled Boulevard Maintenance may not be amended, altered, modified or terminated without the prior written consent of the Kent County Road Commission. 9.5 Notices. All notices, demands, requests, consents and approvals required or permitted under this Declaration shall be in writing and shall be given or served by personal delivery or postage prepaid United States first class, registered or certified ma;!, return receipt requested, to the party at that party's last known address. Notice shall be deemed to have been on the earlier of (a) the date when received, or (b) on the second business day after mailing if mailed in the State of Michigan. 9.6 No Gift or Dedication. Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to be a gift or dedication of any portion of the Lots or other areas in The Conservancy to the general public or for any public purposes whatsoever, it being the intention of the Developer that this Declaration shall be strictly limited to the purposes herein specifically expressed. 9. 7 No Third Party Beneficiaries. No third party, except grantees, heirs, representatives, successors and assigns of the Developer, as provided herein, shall be a beneficiary of any provision of this Declaration. 16 �UBER 3 7 7 t~ PG 7 4 9 9.8 Captions. The captions of the Articles and Sections of this Declaration are for convenience only and shall not be considered or referred to in resolving questions of interpretation and construction. 9.9 Governing Law. This Declaration shall be construed, interpreted and applied in accordance with the laws of the State of Michigan. X. DURATION 10.1 Duration. This Declaration will remain effective for a period of twenty-five (25) years from the date this Declaration is recorded, after which time the effectiveness of this Declaration will be automatically extended for successive periods of ten (10) years except as amended or terminated by an instrument signed by all owners of a majority of the Lots and recorded within one year prior to commencement of a ten year extension, agreeing to amend or terminate the effectiveness of this Declaration in whole or in part, subject to the limitations stated in Section 9.4(c). IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Declaration of Restrictions the 20th day of J uly , 1995. ::~ Jamie C. Ladd Its President And By: -~-ar--'ga+-~-t..:c...ff .......L-~--=--·d---=UcJd:...._..= _ _ _ __ Its Secretary 17 �UBER 3 7 7 l+ PB 7 5 0 STATEOFMICHIGAN COUNTY OF KENT 2-1/1 ) ) ss. ) ~~ On this ~ay of , 1995, before me, a Notary Public in and for said County, personally appeared J C. LADD and MARGARET P . LADD, the president and secretary, respectively, of Ladd Land Corporation who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same as their free act and deed. bci?/4h~r~. ~ Mary L. Grasman 1 Notary Public, Kent County, Michigan My Commission Expires: 10 I26 I96 This Instrument Drafted By: KEITHP. WALKER, ESQ. McSHANE & BOWIE, P.L.C. 1100 Campau Square Plaza 99 Monroe Avenue, N .W. Grand Rapids, MI 49501-0360 Return to draftsman after recording 941229003 -0024-TAB 18 �/-~ --w- -!-- ., ~ .; fc I, fi:\ ) ~ ',i\ ~ ·,0 ( ~ ~ u ( 6 -l -l ~ ,/1 11/~ {J l/ 0 I)) 1"----!--tf-r'+f-1+-,----1 0 [) -J - (J1 .. --- -. ' ·' , rr::-\,.___-;;i~~~:=~et:JEi "'-. . ' / I\ ( ' ~\ ' "II J> i ~ E ~ ~ i ► !I C ; ~ a o--1 ,, 0, "':c JT1 C , 1 ~•• L.7 r-· ,, r JT1 z 0 - - -f I . ~ E- Ll<JE-, ~ ~wY+ • =c 131 -. .' -. r--- , , ~ t"°o~'! 1;.. MC CABE: AVE-. ! �uarn 3 1 7 1} FD 1 5 2 ,/ ~)T r\ l ~. Oi- I ',:CHi(~ ,\N N COUl!TY~lr :<UIT CJ\ 1, D P'"('{' '"'[' .. t ,\.JI\J RECE.IIJ•°Ei'U1i., 96 JAN24 PM 12: 28 --~~--~\ 7 I • '' \) NO SCALE REG. OF DEEOS .... ....9 __ _/· k w ~ .,,/,.940 I B.M. 1 20 ' OAK 0 ~&, +6 - ~ ,I/ 0 I w 2 CD <t /I"' u u :E 11 ~·A . . * BfNCHMARK ELEV. 862.37 R.R. SPIKE IN E. SIOE OF 20·· WALNUT u~ i \ .! ·- - · · - · · - DRAINAGE SWALE = MIN. BUILDING OPENING · □ = 'YARD DRAIN OR STREET CATCH BASIN I I . I I ii-+ EXHIBIT 8~ BLOCK GRADING THE CONSERVANCY IN PART OF SECT., 13, T7N, R tOW ADA TWP.. KENT CO .• Ml. ~ exxel ~ineering ire. 1252 CLYDE PARK, S.W. • IRAND RArlDS. Ml. 41111 PHONE (111) UMHI I LO.CA TIQ.1.'U4AP IDrown b, Appro••dbr Dole CFH NS 4-11- ~~ lfh Hvmber 1Shu I Numbe r 871159E I ol I �1 'l r • • • I . .. BASELINE DATA for the LADD "CONSERVANCY DEVELOPMENT" CONSERVATION EASEMENT Granted By: Ladd Land Corporation, Jamie C. Ladd, President To Grantee: Natural Areas Conservancy of West Michigan, Inc. 1432 Wealthy Street SE, Suite L-3 Grand Rapids, Ml 49506 Compiled By: April Scholtz, December 1995 �Background Information The Ladd Tract to be protected through a conservation easement is 32.68 acres in Section 14 of Ada Township, Kent County, Michigan. It is the western-most part of a 118.5 acre parcel platted for residential development called "The Conservancy". The easement property of 33 acres is an undeveloped, wooded parcel. Undeveloped logging roads and tree stumps from selective cutting are the only evidence of past use. The entire 188.5 acres was formerly part of a farm owned by Vern and John Bigelow. The easement property is mature hardwood and conifer forest on rolling hills. Jamie and Penny Ladd, through their E.L. Ladd Company, designed the "Conservancy" development around the idea that this wooded portion of the property would be preserved, while the remaining acreage would be developed as home sites. They approached the Natural Areas Conservancy with the offer of a donated conservation easement, with the subdivision homeowners association ultimately owning the land. The Ladd "Conservancy" Conservation Easement will protect the natural character of the site, thus providing critical habitat for a variety of flora and fauna. Especially important is the mature nature of the woods, providing habitat for pileated woodpeckers, nesting red tail hawks, and a variety of migrating and resident songbirds. There is considerable evidence of deer and fox~in the woods. White pine is regenerating well in the western portions of the Easement property, especially around the few individual large white pines. The owners of the Ladd "Conservancy" Tract wish to guarantee the preservation of the conservation values of the property in perpetuity by granting a conservation easement to the Natural Areas Conservancy of West Michigan. BASELINE DATA FOR THE LADD "CONSERVANCY" EASEMENT The field work for this baseline data was compiled by April Scholtz on September 29, 1995. The following descriptions of areas in the easement property are intended to set forth the general condition of the Ladd "Conservancy" Tract at the time of the donation of the Conservation Easement. The descriptions, maps, species I ists and other information are by no means complete and are only intended to convey a sense of the property's character and features. Property I ines were located using survey maps, stakes, aerial photos, and by walking the property with the owner and following old fence lines. PHYSICAL AND NATURAL FEATURES 1. Topography and Soils The entire Easement Tract is composed of well-drained Oakville fine sand (source: Soil Survey of Kent County, Michigan, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1986.) The �club has a shooting range on their property. · Their land was partially cleared to make the shooting ranges, and the more open, scrubby land west of the Easement Tract is probably contributing to the edge effect noted in this part of the woods. MAN-MADE FEATURES 1. Roads There are old two-track roads that wind through the central and eastern portions of the Easement Tract, used until recently for the selective cutting that occurred on the property. There is one primary loop that appears to have been used most frequently. All of the tracks are unpaved, unimproved and can revert back to a more natural condition. 2. Fences Old fencing follows the property boundaries to the north, west and south of the Easement Tract. In many cases the barbed wire was attached to trees, not fence posts. No other fences were found on the property. 3. Signs There are signs on the west boundary of the Easement Tract, warning of the adjacent shooting range and against trespassing. 4. Structures No structures were noted on the property, with the exception of a tree stand used for hunting deer near the northwest corner of the property. It appears that the stand was just south of the north property line of the Easement Tract, although it was so close to this line it was impossible to tell without further investigation. Neighbors who have traditionally hunted this property in the past have been asked to stop hunting, and that the property is now a nature preserve. 5. Other •"- There is a "pit" that is located in the central-northern portion of the property, on one of the ridges. It is about 6 feet in diameter and about 3 or 4 feet deep. Nothing appeared to be in the pit, or around the pit. There was no uprooted fallen tree nearby, but there was evidence of logging nearby and the pit could conceivably be caused by a fallen tree. �On-Site Photographic Documentation of Ladd "Conservancy" Easement Tract Taken 9/29/95 by April Scholtz Number Description 1 NE corner of easement property. Taken just outside of Easement property, looking W/SW at NE corner marker: a double-flagged tree. 2 N boundary line just W of NE corner, showing old 'barbed wire fencing run around tree. 3 N boundary line W of NE corner, showing old barbed wire fencing run between trees (look between lower trunks of two larger trees on right). 4 N boundary just E of NW corner. Salt lick, corn cobs and tree stand on large tree to the right. Salt lick and cobs appear to be on Easement property; stand may be just over N boundary on neighbor's property. 5 Looking N from just E of W boundary line, south of NW corner. Note younger aged forest with many saplings and few large trees. 6 Looking E/N E from W boundary. More mature, less disturbed forest than to north along W boundary. 7 Looking W/SW at W boundary at the "Danger" sign posted on Kent Conservation League boundary. 8 Looking S just E of W boundary at informal trail. May lead from residences to S. 9 . SW corner stake. Taken just W of stake, looking E. Note the back of Kent Conservation League sign posted on tree inside SW corner stake approx. 15'. 10 - not exposed - 11 Looking NE from S boundary, east of SW corner. Taken from top of ridge W of deepest ravine on Easement property. 12 Looking NINE from S boundary, just E of previous photo. Taken in ravine. Note large white pine growing in ravine and on steep slope. 13 Looking SW from S boundary to adjacent house (mostly obscured by leaves, but in right center portion of photo. Light area is opening around �.. . . . I ��#- '- 12.. �·. �#24 �L.&dci DR IICoosQXu~I/ ~ �SE E.\ST-¼EST 1/+ LINE. ·~a"-c:. N88°48::i / C• 14 D 0.8. , ., , 1130.s2 ···N4 ! ' ~ ~ SECTION t. 1/ "- CCJl-<NE..~ 5 8 8•° _ 14 22s •12· T7N Rrnw II ', t I 0 Sketch and description for: 0 ci .,. I") ~ ;;j .,. 0 I • I~ 0 1-,i 0 1~ 0 (/) ''o CD ,.,,., -~ ,- OPEN SPACE AREA c.i w ,.,C) (Pf,Ri OF THE CONSERVAN CY P.R.:J .) • I") 0 ~ (/) O o ~ '-... ,- 0 IC!l 1:- I I O O• w•N ,- z . -~ a, ,0 0 o~...,, ~ii, .\rl z s ,ao:,,,,. 0 o0 oi:-v ~ g n 0 i""1 i""1 W (/) S7<015•:,,,.,_ I I u..i z ::J f-- o· 110.15• u w "' ... N7Jo 40 ,W ""f" '-... ,- 0 0 (/) 245.68' S37°49'51"W ; Description of Open Space Area: That part of the SE 1/4. Section 14. T7N. RlOW, Ada Township; Kent County, Michigan. described as: BEGINNING at a point on the E-W 1/4 line of Section 14, which is S88°48'58"W 225.12 feet from the E 1/4 corner of Section 14: thence S00°40'3l"W 430.00 feet parallel with the East line of said SE 1/4; thence S57°30'E 110.06 feet; thence N85°40'E 73.48 feet; thence S04°20'E 40.00 feet; thence sas 40·w 90.00: thence S54°2o·w 100.00 feet; thence S00°40'3l"W :oo.oo feet; thence S72°15'26"E 235.37 feet to a point on t he East line of said SE 1/4 which is soo 40·31·w 964.97 feet frcm said E 1/4 corner of Section 14; thence S87°49'51"W 245.68; thence N73°40'W 43.48 feet; thence Sl6°2o·w 40.00 feet; thence N73°40'W 110.16 feet; thence S64°40'W 106 .47 feet; thence S00 °40'3l"W 330.00 feet; thence S89°os·os·w 847.30 feet along the South line of the NE 1/4 of said SE 1/4; thence N00°19'12gE 1330.46 feet alona the West line of the NE· 1/4 of said SE 1/4; thence N8§ 43'58"E 1130.62 feet along the E·W 1/4 line of Section 14 to the place of beginning. This parcel contains 32.681 Acres. 0 I~ :. 0 0 . _¼ z~ ~ 0 (/) w I-(/) ·1 sas w·w 10 3: w b~ 90.00· ,n, C ~ '-... ,- ~ • 'J>. Cl~ S ,G 32.681 acres (/) ~i -o~. ou- 73.48' -Jo~ sr ,- _J N85°40'E Ss>o ·06'• ~ 0 I 1 I Ladd Land Corporation ATTN: Hr. Jamie Ladd 6300 East Fulton Ada. HI 49301 < w 0 0 3: ,.., 0 --t" 0 0 0 (/) ---1------------------------~-----S89005'05"'H saur.-1 UNE. NE 847.J0' 1/4, SE 1/ 4, SEC. 14 Scale 1" = 200' D = Deeded di mens ion M = Measured dimension P = Planed dimension • = Set iron stake 0 = round iron stake Q = Concrete monument _x _ Fence Line M ~~;~~!~~~~~'.nE,~~~eos... IN I\ PHONE (616) 531 -3660 File No . : 8 7 11 5 9E ~---------------------------------------------.L___J .~~!",~;.~NN : :'.l \1""'~~ 1 -: Date: Au a 1c;t: 11 . 1q qc; 1 495099724 �,,. , r .. L!EER 3 8 8 1 Pu I I O7 ·• CONSERVATION EASEMENT DATE: July 1, 1996 DONOR: Ladd Land Corporation, a Michigan Corporation Jamie C. Ladd, President 6300 East Fulton, Ada, MI 49301 CONSERVANCY: Natural Areas· Conservancy of West Michigan, Inc. 1432 Wealthy St. SE, Suite L-3, Grand Rapids, MI 49506 PROPERTY: In Ada Township, Kent County, Michigan: That part of the SE 1/4, Section 14, T7N, RlOW, Ada .. • .. Township. Kent County, Michigan, described as: ..-- . ~o BEGINNING at a point on the E-W 1/4 line of ·section-·•' ·:. _:. \ . o"' 14, which is S88°48'58.W 225.12 feet from the E 1/A 2= corner of Section 14: thence S00°40'31·w 430.00 f~et~; -~\ ,parallel with the East line of said SE 1/4: thence : ·s ,2.} . . ··;:: S57°3D'E 110.06 feet: thence NB5°40'E 73.48 feet: .~.:./ /\0' thence S04°20'E 40.00 feet: thence SBS 40'W 90.00: · _:-::1/''£ ) ~ thence S54°20'W 100.00 feet: thence S00°40'31.W 30Qj~~ • . . c.~, feet; thence S72°15'26.E 235.37 feet to a point on t:lle -t~ East line of said SE 1/4 which is S00°40'31 "W 964.97 --~ - · f.: feet from said E 1/4 corner of Section -14: thence S87°49'51"W 245 .68; thence N73°40'W 43.48 feet: thence Sl6°2o·w 40.00 feet; thence N73°40'W 110.16 feet: thence S64°40'W 106.47 feet: thence s00°40'3l"W 330.00 feet: thence S89°05'05"W 847.30 feet along the South line of the NE 1/4 of said SE 1/4; thence N00°19'12"E 1330.46 feet along the West line of the NE 1/4 of said SE 1/4; thence NBB 48'58.E 1130.62 feet along the E·W 1/4 line of Section 14 to the place of beginning. This parcel contains 32.681 Acres. r~.- - 0 I -• I -,-.. < ::r'", l . : ~.: J · .•• ---:, 0 CONVEYANCE: The Donor conveys and warrants to the Conservancy a perpetual Conservation Easement over the Property . The scope of this Conservation Easement is set forth in this agreement. This conveyance is a gift from the Donor to the Conservancy. CONSERVATION VALUES: The Property possesses natural, scenic, open space, scientific, biological and ecological values of prominent importance to the Donor, the Conservancy and the public. These values are referred to as the "Conservation Values" in this easement. PURPOSE OF THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT: A. The Donor is the fee simple title owner of Lhc Property, :.and is committed to ;; ,, l .:·, · , ,.., "· �1 t / , lr)E[) ') LIU I\ ,.. i ' 0 0 ') ~.J r.J '- ) plU'! I l O8 / preserving the Conservation Values of the Property. This Conservation Easement assures that the Property will be perpetually preserved iI\ its predominately natural, forested, and open space condition. Any use of the Property that may impair or interfere with the Conservation Values is expressly prohibited. The Donor agrees to confine use of the Property to activities consistent with the purposes of this easement and preservation of the Conservation Values. B. The Conservancy is a tax-exempt, nonprofit Michigan corporation qualified under Internal Revenue Code Sections 501(c)(3) and 170(h)(3)°and 170(h)(4)(ii) and (iii); the Conservation and Historic Preservation Easement Act, MCL 399.251 et seq. The Conservancy protects natural habitats of fish, wildlife, plants or similar ecosystems. The Conservancy also preserves open spaces, including farms and forests, where such preservation is for the scenic enjoyment of the general public or pursuant to clearly delineated governmental conservation policies and where it will yield a significant public benefit. C. The Property has the following specific Conservation Values: • The primary Conservation Value is the preservation of a mature forest that provides habitat for wildlife including nesting hawks, pileated woodpeckers, migratory songbirds, fox and deer. • Proximity to the following conserved properties that similarly preserve the existing natural habitat: Seidman County Park, and the Cannonsburg State Game Area. • A scenic landscape and natural character that would be impaired by a modification of the Property. • Biological integrity and open space of other land in the vicinity has been modified by intense urbanization. Conservative estimates indicate that the population in Kent County will grow by 142,000 in the next two decades, with residential development consuming approximately 60,000 acres in Kent County within 15 years. This gives open spaces and sizable blocks of unfragmented, mature forests increasing value. · • It is preserved pursuant to a clearly delineated federal, state or local conservation policy and yields a significant public benefit. The following legislation establishes relevant public policies: the Conservation and Historic Preservation Easement Act, MCL 399.251 et seq; and the Biological Diversity Conservation Act, MCL 299.231. ~ D. Specific Conservation Values of the Property have been documented in a natural resource inventory signed by the Donor and Conservancy. This "Baseline Documentation" consists of maps, a depiction of all existing man-made modifications, prominent vegetation, identification of flora and fauna, land use history, distinct natural features, and photographs. The parties acknowledge that this natural resources inventory (the Baseline Documentation) is an accurate representation of the Property at tne time of this donation. 2 �L\8ER 3 8 8 3 PU I I O9 THE PARTIES AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING TERMS OF THIS CONSERVATION AGREEMENT: 1. PROHIBITED ACTIONS. Any activity on or use of the Property inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement or detrimental to the Conservation Values is expressly prohibited by the Donor, successive owners, and any members of successive owners (such as the members of an Association). By way of example, the following activities and uses are explicitly prohibited: a. Division. Any division or subdivision of the Property is prohibited. b. Commercial Activities. Commercial or industrial activity is prohibited. c. Construction. The placement or construction of any man-made modification, such as buildings, structures, fences, roads and parking lots is prohibited, with the exception of a footpath and gazebo and boundary fencing, as ~rmitted herein. d. Cutting Vegetation. Any cutting of trees or vegetation is prohibited, except to maintain access along a designated footpath as permitted herein. e. Land Surface Alteration . Any mining or alteration of the surface of the land is prohibited, except in the course of an activity permitted herein. f. Dumping . Waste and unsightly or offensive materials is not allowed and may not be accumulated on the Property. g. Off Road Vehicles. Motorized and non-motorized off-road vehicles, such as bicycles, snowmobiles, dune buggies, all terrain vehicles and motorcycles may no{ be operated on the Property. · h. Billboards. Billboards and signs are prohibited. A sign may, however, be displayed to state: • • • • • The name and address of the Property. The owner's name. The area protected by this Conservation Easement. Prohibition of any unauthorized entry or use. An advertisement for the sale or rent of the Property. 2. RIGHTS OF THE CONSERVANCY. The Donor confers the following rights upon the Conservancy to perpetually maintain the Conservation Values of the Property: a. Right to Enter. The Conservancy has the right to enter the Property at reasonable times to monitor or to enforce compliance with this Conservation Easement. The Conservancy may not, however, unreasonably interfere with the Donor's use and quiet enjoyment of the Property. The Conservancy has no right to permit others to enter the Property. The general public is not granted access to the Property under this Conservation Easement. 3 �./ / / . uarn 3 8 8 3 Pu \ \ \ o :: b. Right w Preserve. The Conservancy has the right w prevent any activity.on or use of the Property that is inconsistent wich the purposes of this easement. _, .. c. Right to Require Restoration. The Conservancy has the right to require restoration of the areas· or features of the Propercy that are damaged by activity inconsistent with this Conservation Easement. d. Signs. The Conservancy has the right to place signs on the Property that identify the land as being protected by _.this Conservation Easement. The number and location of any signs are subject to Donor's approval. · 3. PERMITIED USES. :bonor retains all ownership rights that are not expressly restricted by this Conservation Easement. In particular, the following rights are reserved: a. Right to Convey. The Donor retains the right to sell, mortgage, bequeath or donate the Property. Any conveyance ·will remain subject to the terms of this Conservation Easement and the subsequent owner will be bound by all obligations in this agreement. b. Right to Add Designated Structures or Uses. The Donor retains the right to add the following structures, modifications or uses to the Property with the prior written approval of the Conservancy: "' A non-motorized recreational trail. This ·trail would not have an improved or hardened surface, and would be sited so as to minimize negative environmental inipact and to avoid active nest sites of hawks, pileated woodpeckers, owls, and other fauna of significance. · .· ·· •.··, ·. ,., , _ * A .gazebo or picnic area, not to exceed 1 acre in size; located along the trail and sited to avoid environmentally sensitive areas, including hawk nesting areas.* Not more than 5 benches along the trail, sited to avoid environmentally sensitive areas, including nesting areas. . *Installation, repair or maintenance of fencing along the boundary of the easement property. NOTICE OF. INTENTION TO lJNDERT AKE CERTAIN PERMITIED ACTIONS . . The purpose qf requiring the Donor to notify the Conservancy prior to undertaking certain· permitted activities is to afford the Conservancy an opporturuty to ensure that the activities in question are designed and carried out in a manner consistent with the purpose of this Easement. Whenever notice or written permission is required, the Donor · shall notify the Conservancy in writing not less than thirty (30) days prior to the date the Donor intends to undertake the activity in question. The notice shall describe the nature, scope, design, location, timetable, and any other material aspect of the proposed activity in sufficient detail to permit the Conservancy to make an informed judgement as to its consistency with the purpose of this Easement. 4. · · ca. Conservancy's Approval. Where the Conservancy's approval is required, the Conservancy shall grant or withhold its approval in writing within thirty (30) days of receipt of the Donor's written request. The Conservancy's failure to respond within thirty (30) days shall be deemed as approval from the Conservancy. The Conservancy's approval may be �ll□rn 3 0 R1 Pu I I I I withheld only upon a reasonable determination by the Conservancy that the action as proposed would be inconsistent with the purpose of this Easement. 5. CONSERVANCY'S REMEDIES. This section addresses cumulative remedies of the Conservancy and limitations on these remedies. a. Delay in Enforcement. A delay in enforcement shall not be construed as a waiver of the Conservancy's right to eventually enforce the terms of this Conservation Easement. b. Acts Beyond Donor's Control. The Conservancy may not bring an action against the Donor for modifications to the Property resulting_from causes beyond the Donor's control. Examples are: unintentional fires, storms, natural earth movement, trespassers or even a Donor's well-intentioned actions in response to an emergency resulting in changes to the Property. The Donor has no responsibility under this Conservation Easement for such unintended modifications. c. Notice and Demand. If the Conservancy determines that the Donor is in violation of this Conservation Easement, or that a violation is threatened, the Conservancy may provide written notice to the Donor unless the violation constitutes immediate and irreparable harm. The written notice will identify the violation and request corrective action to cure the violation or to restore the Property. d. Failure to Act. If, for a 28 day period after written notice, the Donor continues violating this Conservation Easement, or if the Donor does not abate the violation and implement corrective measures requested by the Conservancy, the Conservancy may bring an action in law or in equity to enforce the terms of this Conservation Easement. The Conservancy is also entitled to enjoin the violation through injunctive relief, seek specific performance, declaratory relief, restitution, reimbursement of expenses, or an order compelling restoration of the Property. If the court determines that the Donor has failed to comply with this Conservation Easement, then the Donor also agrees to reimburse all reasonable costs and attorney fees incurred by the Conservancy. e. Unreasonable Litigation. If the Conservancy initiates litigation against the Donor to enforce this Conservation Easement, and if the court determines that the litigation was without reasonable cause or in bad faith, then the court may require the Conservancy to reimburse the Donor's reasonable costs and attorney fees in defending the action. f. Donor's Absence. If the Conservancy determines that this Conservation Easement is, or is expected to be,. violated, the Conservancy will make good-faith efforts to notify the Donor. If, through reasonable efforts, the Donor cannot be notified, and if the Conservancy determines that circumstances justify prompt action to mitigate or prevent impairment of the Conservation Values, then the Conservancy may pursue its lawful remedies without prior notice and without awaiting the Donor's opportunity to cure. The Donor agrees to reimburse all costs associated with this effort. g. Actual or Threatened Non-Compliance. Donor acknowledges that actual or threatened events of non-compliance under the Conservation Easement constitutes immediate and irreparable harm. The Conservancy is entitled to invoke the equitable jurisdiction of the 5 �court to enforce this Conservation Easement. h. Cumulative Remedies. The preceding remedies of the Conservancy are cumulative. Any, or all, of the remedies may be invoked by the Conservancy if there is an actual or threatened violation of this Conservation Easement. 6. OWNERSHIP COSTS AND LIABILITIES. In accepting this Easement, the Conservancy shall have no liability or other obligation for costs, liabilities, taxes or insurance of any kind related to the Property, unless directly caused by the Conservancy's actions. The Conservancy, its members, directors, officers, employees and agents have no liability arising from injury or death to any person or physical damage to any property on the Property unless directly caused by their actions. The Donor agrees to defend the Conservancy against such claims and to indemnify the Conservancy against all costs and liabilities relating to such claims during the tenure of the Donor's ownership of the Property. Subsequent owners of the Property will similarly defend and indemnify the Conservancy for any such claims arising during the tenure of their ownership. 7. HAZARDOUS WASTE. The Donor agrees to indemnify the Conservancy for any liability caused by the presence of hazardous waste or hazardous materials used or disposed of on the Protected Property since the Donor or its affiliates acquired ownership of the Protected Property unless such waste or material is there as a direct result of activities conducted by the Conservancy. The Donor agrees tci include the Conservancy as an additional insured on any pollution liability insurance ·policies covering the Protected Property, to the extent of its insurable interest. · 8. CESSATION OF EXISTENCE. If the Conservancy shall cease to exist or if it fails to be "a qualified organization" for purposes of Internal Revenue Code Section 170(h)(3), or if the Conservancy is no longer authorized to acquire and hold conservation easements, then this Conservation Easement shall become vested in another entity. This entity shall be a "qualified organization" for purposes of Internal Revenue Code Section 170(h)(3). The Conservancy's rights and responsibilities shall be assigned to the following named entities in the following sequence: (1) Another nearby land trust, such as the Southwest Michigan Land Conservancy, Inc. (2) Any other entity having similar conservation purposes to which such rights may be awarded under the cy pres doctrine. 9. TERMINATION. This Conservation Easement may be extinguished only by an unexpected change in condition that causes it to be impossible to fulfill the Conservation Easement's purposes, or by exercise of eminent domain. a. Unexpected Change in Conditions. If subsequent circumstances render the purposes of this Conservation Easement in1possible to fulfill, then this Conservation Easement may . be partially or entirely terminated only by judicial proceedings. The Conservancy will then be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of IRC Treasury Regulations 6 �/,.,/, 1//,,1/ Section l.170A-14(g)(6)(ii). b. Eminent Domain. If the Property is taken, in whole or in part, by power of eminent domain, then the Conservancy will be entitled to compensation by the same method as set forth in IRC Treasury Regulations Section l.170A-14(g)(6)(ii). 10. LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION. This Conservation Easement shall be liberally construed in favor of maintaining the Conservation Values of the Property and in accordance with the Conservation and Historic Preservation Easement Act; MCL 399.251 et seq. 11. NOTICES. For purposes of this agreement, notices may be by personal delivery or by mailing a written notice to that party (at top of this agreement, or at last known address of a party) by First be complete upon depositing the properly addressed notice with the sufficient postage. provided to either party the address shown at the Class mail. se·rvice will U.S. Postal Service with 12. SEVERABILITY. If any portion of this Conservation Easement is determined to be invalid, the remaining provisions will remain in force, 13. SUCCESSORS. This Conservation Easement is binding upon, and inures to the benefit of, the Donor's and the Conservancy's successors in interest. All subsequent owners of the property are bound to all provisions of this conservation easement to the same extent as the current property owner. 14. TERMINATION OF RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS. A party's future rights and obligations under this easement terminate upon transfer of that party's interest in the Property. Liability for acts or omissions occurring prior to transfer will survive the transfer. 15. MICHIGAN LAW. This Conservation Easement will be construed in accordance with Michigan Law. 16. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Conservation Easement sets forth the entire agreement of the parties. It is intended to supersede all prior discussions or understandings. 7 �; / . ,, / WITNESSES: (*print/type names under signatures) DONOR: Ladd Land Corporation, a Michigan ~K~ . -~~✓ ~ By: Its: * Keith P. W a l ~ ~a-~ Jamie C. Ladd President * Toni A. Buys STATE OF MICHIGAN ) ) COUNTY OF KENT ) Acknowledged before me on _ _J_u_l..,_v_ll_ _ _ _ _ , 19 96, by Jamie C. Ladd - ~~ ~~x My commission expires: 5/J /98 Toni A. Buys, Notary Public, Ionia Co., MI Acting In Kent Co. Natural Areas Conservancy of West Michigan, Inc. ,a Michigan nonprofit corporation WITNESSES: (*print/type names under signatures) ~ STATE OF MICHIGAN COUNTY OF -I<. ror ) ) ) Acknowledged before me on ,..1 lf L-'/ fl:, , 191l, by /.,(,1r{IL/JfE;, A-- 1/-A-/UJl~-W known to me to be the 1-tfJ/!..JL- A • Sc/ft)/...{7-of the Natural Areas Conservancy of West Michigan, a Michigan .nonprofit corporation. Notary Public, Kent County, Michigan. My commission expires: -lc.f-1? o3 PREPARED BY: ~ April Scholtz Natu_ral Areas Conservancy of West Michigan 1432 Wealthy SE, L-3, Grand Rapids, MI 49506 8 MATILDE A. HARDmr:Ai~ NOTARY PUBLIC • l(El !T COUl~1Y. Ml MY COMMiSSION [;.(PlliES <13/141:18 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Wyckoff Planning and Zoning Collection Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Planning & Zoning Center (Lansing, Mich.) (Organization) Wyckoff, Mark A. Description An account of the resource Municipal master plans and zoning ordinances from across the state of Michigan, spanning from the 1960s to the early 2020s. The bulk of the collection was compiled by urban planner Mark Wyckoff over the course of his career as the founder and principal planner of the Planning and Zoning Center in Lansing, Michigan. Some additions have been made to the collection by municipalities since it was transferred to Grand Valley State University. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Michigan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1960/2023 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Subject The topic of the resource Michigan Comprehensive plan publications Master plan reports Zoning--Michigan Zoning--Maps Maps Land use--planning Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-240 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Ada-Twp_Easement-Reports_1995-1996 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Keith P. Walker, Esq. April Scholtz Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1995-1996 Title A name given to the resource Ada Township Conservation Easement Reports Description An account of the resource The Ada Township Conservation Easement Reports are dated from 1995-1996 and were prepared by Keith P. Walker, Esq. with the assistance of McShane & Bowie, P.L.C., and by April Scholtz for the Ladd Land Corporation. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource McShane & Bowie, P.L.C. Subject The topic of the resource Conservation report series Ada Township (Mich.) Kent County (Mich.) Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/3e2f0049812b3b229b7258ab2292039c.pdf 5db6a762a7a50e1f0fc454b8f9bab566 PDF Text Text ~bbison tlrotunsbtp ~lanntng etommission ©aklanb <ttountp, ffltcbtgan �'FROM THE'. ( !BRAR'( 0~ · . Planning & Zoning Center, fr£:!. MASTER PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION ADDISON TOWNSHIP, OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN WZACNY &McKENNA ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED Architecture• Community Planning• Urban Design 717 Penobscot Building Detroit, Michigan 48226 and 237 North Woodward Avenue Birmingham, Michigan 48226 ADOPTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION: September 13, 1983 I I �TOVVNSHIP OF ADDISON September 13, 1983 Board of Trustees Addison Township 1440 Rochester Road Leonard, Michigan 48038 Dear Board Members: We hereby present to you the Addison Township Master Plan. It has been prepared in accordance with the Township Planning Act, Act 168 of the Public Acts of 1959, as amended. In preparing the Plan, we have held a public hearing and considered all comments which were made. Subsequently, the Plan has been unanimously approved by the Zoning Coordinating Committee of the Oakland County Board of Commissioners. ' II 'I The purpose of the Plan is to provide a guide for the future development of the Township, recognizing the need to preserve the natural environment of our community. The Plan includes: a review and analysis of existing conditions and trends, goals for the future, a sound plan for land use and circulation, and implementation recommendations. Based upon present knowledge, technology and goals, the Plan represents our best thinking; however, the Plan is flexible so that it can be changed when the Township sees the need for change. It contains sound planning concepts which will guide the Planning Commission in its recommendations to you, and should serve as a guide for both public and private development decisions. We are proud to transmit the results of our efforts to you. We believe that planning is a continuous process and that it is essential that the Plan be periodically reviewed and evaluated. We look forward to working with you to maintain our fine community. Respectfully submitted, ADDISON TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION 1440 ROCHESTER ROAD LEONARD, MICHIGAN 48038 628-3317 - 628-5409 �I I I Acknowledgements I I I I I I I TOWNSHIP BOARD Robert W. Ousnamer, Supervisor Raymond E. Terry, Treasurer Mary Ann Thompson, Clerk Albert J. Patrell, Trustee Thomas Patch, Trustee PLANNING COMMISSION I I I I Arthur Shaw, Chairman Robert Koski, Vice-Chairman Barbara Stafford, Secretary Florence Mortimer Ronald Rolando Robert W. Ousnamer Fred Creamer Robert Spaulding* Marvin Acheson* TOWNSHIP PLANNING CONSULTANT Wzacny and McKenna Associates, Inc. I I I I *former members -i- I �Table of Contents Page IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ II II Title Page Transmittal Letter Acknowledgements Table of Contents List of Tables and Maps i ii i ii Addison Township l SURVEY AND ANALYSIS Existing Land Use Population and Housing Circulation Environmental Concerns and Resources 2 8 18 21 GOALS AND GUIDELINES Goals and Objectives Development Guidelines 27 29 PLAN ELEMENTS Land Use Plan Circulation Plan Community Facilities 36 44 46 IMPLEMENTATION ' 'II Implementation Strategies 48 I- ' 'L -ii- �-- List of Tables & Maps Ill Ill II I I Ill II II II Ill II II II II J Table No. Page 1: Existing Land Use, 1983 2 2: Change in Number of Persons - 1960, 1970 and 1980 8 3: Number of Housing Units and Vacancy, 1970 - 1980 9 4: Occupied Dwelling Units (D.U.'s), 1970 - 1980 10 5: Population Per Dwelling Units, 1960, 1970, and 1980 11 6: Age and Sex of Population, 1970 and 1980 12 7: Dwelling Units Based on Residential Building Permits 13 8: Year Structure Built 14 9: Value of Owner Occupied Units, 1980 15 10: Population and Housing Projections, 1980 - 2000 16 Maps Follows Page 1. Existing Land Use 2. Ci rcul at ion 19 3. Land Use and Circulation Plan 36 2 -iii- ------. �• • • _, Addison Township Settlement The first record of land ownership in Addison Township dates to January, 1826 when Addison Township was slowly becoming the home for settlers primarily arriving from New England, Pennsylvania and New York. Early land purchases were sometimes by speculators who purchased property, often sight unseen, from the General Land Office in Detroit, later selling the property at a profit to the settlers. The Township, originally surveyed in 1818, was then described as "poor, barren,burnt,timber land, hilly, badly timbered and swampy". The first roads were improved Indian trails and later constructed along section lines, curving around hills, trees and swamps. The road layout established during this period is essentially the same pattern which exists today. Farming, lumbering and milling were a few of the main occupations until the early 1900's when farming eventually became the primary occupation. The last 50 years have seen a dramatic reduction in overall agricultural production in the Township; hence, its evolution as a rural-residential community. Early settlements in the Township were the Lakeville area and the Village of Leonard. Lakeville, was established due to its location adjacent to the mill stream. One of the larger gristmills was located in Lakeville as its power was provided by the stream which meandered through this area. Lakeville Lake was formed as a result of a dam constructed to control the flow of the stream for the gristmill. As the mill operation continued, a post office, small shops, two hotels and other businesses located in the Lakeville area. The Village of Leonard was established due to the location of the railroad and Rochester Road. Leonard, because of the location of the transportation links, became the hub of activity in the northern section of the Township. A post office, several churches, a hotel, factories and small businesses soon located in the Leonard area. Regional Context Addison Township is situated in the northeast corner of Oakland County approximately 45 miles north of Detroit. The Township is isolated from the major commercial and industrial centers of the Detroit area; however, county roads which traverse the Township provide direct transportation to commercial areas and major interstate routes. Addison Township Planning Prior to a Planning Commission,Addison Township's zoning issues were handled by a Zoning Board. The Zoning Board was responsible only to hear zoning change requests. When it became clear that the Township should address itself to planning matters beyond zoning, a Planning Commission was established in April, 1968. Through the formation of the Planning Commission under the Township Planning Act, organization of a Planning Commission allows the Township to become more responsive to planning related issues as well as functioning as an advisory body regarding rezoning requests. _,_ �I __ SU_R_V_E_Y_&_A_N_A_LY_S_IS_ _ _ _ _ _ I I I I J J �Existing Land Use A fundamental procedure prior to the formulation of a community master plan is to perform an analysis of existing land uses. This analysis not only identifies what and where particular uses have occurred,it also provides an insight to where future development might occur and where conflicts may exist or develop. Map l delineates eleven existing land use categories in addition to public and private rights-of-way and water bodies: agricultural; agricultural residential; single family residential (under ten acres) single family residential (ten acres or more); single family residential (mobile home park); commercial; industrial; public; commercial recreation; institutional quasi-public; transmission line (Detroit Edison right-of-way); and vacant land. In addition to graphic representation of existing land uses, Table l summarizes land uses by amount, in acreage and percent of total Township land area. The land use data which appear in Table l were formulated as a result of field surveys conducted in December, 1982 and January, 1983. TABLE l EXISTING LAND USE, 1983* ADDISON TOWNSHIP, OAKLAND courin, MICHIGAN Acreage Percent of Total Area Agricultural (includes Agricultural/Residential) 4692.3 20. l Single Family Residential (under ten acres) 1419.4 6. l Single Family Residential (over 10 acres) 3091.3 13. 3 Single Family Residential (Mobile Home Park) 38.8 .2 Commercial 21.2 .l Industrial 170.0 .7 Commercial Recreation 502.75 2~2 Institutional Quasi-Public 341.65 1.5 Public 645.0 2.8 Transmission Line 152.20 .7 Water 679.5 Land Use Categories -2- 2.9 �_J r--v\, \ rv \)\ \"\ scale: l~liL~1 ~ _______,j Ch1stopher Wzacny & Associates, Incorporated Architectll'e · COlfflUlity Planning· lkban Desl{Jl ...... ~oit,t.tchigan DATlt: 1NI 80UJICI: OAKLAND COUfTY OE"Nl'nlmff 01' WOMI September, 1983 ~ 01' l'\AMetCt /' .__; .... MAP 1 EXISTING LAND USE mmffiilli AGRICULTURAL llliillilliltl - > > SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AOAICUL TUA AL RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TEN ACRES AND OVER SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNOEA TEN ACRES - SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MOBILE HOME COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL PUBLIC D COMMERCIAL RECREATION ' INSTITUTIONAL /QUASI-PUBLIC TRANSMISSION LINE VACANT ADDISON TOWNSHIP• OAKLAND COUNTY• MICHIGAN �(Table 1 continued) Percent of Total Area Land Use Categories Acreage Vacant 11548~65 49.4 23302.8 100.0 Total *Source: Field Survey, Wzacny &McKenna Associates, Inc., January, 1983. Following is a brief definition regarding each of the existing land use classifications: Agricultural: Land parcels containing ten acres or more used predominantly or wholly as cultivated farmland, with or without related farm structures. Single Family Residential: (under 10 acres) Improved single land parcels located in a single family residential subdivision or in areas containing typically large lot single family residential structures. Single Family Residential: (ten acres or more): Improved single land parcels located in predominantly low density rural residential areas adjacent to large acreage parcels. Single Family Residential: (mobile home park or mobile home): Planned mobile home parks and mobile homes located on single family residential lots. Commercial: Improved land parcels used for wholesale, retail, office or commercial services including those predominantly used as commercial on primary thoroughfares. Industri a1: Improved 1and parce 1s used predominantly for industry, natura 1 gas processing or regulating or storage, and parcels used for surface mining and processing of gravel, stone, materials. Commercial Recreation: Land parcels, either improved or unimproved, used for private, commercial non-intensive activities including golf courses, skiing or commercial stables. Institutional Quasi-Public: Land parcels, either improved or unimproved, which are held in private interest; however, exempt from real property taxation plus loc·a1 streets or access ways, contiguous or associated with such parcels of land. Public: Land parcels, either improved or unimproved, which are held in the public interest and exempt from real taxation, plus any local street or access way, contiguous or associated with such parcels. Transmission Line: Land parcels, which collectively include the area utilized by the Detroit Edison Company for use as electrical transmission line right-ofway. L -3- �Water: Unimproved areas of inland depressions consistently filled with standing water supplied by streams, ground water or springs. Vacant: All parcels not included in one of the above definitions. The existing land uses in Map 1 and Table 1 illustrate a number of concerns and resources within the Township which are significant in future land use proposals and development decision-making. Following is a discussion regarding each specific existing land use in Addison Township: Agricultural: Agricultural land use in the Township represents the largest active land use category occupying twenty (20) percent or 4692.3 acres of al I land in the Township. Although agricultural land use has been slowly split and rezoned to a residential classification, it remains an integral land use and function in the Township. According to Map 1, the largest agricultural parcels are located in the northern half of the Township and occupy 80 to 160 acre tracts. The largest agricultural uses are located in the northeast and northwest quadrants and along Lake George Road north of the Grand Trunk Western right-of-way. To the south, agricultural uses are less predominant and located on smaller parcels. The largest agricultural use is located near Yule Road and Townsend Road occupying approximately eighty (80) acres. The southern portion of the Township (defined as being south of Lakeville and Mack Roads) has experienced the greatest lot split and subdivision activity which has splintered the agricultural property into smaller tracts and increased the amount of single family residential development in the area. · Single Family Residential: (ten acres or more) These areas include lands which have been split from larger agricultural parcels and large tracts which include a residence and the remainder of the property. These parcels range from ten acres to forty acres and are dispersed throughout the Township. This land use occupies 3091.3 acres or 13 percent of all land in the Township. One purpose for defining and locating these parcels is to illustrate the number of large lot parcels which have the potential to be split into smaller parcels. It is common in Addison Township for a forty acre or larger parcel to be split into four or more ten acre parcels which have the potential to be split again into smaller parcels. As mentioned earlier, the ten acre parcels are generally dispersed throughout the Township; however, the eastern third of the Township from the Village of Leonard south has experienced the greatest amount of ten acre lot development. -4- �I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I I I L L Single Family Residential:(under 10 acres) This category includes lots which are located within platted subdivisions and lots generally disbursed throughout the Township under ten acres in size.When a ten acre parcel is split, the split usually creates four 2.5 acre parcels or a similar combination of lot sizes. When a ten acre parcel fronts a local or primary road and is split into smaller individual lots depthwise, a sixty foot wide private road is then required to service these lots and may extend up to 1,000 feet or more in depth. Although these lot splits and subdivisions are developed within the requirements of the Township Zoning Ordinance and governing State acts, the preservation of large lot single family residential development may be threatened by the continuance of this trend. This pattern of development may increase the potential urban-type access maintenance and traffic safety problems generated by private roads. On the other hand, this type of development trend does not encourage rapid growth and the need to provide a greater number of services remains low. The residential areas developed adjacent to Lakeville Lake include a variety of lot sizes and housing types. The older neighborhoods are located within subdivided areas often developed as seasonal units, and possess the greatest mixture of housing styles. These areas also contain the greatest number of problems inherent to older lake front neighborhoods. When these areas were originally developed, features such as minimum lot area, floor area and setbacks were not regulated. Today, to varying degrees, many of these properties possess non-conformities. Another problem with small lake front properties is septic tank failure as is discussed further in t~is document. Generally, the platted lots in Supervisors Plat #4, Moffat Beach Subdivision, Chamberlain Subdivision, Echo Lake Subdivision and Kingston Subdivision range from 3,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet with a majority of lot areas · being approximately 12,000 square feet. Single Family Residential:(Mobile Homes or Parks) The 38.8 acre Hidden Lakes Estates Mobile Home Park on Rochester Road is the only planned mobile home park in the Township. It contains 267 mobile home sites and is currently ninety-eight (98) percent of occupancy. (Although there are several mobile homes off Rowland Road between Pond Road and Rochester Road, it is not an organized and planned mobile home park). Commercial: The need for commercial services is directly related to the population to be served. Since the Township has a relatively small population, the amount of existing commercial use is quite limited. Combined, the existing commercial areas in the Township contain approximately 21 acres (excluding the Village of Leonard). The land-extensive (non-ce~ter commercial) uses in the Township are relatively few. As the population increases the need for -5- �additional commercial (local and non-center) wi 11 be -rea 1i zed. are further discussed in the Land Use and Circulation Plan. These uses Industrial: Most of the industrial uses in Addison Township, are natural gas treatment and/or compression stations. Total acreage represented by these uses is less than one percent of all land area in the Township, about 20 acres. Unless new natural gas reserves are discovered within the next year, Michigan Consolidated Gas Company has indicated the sweetening facility will become obsolete and dismanteled within the next two to three years. The mining operation near Romeo Road in the southeast corner of the Township has begun the reclamation process and is expected to be completed within three to four years. When completed, the area will be used for single family residential purposes. Additional small industry is located in Lakeville. Institutional Quasi-Public: Institutional Quasi-Public land use in Addison Township includes several large sites: the Benedictine Fathers property on Drahner Road, the Congregation of the Servants of Christ property northwest of the BenedicUne .fathers, the Lakeville Swamp Nature Preserve on Rochester Road, the Salvation Army Camp, and the Kingsbury School property at the Oakwood Road and . Hosner Road intersection~ Combined, these properties occupy one percent of all land in Addison Township or 341 acres. Commercial Recreation: There is a variety of commercial recreational land uses currently in the Tow~ship which provide a combination of year around recreational opportunities. These uses, Mulberry Hills Golf Course, Upland. Hills Farms, and f-1t. Grampian comprise approximately 470 acres of total land area. Public: Public land uses in Addison Township account for 2.8 percent of total land area and include the Township Hall offices, United States Post Office, Hamilton Parsons Elementary School, Addison Oaks County Park and the Township cemeteries. Addison Oaks County ·Park accounts for nearly all of the 645 a.c res of public land area, with the remaining public facilities comprising approximately 24 acres. Transmission Line: The Detroit Edison electrical transmission line right-of-way crosses the Township from Romeo Road north to Dryden Township in Lapeer County. These parcels collectively combine in a total of 152.28 acres. In addition two crude oil pipelines traverse the Township. (See Map l.) -6- �' ' ' 'I I I I I Water: Surface water comprises three percent of all land in Addison Township. Lakeville Lake is the largest water body containing about 460 acres of surface water area. The smaller lakes including Lake George, Secord Lake, Slating Lake and Indian Lake make up the remaining area of surface water. Vacant: By far, the most significant portion (49 percent) of Township land is class i fied vacant. Considerable vacant tracts are located in the northern areas where the terrain becomes subject to sharp topographical changes and much of the low land is wet. Also, former agricultural tracts which have not been recently cultivated comprise of much of the vacant land pattern. ' ' ' 'I 'I I L L -7- �Population and Housing The purpose of this section is to identify the present and future population and housing trends of Addison Township and to determine the conditions and needs in Addison Township. The 1960, 1970 and 1980 U.S. Census reports are the primary sources of information for this profile and recent supplementary documents supplied by the Oakland County Planning Division and the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) were also used. Present Population According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Addison Township experienced its largest numerical increase in number of persons between 1970 and 1980. During this period, Addison Township's population grew from 2,809 in 1970 to 4,184 in 1980, an increase of 1,375 persons. Addison Township's population increased 247% in the twenty year period from 1960 to 1980 or from 1,691 persons to 4,184 persons by 1980. TABLE 2 CHANGE IN NUMBER OF PERSONS 1960, 1970 AND 1980 SELECTED COMMUN IT I ES* · 1960 Commun it.}:'. Number l , 691 ADDISON TOWNSHIP 2,469 Oakland Township 11 ,844 Orion Township Oxford Townsh·ip 5,561 2,453 Almont Township Bruce Township 3,288 l ,427 Dryden Township Oakland County 690,259 * U.S. Bureau of the Census 1970 Number 2,809 4,793 14,189 5,953 3,163 2,809 2,129 907,871 Percent 1980 Number Change 4,184 66 .1 % 7,628 94 .1 19,566 19. 7 7,823 7. 0 4,124 29.0 3,283 -14.6 2,977 50.0 31.5 1,011,793 Percent Change 49.0% 59.2 37.9 31 .4 30.4 16 .8 40.0 11. 5 Table 2 indicates that of the communities surveyed for this profile, Addison Township had the second largest percentage increase in population, exceeded only by neighboring Oakland Township. Whereas Oakland Township's population increased by 94.l percent from 1960 to 1970, Addison Township's population increased 66.l percent. Both Addison and Oakland Township had the largest percentage increase in the 10 year period from 1970 to 1980. Orion Township showed the largest numerical increase i n population from 14,189 in 1970 to 19,566 in 1980 or 5,377 persons. -8- �Number of Housing Units and Vacancy 1970-1980 Table 3 illustrates the increase in total number of housing units in Addison Township from 1970 to 1980. The increase from 947 housing units in 1970 to 1,348 in 1980 represents an increase of 42.3 percent, a growth attributed primarily to single family residential construction. As the number of owner-occupied units increased (637 in 1970 to 1,130 in 1980) the amount of renter-occupied units remained constant. Due to the overall increase in owner-occupied units in 1980, the percentage amount of renter-occupied housing actually decreased over the ten year period from 17.3 percent (164 units) in 1970 to 12.0 percent (163 units) in 1980. The vacancy rate of units also decreased from 99 units (10%) in 1970 to 55 units (4%) in 1980. (Vacant units are units in which no one is living at the time of the census. A vacant unit may be one which is occupied entirely by persons who have a usual residence elsewhere or new units not yet occupied, if construction has reached a point where all windows and doors have been installed). TABLE 3 NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS AND VACANCY 1970-1980 ADDISON TOWNSHIP, OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN* 1970 Total Units 947 (including vacant and seasonal) Owner-occupied 637 Renter-occupied 164 Vacant units 99 % of Total 1980 Increase/ Decrease 100% 1,348 100% +42.3% 67.2% 17.3% 10% 1 , 130 163 55 83.8% 12.0% 4% +77.3% -1 % -55% TOTAL VACANT UNITS 4% 9 7% 4 1% 2 88% 40 For Sa 1e 4 For Rent 7 1 Occasional Use 88 Other Vacant *U.S. Bureau of Census. 1980. L L % of Total -9- 16.3% 7% 3.6% 72.7% �Occupied Dwelling Units Table 4 shows increases in total occupied dwelling units between 1970 and 1980 for Addison Township and neighboring Oakland County townships. During this ten year period in Addison Township, occupied dwelling units increased well over 50 percent. At the same time, as indicated in Table 2, township population was increasing at a rate of nearly 50 percent - illustrating a shift towards fewer occupants per dwelling unit. In terms of land use impact, this increase in the number of occupied dwelling units may have the most significance for planning in Addison Township. TABLE 4 OCCUPIED DWELLING UNITS (D.U.'S) ADDISON TOWNSHIP AND ADJACENT TOWNSHIPS 1970-1980* Township Number Occupied D.U.'s 1970 ADDISON Oakland Orion Oxford *U.S. Bureau of 791 1 ,066 1,760 1 ,414 Number Occupied D. U. 's 1980 l ,293 2,116 2,387 2,142 Change Number % +502 +1050 +627 +727 +63.5 +98.4 +35.6 +51 .4 Census Population Per Dwelling Unit Table 5 identifies th~ population per dwelling unit in Addison Township and selected surrounding communities. The trend, according to this table has shown a decrease in overall family size since 1960. Addison Township reflects the only increase in family size. From 1970 to 1980 the population per dwelling unit rose from 2.9 to 3.23 or 11 .3 percent. This increase is a result of the population increase in the family formation age group as shown in Table 6. Age Group Table 6 consists of an age/sex profile for Addison Township. As there were no unusual variations between the male and female categories, both categories were combined for this analysis. -10- �I I I I I I I I I I lJ I I I I I I L L TABLE 5 POPULATION PER DWELLING UNIT SELECTED COMMUNITIES* Community 1960 1970 1980 ADDISON TOWNSHIP Oakland Township Orion Township Oxford Township Bruce Township Almont Township Oakland County *U.S. Bureau of the Census 3.50 3.81 3.73 3.51 3.73 3.52 3.61 2.90 3.69 3.46 3.45 3.50 3.50 3.29 3.23 3.40 2.89 3.00 3.49 3 .13 2. 71 1970-1 980 % Change 11. 3% -7.9 -16.3 -1 3. 1 -.3 -10. 6 -17.7 In 1970, the largest age group category was the 21-44 year old group which comprised 29.6 percent of the combined male and female population. The second and third largest age groups were the 5-13 year old group which made up 21.2 percent of the total population and the 14-20 year old age group which consisted of 12.5 percent of the total population for 1970. In 1980 every age group showed an increase in size except the 60-64 year old group. The largest gain in population was in the 21-44 year old age group which shows an increase of 91 .16 percent or 761 persons. The population increased from 831 persons in 1970 to l ,592 persons in 1980. The second largest increase is shown in the 14-20 year old group with an increase of 351 persons in 1970 to 619 persons in 1980. This represents an increase of 76.3 percent or 268 persons in the 14-20 year age group. A significant population increase is shown in the 65 and older age classification. In this category the number of persons increased 38.4 percent, from 182 persons in 1970 to 252 persons in 1980. Addison Township's population is evenly divided between males and females, a factor of a low percentage of the elderly, a group which is characterized by greater numbers of females. This profile exhibits several important factors: 1) increase in family formation sector (21-44 year old age group), 2) an increase in both the number of school age children 5-13 year old (+19. %) and 14-20 year olds (+76 %), 3) a decline in the 60-64 year group with a minor increase in the 55-59 year group (+5.2%). This decrease and nominal increase in the 55-59 group indicates a smaller number of retirees and senior citizens in Addison Township over the next ten years. - 11- �I TABLE 6 Age and Sex of Population 1970 and 1980* ADDISON TOWNSHIP, OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN ~ I __, N I Number under 5 137 310 5-13 14-20 160 422 21-44 45-54 153 55-59 74 78 60-64 65+ 81 Totals 1,415 Female Male 1970 Percent 9.7% 21. 9 11. 3 29.9 10.8 5.2 5.5 5.7 *U.S. Bureau of the Census 1980 Number 179 356 332 796 217 69 61 ~ 2,115 Percent 8.5% 16 .8 15. 7 37.5 10.3 3.3 2.9 5.0 1970 Number 124 284 191 409 167 60 58 .J..Ql 1,394 Percent 8.9% 20.4 13. 7 29.3 12.0 4.3 4.2 7.2 Total 1980 Number 177 352 287 796 184 72 54 147 2,069 Percent 8.6% 17.0 13. 9 38.4 8.9 3.5 2.6 7 .1 1970 Number 261 594 351 831 320 134 136 ---1.!!.?. 2,809 1980 Percent Number Percent 9.3 % 21. 2 12. 5 29.6 11.4 4.8 4.8 6.5 356 708 619 1,592 401 141 115 252 4,184 8.5 % 16.9 14.8 38.1 9.6 3.4 2.7 6.0 1970-1980 Total Change _t!umber Percent +95 114 +268 +761 +81 +7 • -21 +70 +36 . 3% + 19.19 + 76 . 35 + 91. l 'i + 25. 31 + 5.22 -15.45 +38.46 �Overall the Township has an age profile which portends a relatively independent population for the forseeable future. The high percentage of 21-44 year olds is generally characterized by increasing income and expanding consumption. This group is relatively less dependent on governmental services yet is most able to support the cost of education and other governmental services. Residential Building Permits Residential building permit data are presented in table 7 below. Since 1970, Addison Township has annually averaged building permits for 31 dwelling units, including all dwelling units except mobile homes. Beginning in 1970, the number of single-family permits increased each year to a peak of 51 in 1977. Since 1977, the number has declined considerably. TABLE 7 I I IJ I I I I II I L DIJELLING UNITS BASED ON RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED 1970-1981 ADDISOU TOWNSHIP, OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN* Year 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 Totals Detached Single Family Units Two Family Units Multi Family Units Gross Total Less Demolitions Net Total 11 0 0 11 0 15 41 44 51 22 18 34 32 48 37 18 371 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l 4 l 0 0 4 2 15 41 44 51 22 18 34 32 49 42 18 377 11 15 41 44 51 22 18 34 32 49 42 18 377 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * SEMCOG, Annual Reports: "Residential Construction in Michigan" for 1970-1981. -13- �Two important factors should be considered in this trend. First, this trend has been generally true throughout the southeast Michigan area where single family housing starts have declined steadily since 1977-78. The second factor is economic. The national economy and to a more serious degree Michigan's economy, has been in a major recession during the last few years. These factors,coupled with record high interest rates,have nearly precluded new single-family residential construction in Michigan as well as the entire country. Year Structure Built Table 8 indicates the number of structures built from 1939 and before up to 1981. This information is helpful in determining the age and condition of the housing stock in Addison Township. The average life of a house is approximately 50 years before it requires extensive repair or renovation. According to Table 8, 393 structures in Addison Township were constructed in 1939 or before. Within the next ten years 31 percent of all housing in Addison Township \A/ill be at least 50 ye,a rs old. Sixty-one ·(61) percent of ·housing in Addison Township is relatively new with over half of this figure (37.8 •percent) constructed since 1969. TABLE 8 YEAR STRUCTURE BUILT ADDISON TOWNSHIP, OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN* Year 1970-1981* 1969-1970 1965-1968 1960-1 964 1950-1959 1940- 1 949 1939 or earlier Total Structures Number of Structures % of Total 353 132 72 98 121 98 393 1 ,267a 27.8% 10. 4 5.6 7.7 9.5 7.7 31.3 100.0% * Compiled from U.S. Census of Housing, 1970 and SEMCOG's Annual Reports of "Residential Housing Construction 1970-1981 11 aDue to the compilation methodology utilized in data gathering for Table 8, this figure may not include the total number "non-year round" housing units in Addison Township. -14- �Housing Value According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the 1980 median value of Addison Township's housing stock was $60,400 or approximately $7,200 less than the combined average of communities surrounding Addison Township. The median value of Oakland Township's housing stock ($99,400) escalates the overall median average of $67,250. Oakland Township has a considerable amount of newer housing which increases the median housing value. Addison Township is similar to Bruce Township in Macomb County ($60,700) and exceeds the median value of housing in Almont Township ($48,500),neighboring to the north in Lapeer County. This profile indicates Addison Township is very close to Oakland County's median housing value, whereas, 41 percent of all housing in Addison Township is valued at $50,000-79,999, 42 percent of all housing in Oakland County is valued at $50,000 to $79,999. Table 9 also suggests that the majority of housing in Addison Township is primarily of moderate value; however, housing types of all price categories are available in Addison Township. TABLE 9 VALUE OF OWNER-OCCUPIED UNITS PERCENT OF TOTAL OWNER OCCUPIED SELECTED COMMUNITIES-1980* Values Addison Township Less than $49,999 28.0 50,000-79,999 41.0 80,000-99,999 13. 0 14.0 100,000-149,999 150,000 or more 4.0 Median Value $60,400 Oakland Township 15.0 35.0 29.0 19. 0 2.0 $99,400 Bruce Township 23.0 33.0 22.0 18. 0 4.0 $60,700 Almont Township 52.0 44.0 3.0 1.0 $48,500 Oakland County 27.0 42.0 12. 0 12. 0 7.0 $65,000 *U.S. Bureau of the Census Population Projections The projection or forecasting of population for a community over an extended period of time is subject to many variables, such as national population trends, migration and the regional economy. The most significant factor affecting local population growth or decline is the availability of employment. -15- �Assuming local employment trends, the employment centers serving Addison Township will at best remain similar to the employment patterns of the last ten years. Without any major increases in employment, population growth will be limited to a natural increase and there most likely will be no rapid increase in the number of persons. All methods of population projections make certain assumptions and based upon assumptions, different projections are derived. The following table shows the results of several methods used to project Addison Township's population in ten year intervals through the year 2000. TABLE 10 POPULATION AND HOUSING PROJECTIONS ADDISON TOWNSHIP, OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN 1980-2000 Method of Projection 1970-1980 Straight Line(a) Population Households Approximate persons per dwelling unit SEMCOG S.A.F. '8o(b) Population Households Approximate persons per dwelling unit Geometric Projection(c) Population Household Approximate persons per dwelling unit (a) (b) (c) 1980 1990 2000 4,184 l ,293 3.23 5,559 6,934 l , 639 3.39 l, 985 4,184 l ,293 3.23 4,982 3.26 6,889 2,182 3 .15 4,184 l ,293 3.23 6,229 l, 758 3.54 9,288 2,391 3.88 l ,528 ~.49 based on population growth which occurred between 1970-1980 based on SEMCOG's Small Area Forecast, 1980. based on percentage rate (48.9%) of population change from 1970-1980 -16- �The straight line projection is based upon an average annual increase in the population of 1,375 per decade as was experienced during the ten year period from 1970 to 1980. SEMCOG's forecast is based upon the incorporation of the: 1) Council's sewer service area map adopted in March 1980, 2) increased protection of environmentally sensitive areas and 3) increased housing rehabilitation. The above projections were calculated to illustrate possible future population patterns in Addison Township. However, the future population of Addison Township will be determined by the goals and objectives of the master plan, the resources and constraints of the Township and the areas of Addison Township that are suitable for development. The master plan assumes that a water and sewer system will be implemented only to abate a serious environmental hazard or in the event a critical environmental situation would be identified adjacent to the Lakeville Lake area or similar areas of the Township, therefore limiting large scale residential developments. The decisions made by Addison Township regarding water and sewer, transportation improvements, zoning controls and subdivision regulations, will ultimately restrict or promote and regulate the intensity of growth in Addison Township and therefore the ultimate population. -17- �Circulation Land use and the transportation system are functionally linked and the circulation system provides the framework for the land use pattern. More intensive land uses require a higher lever of circulation service; lower i~tensity land uses require a lower level of access, but must maintain a minimum level of service. Roads The existing transportation network of Addison Township consists primarily of Oakland County Road Commission (OCRC) maintained roads. As shown on Map 2, Rochester Road, Lakeville Road and Romeo Road are the only OCRC paved primary roads in Addison Township, combining in a total of 12.5 miles of paved thoroughfare. Rochester Road is the main north/south arterial. Lakeville Road serves as the only hard surfaced east/west route; however, Lakeville Road terminates at its Rochester Road intersection. Romeo Road is an east/west arterial located at the south edge of the Township. In 1970, Addison Township adopted the Inter-County Highway Plan which prescribes right-of-way (ROW) widths for various classifications of roadway in southeastern Michigan. Roadways classified as 11 major thoroughfares 11 dominate this 11 plan 11 and limit its utility. Major thoroughfares are defined as roadways which maintain a 120' ROW and serve through traffic with limited frontage. Railroad The Grand Trunk and Western Railroad track traverses Addison Township in a northeast/southwest direction entering the Township north of Lakeville Road and exiting into Dryden Township to the north in Lapeer County west of Hagerman Road. The frequency of service occurs on an alternating day basis originating in Pontiac, travelling north to Cass City and returning to Pontiac, and also handling freight for points between the two cities, including the Village of Leonard. Transit The Southeast Michigan Transportation Authority (SEMTA) provides 11 SEMTA Connector 11 service to Addison Township four times daily on a township-wide basis. The door-to-door service provides transportation from Addison Township south to the City of Pontiac linking the Township with public mass transportation available only in the metropolitan suburban areas. Southeast Michigan Region 1990 Transit Network Based upon 1990 regional population, employment and travel demand forecasts, the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) formulated a detailed transportation corridor analysis. The basis of this analysis is to determine methods of achieving high levels of transit service to areas within SEMCOG's jurisdiction. -18- �I I I I I I I I I I Rochester and Lakeville roads are classified by the plan as feeder and local transit routes. Essentially, the plan indicates that Addison Township, based upon the 1990 population and employment projections, could qualify for bus service which would utilize Rochester and Lakeville roads. Road Improvement Proposals The Oakland County Road Commission (OCRC) has several road improvement proposals under consideration that will affect Addison Township. Under considerati0n by the OCRC are roadway approach paving and curve widening. The approach paving locations are as follows: - Army Road and Rochester Road in section 22 - Frick Road and Rochester Road in section(s) 15 and 24 - The north and south intersections of Hosner Road and Lakeville Road Curve pavement widening proposals are under consideration for the following areas: - Moffat Road and Rochester Road - Brewer Road and Rochester Road - Yule Road and Rochester Road Township Road Improvements and Maintenance The basic source of revenue for road maintenance and improvement is the State-collected gas and weight tax which motorists pay at the pump for gasoline and diesel fuel and to the Secretary of State for vehicle registrations. I I I I I For paving and resurfacing of roads within Addison Township, the Oakland County Road Commission (OCRC) limits its contribution of gas and weight tax funding to 10 percent of the project cost. Addison Township or property owners in Addison Township, in coordination with the OCRC,may initiate special assessment districting for subdivision street improvements or vote a road improvement tax levy. Circulation Pattern The road system of Addison Township is characterized by some lack of continuity, reflecting the topography and natural features of the area. Lake George Road has a relatively straight and continuous course through the Township. The three improved and paved thoroughfares (Rochester, Lakeville and Romeo Roads) are not continuous or have significant sections of winding right-of-way. In terms of potential for major through traffic and urban -19- �MAP 2 CIRCULATION 111111111111• -_ , _ . . . . , . _ , , _ _ Ol' _ _ _ o, _ _ Uffl l Nl • • • • ·@· 22 : ! ! ! Traffic Generators by Section Number r Paved County Roads ::.111101111 ADDISON TOWNSHIP• OAKLAND COUNTY• MICHIGAN �development, these patterns have a limiting effect. The winding areas of road and the interrupted road pattern contribute to the character of the Township, and limit through traffic, maintaining a rural atmosphere of treelined scenic country roads throughout the community, reinforcing the case for low density development. About 60 percent of the Township's population resides in sections which abut paved improved roads and 19 of the Township's 35 sections abut a paved road. Four of the Township's six most significant traffic generators (identified on Map 2 on the previous page) are located with direct access to Rochester Road; another is accessed by Romeo Road, while one concentration (Section 31) is not served by an improved road. The Village of Leonard (an enclave outside of Township jurisdiction) which functions as a local convenience trade center, and has a 1980 population of 422,is located on Rochester Road in the northern part of the Township. The residential concentration in Section 22 (around Lakeville Lake) functions as another traffic generator. With a population of 258 persons, this section is significantly above the 116 person per square mile average of the Township and is served by Rochester Road. The unincorporated area of Lakeville, located in section 27 at the intersection of Lakeville and Rochester Roads, generates traffic from both residential, commercial and public land uses including the Township Hall. The Township's highest concentration of population is in Section 35 which includes Hidden Lake Estates Mobile Home Park. It is located with direct access to Rochester Road and contains a 1980 population of 825 .persons. Addison Oaks County Park, which includes all of the land in Section 33, generated in excess of 121,000 vehicles in 1982. This total included 64,000 day use vehicles and 25,000 camper vehicles and 32,000 vehicles attracted by the park's convention center facilities. Its entrance is from Romeo Road, an improved county primary road. Section 31 which contains the Seneca Hills Subdivision and a portion of Grampian Heights Subdivision, is a significant concentration which is not served by an improved thoroughfare. Other lesser generators include Mount Grampian Ski Resort, Upland Hills Farms, and the commercial concentration at the intersection of Romeo and Rochester Roads, which, although it is located in Oakland Township serves a portion of Addison Township as a local convenience center. -20- �Environmental Concerns and Resources Community planning treats the physical environment as a dynamic entity that can be used only in a sensitive consideration of the processes and interrelationships of nature and human development. Man in many respects is a factor of nature and his developmental proposals for land usage are studied in light of possible impact and disruption of nature. Land capability planning deals with the differences in the physical environment from place to place across the landscape of the Township. For example, physical landscape elements such as slopes, climate, drainage, and soils may interrelate to form a particular type of localized environment favoring the growth and predominance of trees9 If development removes the trees, the natural balance of processes and interrelationships responsible for the development and continuance of the woodlands is altered, and as a result, slopes erode, scenery is lost, wetlands are filled in with eroded soil, flooding results in backwaters which drowns unadapted vegetation and the ecosystem is disrupted. In addition to the aesthetic losses, the need for expensive, engineered compensating -structures such as dams, bridges and bulkheads arises. In considering the natural environment in the planning process, suitability of the environment to accommodate the artificial works of man is applied. The data on the natural environment was inventoried based on Oakland County maps and surveys and described in terms of capability and suitability ·· for development. The community's needs in terms of future land use and local goals and objectives are then used to generate the Land Use and Circulation Plan. Although it has a variety of land uses, Addison Township is essentially a very low density residential community. Its location and limited accessibility make it somewhat remote from employment, commercial and cultural centers. Its value lies in its attractive natural environment as opposed to the artificial environment of the densely populated areas in southeastern Michigan. To the extent that data is available, the physical environment, its resources for development and the areas of concern are located and described herein. For survey and analysis purposes the environment of Addison Township is divided into the following natural systems: woodlands, wetlands, topography, surface water, ground water, agricultural land, drainage patterns and soils. Topography The topography in Addison Township consists of a combination of rolling hills and low level, flat drainage basins known georgraphically as "outwash plains" created by the melting of the glaciers. The unique upland terrain found in much of Addison Township presents a land feature that exhibits variable topography ot: 'sloped land" defined as land that has a ten foot or more vertical rise in grade over a 100 foot horizontal distance. These areas exhibit the following characteristics: -21- �I I I I I I I • Slopes often contain a variety of plant a~d tree types, well adapted to steep land and have root syste~s which hold soil well. • Sloping areas have aesthetic and recreational value. They can be used for hiking, skiing or sightseeing. • Major man-made changes in the environment usually cause accelerated erosion and sedimentation of surrounding lakes and streams. Addison Township is generally sloping from the northwest to the southeast. The highest and lowest elevations as shown on the United States Geological Survey (U.S.G.S.) map is 1,236 feet and located in section seven and the lowest elevation is 909 feet located in section 36 near the gravel pit on Romeo Road. Addison Township contains over 4,750 acres of sloped lands generally dispersed throughout the Township. Vegetation/Woodlands Vegetation in Addison Township is a dominant part of the Township's physical makeup and it should be treated as a valuable resource since it is the woods which create the rural atmosphere enjoyed by the residents of the community. Woods stabilize soils, control erosion, and retain water. Vegetation in Addison Township consists ·primarily of wooded areas which total over 6,000 acres of both hardwood and evergreen stands. • Hardwoods. There are over 5,890 acres of dominant hardwood stands in Addison Township consisting of a mixture of second and third growth, mixed hardwood including ash, poplar, oak, hickory, maple, birch, ironwood and other species. These tree stands result from the variety of soil types, drainage patterns and topography required to support such a diversity. 1 Evergreens. Approximately 145 acres of evergreen trees comprised of pine, hemlock, fir, spruce and tamarack are located in the Township. Evergreens adapt to sandy, well drained soils on higher land. 1 Lowland Brush. Also important in the discussion of woodlands, is the lowland brush vegetation usually found in wetlands and marshes. Over 200 acres of land in the Township is considered lowland brush. These plants stabilize the wetland environments through their root systems and also provide great water holding and flood control capacity within drainage basins. Low land brush areas in Addison Township are identified by cattails, sedges and marsh grasses. -22- �Wetlands Addison Township is classified as "poorly drained" in many areas due to the low areas and lowland channels which collect water. The wetlandmarsh areas (726.4 acres) retain large amounts of water and release it slowly. They are characterized by wet, muck-type soil conditions and can be identified by the cattails which grow there. However, there are instances where wetland areas appear "high and dry" and the normal visual signs of wetlands are not present. Only by taking soil borings will the presence of a high water table be revealed. _I Surface Waters Addison Township, as compared to other Townships in Oakland County, does not contain an abundant amount of surface water; however, Lakeville Lake is a significant body of water. The total acreage of surface water in Addison Township is 679.5 acres. This figure also includes the smaller lakes and ponds. Lakes and ponds are generally considered inland depressions, constantly filled with water which form a part of a larger drainage basin. The lakes are supplied by ground water sources and exhibit regular inflow and outflow patterns. Ponds often result from the side effects of small dams, spillways or other impoundments. Rivers, streams and small channels on the other hand, collect at the low points of a flow system. J I Soils and Groundwater The soils located in Addison Township are classified and defined by the Soil Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture as the Riddles-Marlette-Houghton concentration. These soils are described as nearly level to steep, well drained, moderately well drained and very poorly drained loamy and mucky soils found on moraines (an accumulation of earth, stones and rock) till plains (extensive flat areas) and in bogs. 1 Location of Soils. The Riddles and Marlette soils are generally located on knolls, ridges and on slopes and along drainage ways and depressions. The Houghton soil groups are located exclusively in drainageways and depressions. 1 Soil Suitability. Of this soil grouping, the soil most suitable for development is the Riddles-Marlette combination which occupies a majority of the upland and rolling area of the Township. The use of the upland soils for septic tank absorption however, is limited by the slow drainage ability of the Marlette soil. -23- J I �The flat to gently rolling Riddles-Marlette soils are well suited for cropland or pasture. The Riddles-Marlette soil group is also suitable for vegetable farming and fruit orchards. The Houghton soil group is not suited for cropland or pasture due to its generally inadequate drainage. It is muck soil and not suitable for building sites or septic tank absorption fields. • Septic Suitability. As discussed in the soils description, the type of soil and nature of its drainage ability will determine, to a great extent, where development may be permitted. The areas of the Township where marginal soils with limited drainage capabilities exist are often found in areas where the water table is high. According to the Oakland County Health Department, there have been septic tank failures in Addison Township. This is due to three factors: - Location on a lot, the area of which is too small to accommodate the sewage. - Location on soils which are not suitable for septic fields. Location in an area with high groundwater. A septic field will fail and groundwater will be contaminated when the water table rises to the same level of the septic field. On some of the smaller lots and peninsulas on Lakeville Lake the likelihood of septic failure increases. As the areas adjacent to these lots have developed, the drain fields have less area to function and their proximity to the Lakeville Lake water table increases the chances of failure~ Most of these problems exist around the Township's lakes where development has occurred prior to the enforcement of the health codes relative to private sewage disposal. Conversion of seasonal dwelling units to yearround residences on small lots contributes to the problems; however, the Township's lakes are not currently polluted. Although sewage-generated nutrients escape into the lakes, they are filtered and dilluted to an extent which mitigates their negative impacts. • Groundwater. Groundwater in Addison Township is an essential resource. The contamination of groundwater is a potential problem in any community which has considerable amounts of wetland. A high water table usually accompanies the areas dominated by wetland and/or surface water. Contamination results from chemicals filtering into the groundwater from -24- �septic fields, oil tanks and waste .disposal sites. Non-point sources of pollution from chemicals and effluent associated with commerce, industry and farming are potential problems. In many instances, these pollutants reach lakes and streams through groundwater supplies. Pollutants may also affect well water located near septic fields. Data on groundwater recharge areas are not generally available on a systematic basis; however, due to the Township's geomorphalogy, well depths range from shallow to 200-300 feet in depth. Because high quality groundwater is essential to the existence of the community, a waste disposal plan for each significant development should be considered. State regulations and enforcement on harmful substances are geared toward larger potential pollutants of groundwater. The potential problems of petroleum storage, motor oil disposal, the transportation, storage and handling of any materials which are potentially hazardous to the Township potable water should be a concern of local enforcement also. Agricultural Land Agricultural production in Michigan plays a key part in meeting food needs. Economically, agriculture is also a major contributor. In addition to these more obvious reasons supporting the importance of agriculture in Addison Township, there are more subtle, less tangible benefits gained from agriculture. Environmental, aesthetic, recreational and historic values are enhanced by the presence of farmland. Open farmland assists in the replenishment and maintenance of groundwater supplies. Farms also provide links with the cultural heritage of the Township. In Addison Township, the amount of agricultural land decreased from 5320.6 acres in 1979 to 4692.3 acres in 1983 - a decrease of 628.3 acres, or 11.8 percent. The trend toward fewer acres in agricultural production is particularly typical of communities which are experiencing development pressures. The effects of land speculation, increasing property values and taxes, and rural/urban conflicts tend to diminish active agriculture. The Michigan Farmland and Open Space Preservation Act, (Act 116, P.A. of 1974) is designed to lessen some of these pressures. Under this program, owners of farmland receive a credit against their state income tax liability. In return for this credit, the State of Michigan receives the development rights to the property for a specified number of years, but not less than ten. For undeveloped open space lands, the act also allows an exemption of the development rights from ad valorem taxation. This type of use-value taxation provides one approach to preservation and protection of certain types of land in Addison Township as well as the State of Michigan. -25- �In 1978, of farmland in Addison Township, 148 acres were under the farmland provisions of P.A. 116. By 1980, an additional 462 acres were under consideration for inclusion. Addison Township ranks fifth among Oakland County townships in terms of acreage included under the act. Floodplain Addison Township has no areas of floodplains identified under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. The entire Township is considered to be nonflood prone; that is, no flood hazards have been identified or mapped and there are no mandatory requirements for flood insurance and no program related impediments to Federally insured mortgages or use of Federal funds in any portion of the Township. -26- �I __G_O_A_L_S_&_G_U_ID_E_L_IN_E_S_ _ _ _ _ _ _ �Goals and Objectives Addison Township is a predominantly large lot single family residential community which has generally developed in harmony with a natural landscape. The planned protection of the low rolling hills, swamps, laKes, woods, farms and fields is essential to the preservation of the community s character. These goals express the values of the community and form the basis for the Master Plan. The primary and community goals are supported by the Development Guidelines and the Master Plan Map. 1 Primary Goals There are four primary goals which are designed to include the overall objectives of the Master Plan. t To provide for lower intensity growth in harmony with the preservation of the Township s natural landscape. 1 • To provide for adequate community services in keeping with a lower density character. Urban services such as public water and sewer should be provided only to abate hazardous situations. • To provide for an adequate circulation system which is in keeping with a low density character, yet provides adequate access for essential needs. • To maintain the character of the natural landscape, by designing a human environment which is compatible with the natural features of the land and its vegetation. Community Goals t Provide for orderly and controlled distribution, location and extent of land for housing, business, industry, open space, agriculture, natural resources, recreation, historic and scenic assets, education, and essential services. • Guarantee the diversification, cohesiveness and balance of land uses to serve the essential human needs, residential areas, agriculture land; adequate public and health services, schools and cultural activities, access to commercial areas and employment centers. • Avoid strip commercial development along major routes. • Coordinate future land use with the natural characteristics of the land and the long term needs and desires of the Township. -27- �• Provide a balanced residential environment regardless of age or income with access to community facilities, services, an~ employment opportunities. • Implement a circulation system which will promote safe and efficient, movement within and through the Township without destroying the character of the Township landscape. • Promote protection and maintenance of the natural landscape and balanced use of the Township s natural resources including soils, lakes and streams, groundwater supplies; recognize that natural resources must be maintained for their ecological value as well as their commercial benefits to property owners. 1 • Provide for the protection, preservation and proper maintenance of woodlands (including trees and other forms of vegetation) for their economic support of local property values, for their natural beauty and wild character and geological, ecological and historical significance. • · Provide for the protection of the vital Township potable fresh water supplies from the dangers of pollution, and mismanagement. • Provide for passive and active recreation in keeping with the needs and desires of the residents and the limited capacity of the natural resources of the Township. • Retain, whenever possible, productive agricultural · and forest lands in the Township by protecting ·them from urban development. • Implement goals through the enactment and enforcement of local policies and ordinances, capital improvements, community information, and cooperation with other agencies. • Improve the quality of existing development encouraging rehabilitation and renovation of deficient structures and sites and the abatement of hazardous situations. • Provide for adequate community facilities and services. -28- �Development Guidelines The Development Guidelines relate to the primary community goals; however, the guidelines, also include methods of achieving the individual community goals. The Development Guidelines (Environmental,Land Use and Circulation) dictate the form of the Master Plan Map and are also useful for future planning decisions. Environmental Guidelines Woodlands Woodland growth,if preserved and maintained in an undisturbed and natural condition, will constitute important physical, aesthetic, recreation and economic assets to existing and future residents of the Township. Specifically. woodland growth protects public health through the absorption of air pollutants and contamination and reduction of noise; it has a cooling effect in summer, is a windbreak in winter, and prevents soil erosion, silting and flooding. Because environmental values, soil characteristics, tree growth, and related natural resource parameters are unique for each area or parcel of land in Addison Township, the following criteria shall be considered and balanced with respect to each woodland area. 1., The preservation of woodlands, trees, similar woody vegetation and related natural resources and values shall take priority over all forms of development particularly commercial and industrial development, unless there are no locational alternatives. 2. The impact of streets, highways and other transportation corridors on the woodlands shall be seriously considered along with alternatives for new or expanded transportation routes and for the location of proposed development. 3. All development, including residential living units shall blend into the natural setting of the vegetative landscape for .the absorption of noise, and for the protection of environmental values. 4. Woodland areas shall be preserved for low density residential development, outdoor recreation (including but not limited to hiking trails, sporting areas, trapping or hunting), forestry or nursery practices, natural beauty areas, or areas containing significant historic or cultural value. -29- �5. Density and intensity of development shall be reduced in woodland areas. 6. Roadsides containing signific~nt tree growth should be considered for classification as scenic or beauty roads to maintain the wooded character within the thoroughfare right-of-way. Wetlands Increasing development and its associated demands have the effect of encroaching upon, polluting or eliminating wetlands, and other natural hydrologic processes. Similar to woodlands, wetlands, if preserved and maintained in an undisturbed and natural condition, constit~te important physical, aesthetic, recreational and economic assets to existing and future residents of the Township. Wetlands in Addison Township shall be treated with the following criteria: l. Development shall be limited to outdoor recreation, grazing, farming, forestry and the operation and maintenance of existing dams and other water control devices, and temporary alteration or diversion of water levels or circulation for emergency maintenance or agriculture purposes, and only in compliance with State, County and local statutes and regulations. 2. Conservation of soil, vegetation, water, fish and wildlife shall take priority over any of the aforementioned permitted development in a wetland area. 3. Less density and less intensive development shall be encouraged adjacent to areas considered to be wetland. 4. Buffer zones along streams and swales shall be required by residential, commercial or industrial development to prevent run-off of man-made pollutants, erosion and other negative impacts. Lakes and Groundwater Providing and maintaining adequate water supplies to maintain a hydrologically balanced ecosystem is parallel with the importance of maintaining clean and safe water. Development often generates chemical by-products which can contaminate both surface waters and groundwater acquifers. Maintenance of groundwater is an essential element in the future of Addison Township. The following criteria shall be considered in making land use decisions in areas adjacent to surface waters or areas of known critical groundwater supplies: -30- �1. Increased minimum lot areas shall be imposed for single family residential areas adjacent to surface water or located in areas experiencing a high water table. 2. Septic systems and drain fields shall be located away from lakes and surface water. 3. Areas in the Township with higher water tables shall be considered wetland unless a suitable sanitary sewer disposal method approved by Oakland County and Addison Township is provided to protect the surface and groundwater quality. 4. Development shall be encouraged in conjunction with fixed densities and open space areas which absorb surface water, control run-off, filter surface nutrients and recharge groundwater supplies shall be encouraged. 5. On site retention and detention ponds to reduce nutrients and sedimentation and promote groundwater recharge shall be encouraged where useful and practical. 6. Filling and dredging activities that may destroy wildlife and acquatic habitats and seriously effect water table levels shall be discouragerl. 7. All industrial, commercial and institutional developments shall include plans for waste disposal methods which prevent wastes from entering water-flow systems including groundwaters, lakes, streams and wetlands. Topography and Soils The existing grades and physiography of Addison Township can be retained by discouraging mass grading or extensive filling and land balancing. Soil erosion from housing construction, commercial and industrial development, road and recreation use improvements, mining and agriculture may result in sedimentation of soils, impede storm sewers and road ditches, pollute streams, and silt lakes. Sedimentation resulting from erosion is a major water pollutant, therefore, preventative soil erosion and sedimentation techniques shall be employed in reviewing all land use proposals: 1. Development proposals shall be designed to relate with the existing topography and soils of the site. 2. Improvements such as streets, storm sewers or other -31- �I I I I I I I I I I I I features of the development, capable of carrying storm run-off in a safe manner, shall be scheduled for installation to the greatest extent possible before removing the vegetative cover from an area. 3. Whenever feasible, natural soil covers shall be retained and protected. 4. Temporary and permanent provisions shall be made to effectively prevent erosion and accommodate the increased run-off caused by changed soil and surface vegetation conditions during and after development. The permanent final vegetation and structures shall be installed as soon as practical in the development. 5. All mining and extractive operations shall be designed to prevent negative environmental impacts during the term of operation. 6. All permitted mining and extractive operations shall be designed from the onset of operations, to assure reclamation or restoration of mining sites after phase-out. Land Use Guidelines Agricultural 1. Maintain existing productive agricultural areas capable of producing without interference from non-agricultural uses. 2. Maintain agricultural lands on levels of generally less than 6 percent slope. 3. Include P.A. 116 farmlands as agricultural land. 4. Protect agricultural lands regardless of tract or parcel size as much as possible. 5. Agricultural land should be maintained in less intensely developed areas away from major thoroughfares as much as possible. 6. Preserve agricultural land in areas which are not proposed for increased density or intensive development. -32- �7. Consider agricultural land uses broken up by lot splitting for transition of agricultural to residential development. Commercial Development Center Commercial (Convenience and Office) l. Locate commercial center development near existing traffic generators on soils suitable for commercial development containing 4-20 acres. 2. Provide alternative locations for choice and competition. 3. Provide center locations on relatively flat large tracts with room for expansion. 4. Consider existing commercial areas as areas suitable for additional commercial development/expansion. 5. Locate commercial development on primary thoroughfares preferably at intersections of two primaries. Non-Center (General and Wholesale) l. Locate non-center commercial uses (land extensive uses such as lumber yards, nurseries, implement and vehicle sales), and similar uses along primary thoroughfares. 2. Locate non-center commercial uses near other similar uses which may negatively affect residential uses. 3. Locate non-center commercial uses away from residential uses as much as feasible. 4. Locate non-center commercial uses where an existing pattern is established. 5. Locate non-center commercial away from image establishment areas and Township gateways etc., avoiding strip-commercial development. 6. Recognize shopping centers outside the Township as commercial resources. Require low-traffic and seasonal commercial uses to maximize protection of residential areas from traffic, noise, trespassing, vandalism, odors and other negative impacts through site design, including buffers, setbacks and dust control. -33- �Industrial Land Use 1. Restrict industry to light industry to insure compatibility with the natural environment and residential community. 2. Locate light industrial uses on primary roads with adequate truck access. 3. Provide light industrial land with access. 4. Locate light industry away from existing and proposed residential areas. 5. Locate light industrial development with adequate soils for building, good drainage and access. 6. Coordinate industrial land uses with non-center commercial land uses. Residential Land Uses CWA 1. Provide range of acceptable housing units to provide a wide range of choice. 2. Maintain the environmental quality of all residential areas. 3. Preserve residential structures in sound condition, and encourage rehabilitation and renovation of deficient residential buildings. 4. Develop residential density patterns which relate to natural and man-made environmental features. 5. Limit higher densities to areas which are served by improved public roads. 6. Discourage strip residential development and recognize the desirability of controlled access to the primary road system. 7. Provide facilities and services designed to stabilize and improve residential areas, including a level of public, semi-public and community facilities consistent with the needs of the residents. 8. Improve living amenities in all residential neighborhoods through high standards of housing . design and construction, increased privacy and quiet, and protection of open space. -34- �9. Locate higher density residential uses such as mobile home parks and multiple family residential with access to improved roads only. 10. Locate higher density residential development in accordance with existing patterns of development. Circulation ,. CWA Insure recognition of Township plans by County and State highway planners. 2. Coordinate circulation planning with land use planning and development. 3. Provide a hierarchy of primary and local roads spaced so as to accommodate desired development density without encouraging over-development and disruption of the natural system and rural character of the Township. 4. Recognize the circulation relationships with surrounding communities, employment and commercial centers. 5. Provide adequate access to major seasonal traffic generators. 6. Provide a system of secondary and local access with capacity to serve residential and agricultural areas. 7. Protect natural beauty and scenic road rights-of-way. 8. Coordinate the location of private roads and local public roads. 9. Insure that the Township is consulted in detail on all circulation proposals. -35- �I __P_LA_N_E_LE_M_E_N_T_S_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ �Land Use Plan The Master Plan is a guide for the growth and maintenance of the community. The Plan, a product of the Township Planning Commission, is intended to guide development decisions through the next twenty years; however, the Plan is not a prediction, it is not a rigid document and should be understood as the basis of the continuing planning process of regular evaluation and periodic adjustment, updating and amendment. The Plan is comprised of both the map and supporting documentation which includes population and housing information based on the last ten to twenty years, circulation, environmental concerns and resources and the community's goals and objectives. Rather than a precise document, (like a zoning map) the Master Plan map actually constitutes the development policy of the Township for circulation and land use and community facilities. The land use proposals identified on the Plan map are generalized areas for development which do not follow property lines or define specific sites. Because Addison Township is generally undeveloped, to a great extent with large areas of uncommitted land without an established use pattern, it is appropriate for the Plan to indicate locations rather than sites. This allows for choice; however once a land use pattern is established within a general location, a more precise boundary can be defined by zoning. 1 The Plan is based upon several planning principles and has the following characteristics: • Long Range: Planning and responding to land development issues for the next 15-20 years. • Comprehensive: All major types of land use are considered. 1 Generalized: Land use allocations and relationships are general. The Land Use Plan map incorporates broad principals of land development and their inter-relationship(s). 1 Flexible: The plan is able to accept changes which do not affect the integrity of the total plan. 1 Site Sensitive: All map land use designations must necessarily be subject to the environmental conditions of each particular site. 1 Regional: The plan recognizes regional development and needs of adjacent communities as opposed to isolated development within arbitrary political boundaries. The Plan proposes a continuation of the very low density dispersed land use character whicn has been established in Addison Township. Modest orderly growth is recognized. Rather than concentrating growth in certain segments of the Township, or positioning the community for the provision of public -36- �------------------hr-~7'~\f=t=~nfml~~rmr~~r:mffi1~'mj:;~~~:ffi?~~;.:;;:;.= =t========,✓,:==::L._--,,rr,~--=--cou ~~NTY -·/1-----4\--'I. !--~\---------r-----.-------.,t-:=,---7' ~ --- ~ ~'1--- -1---c---F----1 f---------::Jl/-'-..L.L----i--1---L-l+-..LL____l__j~.L__J ! ~ _j TOWNSHIP MAP 3 - D CIYistopher Wzacny & Associates, Incorporated Archltectu"e · Coommy Planning· lkban Deslgl ~ D e t r o i t ' Michigan LAND USE & CIRCULATION PLAN Residential / Rural Residential / Low Density Residential / Medium Density Septeml>O<, 1983 lllllilll:lil:iil:lllill!ilil Local Convnercial Agrlcultu'e Res~ential I Multiple Dwelling - Non-Center Convnerclal - Institutional _, Fragile Watercourse Development Areas Convnerclal Rehabilitation District Recreational Conmerclal , Industrial Public ~ L....:....J Reuse limited to Recreation, Institutional, or Rural Residential uses. ~ Major Thoroughfare ADDISON TOWNSHIP• OAKLAND COUNTY• MICHIGAN �water and sanitary sewer, the proposed pattern is a dispersion of lower density single family residential areas with more intensive land uses located along Rochester Road and Lakeville Road, the Township's major arterials. The dispersed pattern approach will require a greater degree of independence on the part of individual citizens. If urban type services are ultimately required or demanded, the low density pattern as established and continued will become more expensive and less efficient; therefore, the f~1~re development a er st be continually monitored and ans r · d t insure densities which will not require ur an- e services: im roved roads ublic uti11 · · e police, recreationa1, public tr and soci l services b overnment. A description of the plan by land use is as follows: Agricultural The Plan attempts to maintain the primary existing agricultural areas of the Township. This does not preclude some residential development associated with agriculture; however, the Plan proposes that consideration be given to permanently maintain and protect these agricultural lands as areas for food production without infringements by non-agricultural uses which may generate conflicts with this non-renewable resource. Single Family Residential Three single family residential land use categories are delineated on the land use map according to:the predominate characteristics of existing single family residential development in the areas, access to circulation, and inherent natural development constraints or resources. As discussed in the existing land use section of the plan, much of the existing single family residential development occurred in three distinct patterns: small lot residential development is found near the Lakeville area and adjacent to Lakeville Lake, larger parcel single family residential development has occurred on parcels which were formerly used as farmland. The third pattern is found when the larger lots (+ten acres) are divided into smaller building sites, most often one to three acres. The following categories serve as guidelines for future zoning requests, land subdivisions and lot splits. The three single family residential categories provided in the Land Use and Circulation Plan: Residential/Medium Density, Residential/Low Density and Residential Rural, are further described as follows: Medium Density Residential Medium density single family residential is defined as densities ranging from two to three dwelling units per acre. Areas identified are generally -37- �located around Lakevi 11 e Lake where a narrow lot/ high density pattern has been established. Existing development would continue so long as sanitary conditions could be maintained without public utilities; but new development is proposed to be located on lots a minimum of 18,000 to 24,000 square feet in area. Low Density Res i den ti al Low density single family residential is perceived as areas accommodating development at a density of approximately one acre per dwelling unit or on one acre lots. Areas shown on the Plan include the existing Indian Lake area in the southwestern portion of the Township. Other areas have potential if subdivision laws are relaxed, i.e., along both sides of Yule and Brewer Roads, north side of Romeo Road and along Drahner Road in the southeast quadrant. Rural Residential This land use classification limits single family residential development to two acres or more per dwelling unit and is the proposed dominant land use in the Township. Development within this category will accomplish two major Township objectives: (1) keeping the density low so as not to generate a need for urban type services, (2) maintaining the natural environment's existing character of low density areas. The rural residential areas are widely distributed throughout the Township and include large lot areas,predominant natural features and in some cases, the large rural lots act as a buffer to existing and proposed agricultural land. Other factors contributing to the rural character of the areas are: the presence of wood~d tracts, slope and wetland areas which have minimized the intensity of development leaving deep single family parcels and large natural buffers to the rear of these larger lots. The secluded natural environment in these areas is further enhanced by unimproved roads or natural beauty roads which traverse many of these rural neighborhoods. The intent of this classification is to generally limit further splitting of large area parcels down to an average density of no less than two acres. Multiple Dwelling (Including Mobile Home Park) This land use would occur at a density of five to six dwelling units per acre and would need to be carefully designed to insure adequate water supply and waste disposal without public utilities. Developments of this density should be located only on paved primary thoroughfares and close to commercial development. Generally, multiple family residential or mobile home park uses are considered "transitional uses" and best located in such a manner to buffer lower density single family uses from non-residential uses or major thoroughfares. The area proposed for the use is the higher ground located west of Rochester Road north of Romeo Road extending to the Rochester and Brewer Road intersection. Other suitable areas are identified in the Lakeville area. -38- �Non-Residential Land Uses Non-residential land uses are located to provide a choice, generally along Rochester Road. Additionally, non-residential land uses are proposed in harmony with the existing pattern to the degree that it is established. Local Commercial This land use category is designed to satisfy the need for retail, service and office uses. Generally, this type of development will include several stores and perhaps a professional office to serve the day-to-day needs of residents. The primary function of local commercial is to provide convenient shopping at a planned location and to discourage strip commercial development and to encourage centers. The plan identified two areas specifically for local commercial to provide a choice of areas and separation from single family development: the Lakeville area; and the Rochester Road and Romeo Road area. In terms of satisfying commercial needs in the northern section of the Township, the Village will continue to provide goods and services required by the residents of this area of the Township. Non-Center Commercial Non-Center Commercial is provided to supply a wider variety of commercial goods requiring greater land areas (land extensive) along primary thoroughfares. These uses include retail and service establishments which are community oriented. Location for such establishments is commonly dependent on high accessibility and visibility. Also, because these uses may generate potentially heavier traffic volumes, and often undesirable visual impacts, proximity to single family residential land uses without proper site design requirements is discouraged. As these uses usually require outside sales and/or storage of equipment, materials, vehicles, implements, or related goods, non-center commercial sites should be at least 300 feet deep, relatively flat, and larger setbacks should be established. To minimize the negative impacts of non-center commercial uses, location of such businesses should be isolated from residential uses or proximate to industrial land uses and restricted to a concentrated area and should not be permitted to evolve and spread into commercial strips and residential areas. In areas where both local and non-center commercial development is proposed special precautions should be taken to minimize the potential hazards (i.e. on traffic, pedestrians, etc.) of such development. Marginal access roads may be utilized to minimize the number of curb cuts, thereby reducing conflicts with fast moving traffic and increasing the carrying capacity of the road. -39- �The plan includes an area along Rochester Road north of Frick Road. area provides for choice and site depth within a defined area. This Industrial Land Use There are a number of major factors which dictate the location of industrial areas. Access to major truck routes is in most cases the primary consideration. Flat topography, availability of utilities, soil bearing characteristics and compatible land uses are also important considerations. Industrial uses usually require land with no slope, unless regrading an existing slope is not a costly development expense. Land in Addison Township suitable for industrial development is limited due to the absence of sufficient utilities, an abundance of low and wetland areas and the existance of rural residential land uses. These limitations preclude heavy industrial uses and restrict industrial uses to light industry. This would include industrial uses which are generally not objectionable in terms of noise, glare, odor, dust, heavy truck traffic, fumes or similar characteristics or uses entirely located within a building. One large industrial area is shown on the land use map: on the east side of Rochester Road extending east to the Detroit Edison right-of-way. This site provides choice of location, expansion of use, access to major thoroughfares and is separated from single family residential. Commercial Recreation Corrmercial Recreation land use is proposed for several larger tracts located throughout the Township. These areas are in locations which are currently used as commercial recreation including: Mulberry Hills Golf Course, Mount Grampian, and Upland Hills Farm. These uses are located on property which could support residential development. Institutional Churches, private schools, private club land and other institutional quasipublic existing land uses comprise the properties proposed as institutional on the Land Use Circulation Plan Map. As these uses are located in or adjacent to single family residential districts, the potential reuse of these sites is therefore limited to a similar institutional use or a single family residential use of compatible density with surrounding neighborhoods. Public This classification is designed to include all public buildings such as the Township Hall offices, the U.S. Post Office, public schools etc. as a land use which will not conflict with adjacent residential uses, yet provide for -40- �needed community oriented public space and access. The maintenance of these buildings and properties is expected to continue to further provide the local public needs and services as required by the Township residents. All regional public space or any public uses under the jurisdiction of the county, State or Federal government, utilities and semi-public agencies and authorities, should be developed only in clo~e consultation with the Township. Commercial Rehabilitation District Commercial businesses require high accessibility and visibility to attract potential shoppers and compete with neighboring retail centers. Therefore, a community's commercial areas are highly visible and play an important role in shaping public perceptions on the quality of the overall community. In effect, these larid uses, such as retail areas on highly travelled r.6ads, become the "book cover" which either enhances or detracts from community image and property values. A characteristic of highly utilized or patronized commercial establishments is often the deterioration of building and site materials and surfaces. Facilities of this type require constant maintenance, regular reinvestment, and periodic rehabilitation to properly minimize the effects of climatic and user wear. A lack of reinvestment on one property is contagious and older areas generally require a coordinated rehabilitation effort to be effective. Also, this effort generally requires public coordination of design and installation of public improvements. The plan identifies Rochester Road within the Lakeville limits as a Commercial Rehabilitation District. The proper maintenance and rehabilitation of this commercial district is vital to the functional, economic, and aesthetic character and the positive image of the entire .Township. · A program of revitalization with shared public and private responsibilities should be initiated. Fragile \~a terf rant · Development Areas The development pattern of waterfront prop~rties in Addison Township has been, as in many communities in Southeastern Michigan, often characterized by narrow lots of minimum area and building setback. This pattern has largely resulted from the recreational, aesthetic, and environmental assets of watercourses desirable for summer cottages and year-round homes. By permitting these minimum development standards, more people have been given an opportunity to enjoy the unique features of lakefront living. In Addison Township, lakefront development pressures have been most felt on properties around Lakeville Lake. Presently, the lake receives heavy use from lakefront residents and those persons gaining access via the public boat launching facility off Lakeville Road. Lake 11 use 11 is not only characterized -41- �by boating, fishing, swimming, and sailing. Lakes must also endure the less obvious, often negative characteristics of lakefront growth, such as: the ability to handle stormwater runoff; the potential for reduced water quality due to soil erosion and sedimentation; and the hazard of water contamination from improperly designed, located and/or operating septic tanks~ Stormwater Management, soil erosion and sedimentation control, and septic system design are all controlled under the jurisdiction of either the State of Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the County Drain Commission, or the County Health Department. Although the Township is provided with verification that these lakefront concerns are properly addressed, all permits of this nature are obtained at one of these County or State agencies. Presently, no one governmental body, be it at the State, County or local level, functions to control water quality from a comprehensive viewpoint. The potential danger in granting a building permit based on a gathering of autonomous decisions is that the collective results of obtained permits may be damaging to water quality of a lake. · In recognizing the desirability of lakefront living, the pressure to develop those remaining areas as intensely as possible, and the subsequent potential for degradation of water quality, several Fragile Waterfront Development Areas are identified on the Land Use Plan. It is recommended that within these fragile areas future developmfnt be restricted to a density of one (1) dwelling unit per two (2) acres. Provision of parcels of this dimension would: permit more flexibility in building location; allow the preservation of more natural features and wildlife habitats; control the increase of stormwater runoff; allow greater separation of buildings and septic tanks from lakefronts; and limit the increase of lake users. The Township should not consider any increase in density beyond the one dwelling unit per two acres without complete documentation that such an increase in density would not adversely impact the quality of Lakeville Lake water. This 11 documentation 11 would be in •the form of an environmental impact statement which fully identified: all existing environmental characteristics of the site; proposed alterations to the site regarding topography, vegetation, drainage, soils, watercourses and wetlands; proposed land use, site access, and pertinent setbacks; location and type of site utilities; number of people to be housed and an estimate of vehicular and recreational lake traffic generated by the project; and detailed methods of controlling stormwater runoff, soil erosion and sedimentation. By requiring a developer to prepare an environmental impact statement when requesting a zoning ordinance variation permitting increased density, the Township places the 11 burden 11 on the developer to prove that no undesirable environmental impacts will result. In doing so, the Township obtains, in a complete and comprehensive manner, all the vital information on which to approve or disapprove a proposed project. -42- �Utilities (Detroit Edison and Lakehead Pipeline) Two major utility rights-of-way are located in the Township which absorb a significant amount of land area. Since these facilities have environmental impacts, their expansion or the development of new installations should be made only in close consultation with the Township. -43- �Circulation Plan Thoroughfares or arterials function to provide for through traffic, access for abutting uses and to collect and dispense traffic from hierarchy streets. Based on function, thoroughfares are classified in a hierarchial system which recognizes capacities and functions in a progresssive fashion. The circulation system in Addison Township consists primarily of Oakland County Road Commussion (OCRC) maintained and classified roads with the exception of private roads. OCRC roads are classified as primary, local, natural beauty or sub-local (subdivision) with right-of-way (ROW) width varying upon classification. The OCRC right-of-way master plan functionally classifies roadway as major thoroughfare or collector and proposes right-of-way width for each classification. The purpose of right-of-way width is to provide adequate improvements (traffic lanes, shoulder, utilities, intersections, medians, turning lanes, drainage and landscaping) and to accommodate volumes. However, within each right-of-way the function can be changed through improvements - subtracting or adding lanes, increasing or decreasing access points. Since the Township adoption of the Inter-County Highway Plan requires the Township to respect future ROW boundaries when establishing setbacks, the Township may want to reconsider adoption and amend its portion of the Plan. The purpose of the Cirr.ulation Plan for Addison Township is to recognize the circulation needs of the surrounding region and communities coordinate as much as possible the County master ROW plan with the Township Master Plan while protecting the Township from the negative impacts of traffic. Major Thoroughfares Major Thoroughfares with ROW's of 120 feet are proposed as the function classification for: North-South Routes Rochester Road Lake George, Oakwood, Hosner Road Dequindre to Leonard Road East-West Routes Leonard, Oakwood Roads Lakeville, Mack Roads Drahner, Brewer Roads Romeo Road These roads are generally spaced at two mile interval, and provide the circulation framwork for the community currently and within the scope of the plan. Improvements such as paving, (beyond lesser improvements and refinements to -44- �Lakeville, Rochester and Romeo Roads) should be limited to these thoroughfares and carefully timed with development. The primary function of major thoroughfares is to provide access to the community, provide inter-county continuity and to feed regional thoroughfares and freeways. The system provides major access and linkage to all areas of the Township and to adjoining communities and provides an adequate framework for the location of more intensive land uses. Natural Beauty Roads The natural beauty road program (as provided under Act 150, P.A. 1970, as amended) is designed to preserve in a natural, essentially undisturbed condition, certain township primary and local roads having unusual or outstanding natural beauty by virtue of native vegetation or other natural features within or associated with the right-of-way for the use and enjoyment of local residents and the public in general. In addition to the existing Natural Beauty roads, (Yule Road, Indian Lake Road and Ray Road) Lake George Road north of Oakwood Road meets the visual criteria for establishment as a Natural Beauty Road. Once the physical criteria can be met (i.e. enough signatures to satisfy OCRC petition) an attempt should be made to include this portion of Lake George Road in the Natural Beauty Road program .• Other roads should be studied for potential inclusion in the program. Private Roads Private roads through the Zoning Ordinance, must be constructed to OCRC Class 11 C11 road standards which includes a 60 foot minimum right-of-way. Additional controls may be placed on private roads through zoning ordinance amendment. Additional coordination of private road routes needs to be considered. -45- �Community Facilities Within the total development of a municipality, the prov1s1on of adequate community facilities is important. Often the desirability created by a particular community is directly related to its parks, libraries, schools, and public buildings. Government Services Center Currently Township government administrative services are located in one building in Lakeville. The Township is undertaking actions to make the site a permanent location. The location has the advantages of an existing building, adaptable to township use, convenient access on the Township major thoroughfare and location in the closely settled area of the Township thus reinforcing commercial businesses. As the Township grows, expansion of the site may be necessary to accommodate the following community facilities: recreation, library/museum, a community building, senior center, public safety facilities and a public works garage and yard. The site currently provides adequate area for these functions and related off-street parking. Even if the population should double, the site, properly designed for compatible use relationships, can accommodate these functions,with the exception of a community park site. Although expansion area and access are significant considerations in the location of a township governmental center, the importance of locating community facilities so as to support other land uses, particularly commercial uses, cannot be overemphasized. To locate governmental centers in isolated areas considering only land price and expansion area is usually a short-sighted decision which future Township generations must endure. Recreation At this time the need for Township recreation system parks remains quite low, particularly with the Township's abundance of open space, woodlots and lakes. As the Township becomes developed, both residentially and otherwise, it will be important to give consideration to a community park. Michigan State University Cooperation Extension Service recommends one and one-half acres of community park area for each 1000 residents. The minimum recommended area for a community park is 15-20 acres and would include: softball/baseball fields, multiple use paved areas, playground apparatus area, landscaped and picnic areas, other playfields for soccer and football and substantial offstreet parking. Prior to the establishment of such facilities, the cost of programming and maintenance must be given consideration. Overall, the Plan is designed to avoid densities which would generate a need for such recreational facilities. The unorganized outdoor recreation alternatives within the Township are recognized by residents as a primary community attraction and are perceived as an integral part of Township residency, precluding most of the need for organized facilities, with the exception of a small community park which would include ball fields, parking, and picnic area. -46- �If developed, such a facility should be located with access for the most residents and sited so as to enhance the community image or the image of the section of the Township where it is located. Other Community Facilities As the Township is currently planned, other community facilities can be located at the current Township hall site. The Township, because of its population can probably support only the current facility, equipment and program. The addition of another equipped fire·station would not add service beyond that which is currently available through mutual aid from adjacent communities. The level of police service currently available from the County Sheriff's office cannot efficiently be duplicated . at the Township level in the forseeable future. -47- �IMPLEMENTATION I �Implementation Strategies Implementation strategies are a key component of any community master plan. They determine how the plan's guidelines and recommendations become reality. The Addison Township Land Use and Circulation Plan should not be viewed as a finished product. As events or needs of the Township- demand, various adjustments or additions will need to be made. It is not anticipated that the P,an's major goals and objectives will require change,rather, as the plan is interpreted and implemented, certain aspects will require periodic adjustment, however. Zoning The To\'mship Zoning Ordinance is a primary tool in the achievement .of the Plan's goals. Although the plan map is not a zoning map, it should be used as a guide to zoning amendment decisions, whether they are initiated by the Planning Commission or by petitioners. _The timing of changes to the zoning map is key to implementing the Plan. The Township may choose to postpone the development of more intensive land uses in the western part of the Township and thus direct growth toward areas in central or eastern parts of the township or toward areas of existing development. Further, the map's proposals should be viewed as flexible when considering the zoning of specific sites, especially if no pattern has yet been- established. The P,lan does not follow property lines and with the exception of environmental concerns and existing and potential land use conflicts, whether a zoning pattern is established on the east or west side of a thoroughfare is often not the critical issue . - the pattern is. Depending on the rate of developmental change zoning map, an annual appraisal of the zoning generally accepted practice to provide zoning use projection, whereas the Plan is a fifteen and requests for change in the map should be made. It is on the basis of a five year land to twenty year projection. The current zoning ordinance should be reviewed to ins-ure that the environmental, land use and circulation proposals of this plan are reflected in the ordinance, particularly under site plan review and special land use approval standards. Capital Improvements Although the Plan is designed to limit the needs for capital improvements, the Planning Commission has a responsibility (under Section 7 of the Township Planning Act) in the capital improvements programming process. The Township Planning Act (Section 11:)requires the review and approval of all public facilities by the Planning Commission, yet it must be recognized that the Township Board is always the final authority on capital expenditures. Therefore, the Commission must work closely with the Board in all capital matters. Land Division Regulations Like zoning, Subdivision Regulations, under the State Subdivision Control Act (Act 288, P.A. of 1967,as amended) are tools for the implementation of -48- �this Plan.While zoning deals with land use on a site by site basis and activities in selected areas, subdivision .regulations are concerned with the process of dividing land and maintaining the quality of individual developments. Subdivision regulations protect the needs of residents by providing both site design controls and improvement standards. Design controls deal with the arrangement and location of streets, widths and depth of lots, the provision of open space, and the sufficiency of easements for utility i nsta 11 ati ons. Improvement standards insure adequate roads and physical improvements. Most land divisions in Addison Township do not come under the jurisdiction of the State Subdivision Control Act, but instead are regulated by the land division procedures and standards of the zoning ordinance sections dealing with private roads and the division of platted lots and unplatted acreage. Current regulations provide procedures and minimum standards for divisions and improvements, but need revision to adequately provide for maintenance, reconstruction and liability. Commercial Rehabilitation District The Plan designates the Lakeville commercial area as a Commercial Rehabilitation District. It is important that there be recognition given to the process of the physical aging and obsolescence of areas within a community. While rehabilitation and redevelopment reinvestments have traditionally been left to private initiative, townships have increasingly recognized the public interest in the apoearance ahd maintenance of the Township's commercial areas which often establish the community's image and set a standard for other developments. The rehabilitation of blighted areas usually involves a partnership between the Township and private land owners, based upon a plan which identifies both the public and private improvements, allocates financing, determines a scheJule and provides for implementation responsibilities. The rehabilitation of blighted areas is one of the primary purposes for Community Development Block Grant funds which the Township receives based upon a cooperation agreement with Oakland County. Much of the planning and implementation for rehabilitation of Township areas can be coordinated with the provision of Act 169, P.A. of 1970, as amended, which provides the mechanisms for preserving historic districts under the jurisdiction of the Michigan History Division of the Secretary of State's office. Such activities can help to preserve the cultural and historic values of a community and can also further economic development and planning objectives. Agency Liaison The planning program will continue to require coordination between the Township Board, the Zoning Board of Appeals, local school boards, officials of adjacent municipalities, Oakland County and citizen groups. The Plan is a means of assuring this coordination through its portrayal of an overall view of long-range Township goals. -49- �Public Understanding and Support The necessity of citizen participation and understanding of the planning process and the Plan cannot be over-emphasized. A carefully organized public education program is needed to organize and identify public support in any community development plan. The lack of citizen understanding and support can seriously limit implementation of the planning proposals. The failure to support needed bond issues, failure to elect progressive officials, and litigation concerning taxation, special assessments, zoning, and public improvements are some of the results of public misunderstanding of longrange plans. In order to organize public support most effectively, the Township must emphasize the reasons for the planning program and encourage citizen participation in the adoption of the Plan and the continued planning process. Public education can be achieved through an informational program involving talks, newspaper articles, and preparation of simple summary statements on plans for distribution. Participation by residents in various civic groups is evidence of community involvement. Continuous Planning A role of the Planning Commission is to provide planning recommendations to the Township Board. This planning function is a continuous process which does not terminate with the completion of thi-s plan. Rural-residential areas are in constant change and planning is an on-going process of identification, adjustment, and resolution of problems. In order to sustain the planning process and generate positive results, maintain momentum, and respond to change, the Plan should be reviewed and updated every three to five years. -50- � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Wyckoff Planning and Zoning Collection Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Planning & Zoning Center (Lansing, Mich.) (Organization) Wyckoff, Mark A. Description An account of the resource Municipal master plans and zoning ordinances from across the state of Michigan, spanning from the 1960s to the early 2020s. The bulk of the collection was compiled by urban planner Mark Wyckoff over the course of his career as the founder and principal planner of the Planning and Zoning Center in Lansing, Michigan. Some additions have been made to the collection by municipalities since it was transferred to Grand Valley State University. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Michigan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1960/2023 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Subject The topic of the resource Michigan Comprehensive plan publications Master plan reports Zoning--Michigan Zoning--Maps Maps Land use--planning Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-240 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Addison-Twp_Master-Plan_1983 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Planning Commission. Addison Township, Oakland County, Michigan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1983-09-13 Title A name given to the resource Addison Township Master Plan Description An account of the resource Master Plan for Addison Township, Oakland County, Michigan developed by Wzacny & McKenna Associates Incorporated. Adopted by the Planning Commission September 13, 1983. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Wzacny & McKenna Associates Incorporated (consultant) Subject The topic of the resource Master plan reports Addison (Mich. : Township) Oakland County (Mich.) Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/858de2dcae220de19d3b54a8b681ab50.pdf aa625c55d9636e10f9ce875ef4e15481 PDF Text Text I ADDISON TOWNSHIP \ I ZONING . ORDINANCE I PRICE TWO DOLLARS ' . . . .,., �-Outline of ADDISON TOWNSHIP ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 1 PREFACE Title Ordaining 01-ause AR'ttCLE ; 1 Short Title II Definitions m Geneml Provisions JJV Township Zoning Districts V •Residential #1 IDlstrlcts - "~1" VI Residential #2 DJstrlcis - .•'lt.i.'• , Viii[ Residential #3 Districts ,-· ''R- " VIII Subur,ban •F arms 'Districts :.. •~;, • IX Agricultural Districts - "A" X Mining Districts - "M" XI Commercial Districts· - "C" Xi[[ Oommereial Recreational Dlatrlets - "OR'· lCIJ!I Industna.l Districts·,- '"I''· XIV IPlibllc or Institutlon_a l ~tiicts : "Pl" :xv XJVI Trailer Oourt Districts ~ "TC" Administration XVliI ,Board of Appeals xvm XilX Changes and Amendm~nts Violations and Penalties xx severance Clause Conflicting iProvlslons Repealed XXI XXlI Effective Date 1 . ., �ZONING ORDINANCE of the Township of Addison, Oakland County, Michigan Ordinance No. 1 TITLE An Ordinance to provide for the establishment of Zoning Districts within the unincorporated areas of the Township of Aaaison, Oakland County, Michigan, within ·which Zoning Districts the use of land for residence, trade, in dustry, minµlg, agricu!:;ure, recreation, forestry, soil conservation and water con:servanon shall be regulated in order more effectively to protect and promote public health, safety, peace and welfa:rl!;; to regulate the use, location, hei~t, area, size and location of ,buildings and structures including tents and trailer-coaches; to regulate construction and ,alter.ation; to provide for An].~ndments, Supplements or 'Changes; to provide for the Administration of this Ordinance; to provide for Appeal by Persons A'ffe_cted; to provide Penalties for vJ9lation · of this Ordinance and 1(1 supersede the Addison Township Interim Ordinance of May . . . , . .. . . ~:i~~1955. .' .:.- THE TOWN!SHIP BOARD OF ~ADDISON TOWNSHlP ORDAINS adoption of this Ordinance in the interest of public health, safety, morals, convenience, comfort; and ·to provide for more favorable land use designed .t o stabilize and enhance property and civic values with reasonaible consideration .to the nature of existing structur-es and districts and their paDticular suitability for specific uses within t he· reasonable limits of a more uniform land use pattern; to lessen cohges-tion, disorder and danger. · In order more effectively to accomplish the aims and purposeiLof this comprehensive 'p1ari, the township is divided 1nto districts deemed most suitable for the use designated within the scope and intent of this Ordinance, in the best public interests; and by further regulation to limit the nature, location, use and occupancy of building, structures and land. This Ordinance is established . pursuant to aU'thority granted by Act 184 of Michigan Public Acts of 1943, as amended. ARTICLE I SHORT TITLE This Ordinance, of which the Addison Township Zo~ing Map is a part, shall be known and may for brevity .be: cited ·as thel 2 �ADDISON 'I'OWNSHIP ZONING ORDINANOE. ARTICLE II . DEFINITION OF WORDS AND TERMS For -the purpose· of this Ordinance, certain words and terms are here defined.. Words used in the present tense include the future tense; use of the singular includes the plural and use of plural includes. singular; 1ihe words "shall" ·and "will" are mandatory, not merely directory. · 2:01 ADDENDUM Any subsequent addition or Appendix to this Ordinance but not changing any existing provisions. 2:02 ALLEY Any dedicated public way not more •than thirty feei wide and affording secondary ingress and egress th ·1and or structures thereon. f 2:03 ALTERATIONS As applied to a bu1ldlng or structure, meail.$' a change or rearrangement in the structural par·t s or in •the exit facilities, or ,a n eµ.largement, whether by extencllp.g o_n a side or by increasing in height, or the -moving fr.om one loca,. tion or position to 'another. ~ , 2:04 APARTMENT HOUSE A dwelling for three -or more families living independently of each other and doing their·cooking in the premises. 2 :05 BASEMENT A basement is that portion of a bu1lding partly below ~ade but so loca;ted •t hat the v·ertical distance from grade to · the floor ls greater than the vertical distance ,from the gr,ade te the ceiling; provid~d that when the vertical distancti from the ceiling to the grade is five (5) feet or more such ,b asement shall be conside.r ed as a story. Any room otherwise _qualifying as. being habitable shall be subject to the ventilation and sanitary regulations of Addison Township and of Oakland County. the I "'i 2:06 BUILDING A structur,e having a roof suppor,t ed .by columns or walls for the shelter or enclosure of persons, animals or chattels. When any portion is completely separ~ted from every other par,t by division walls from the ground up and without optinings, each portton of such building· shall be deenied a separa·t e building. . . 3 �2:07 BUILDING PERMIT The written authority issued by the Building Inspector of the Township or by the Appeal Board permitting the construction, removal, alteration or use of a building in conformity to the provisions of this ordinance and the Addison Township Building Code. 2:08 CARPORT A structure permanently attached to a dwelling and having a roof supported by columns, -b ut not otherwise enclosed. 2 :09 COMMEROIAL or "Commercial Use" .relates to the use of property in connection with purchase, sale, barter,' display or exchange of goods, wares, merchandise or personal services and the maintenance or operation ,t h~reon of buildings, offices, stores, shops, recrea-tional or -amusement enterprises. 2 : 10 DWELLING Any house or building or portion thereof which is designed for or occupied as a ho.me, residence or sleeping plaee of one or more persons either perma nently or transiently. In case of mixed occupancy where a •building is occupied in par,t as a dwelling, the parit so occupied shall ·b e deemed a dwelling and shall be subject to the provisions of this Ordinance applying to dwellings. 2: 11 ERECTED Include~ built, constructed, reconstructed, or moved upon and any dirt moving, drainage or •fill related to erection. 2 : 12 ESSENTIAL SERVICES The erection, construction, alteration or maintenance by public utilities or municipal departments or commission, of underground or overhead gas, electrical, communication, steam or water transmission or distribution systems, including poles, wires, mains, drains, sewers, pipes, :conduits, cables, fire alarm boxes, police call boxes, traffic signals, hydrants, towers and other similar equipment and ·accessories in connection therewith, but not _i,:icluding buildings, reasonably necessary for the furnishing of adequate service by such public utilities or municipal depart-; 4 �men ts or commissions for the public health, safety or general welfare. 2:13 FARM All tlhe contiguous, nei,ghboring or associated land comprising not less than ten (10) acres and operated directly or indirectly for normal farm use but excluding the raising of fur.bearing animals, game, fish hatcheries, piggeries, stockyards, public or private dumping, mining and other operations ordinarily considered commercial rather than agricultural in nature. 1 2:14 GARAGE, PRIVATE A space or structure suitable for storing one · or more automobiles and designed and u.sed for private rather than public, commercial or industrial purposes. 2:15 GARAGE, PUBLIC A building or structure designed or used for the s•t orage, c,a re, repair or commercial display of a"Q,tomobiles, tractors. trucks or other power equipment. , i ·/ 2:16 GRADE ~·-· ,. .,:. l.r The average elevation of the finished .surface of the ground adjacent to the ~terior walls of •tI?-e building. 2: 17 HAZARDOUS USES All uses which involve the storage, sale, manufacture or processing of materials whioh are risky and combustible and are likely to burn moderately, but from which neither poisonous ;fumes nor explosions are to be anticipa,ted in the event of fire, and listed ,by the Basic Building Code 1954 amended edition prepared by the Building Official Oonference of America, Inc. 2: 18 HEIGHT, BUILDING Refe.rs to the vertical distance measured from the grade at the building front to the highest point of the roof for flait roofs; to deck line for mansard roofs; and to the mean height level (.between eaves and ridge) for gable, ihip and gambrel roofs. Where a buildi.n g is located on a terrace, the height may be measured from the average grade of the terrace along the front-to-back building walls. 2:19 HOME OCCOUPA'l'ION Any occupation or profession carried on by .a member of -a family, residing on the premises, in connection wi,th i 5 �is employed other than a member of the immediate family residing on the premises; and further, provided, that not over twenty-five (25) per eent of the total actual flo01:- · area of any one story is used for such occupation or profession. 2:20 KENNEL Any lot or premises on which ,three (3) or more dogs are kept, either permanently or temporarily boarded. 2:21 LODG]NG HOUSE A building where lodging is provided for three or more, but not exceeding twenty (20) persons. which there is used no sign other than one non-illuminated name plate, which is not more hllan one square foot in area, attached to the building entrance; provided that no commodity is sold upon the premises and no person :1.:22 LOT A lot is a piece or parcel of land occupietl or .t o be occupied by a buUding or structure, or use, or by .ot}:rer activity per- mitted thereon an-d including the open .:spaces ;required under this Ordinance. A lot need not be a lot of existing record. 2:23 LOT, CORNER A corner lot is a lot of which at least two adjacent sides abut for their full length upon a street. 2 :24 LOT COVERAGE The part or percentage of the lot occupied by buildings or structures, including accessory buildings or structures. 2:25 LOT, INTERIOR An interior lot is a lot other than a corner lot. 2:26 LOT LINE, FRONT In the case of a lot abutting upon one street, the f.ront lot line is the line separating such lot from such street. In the case of any obher lot one such line shall be elected to be the front lot line for the purpose of this ordinan~e, provided it is so designated in the building -p lans filed for -a pproval wit-h the Department of Buildings. 2:27 LOT LINE, REAR 'r.he rear lot line is that boundary which is opposite and most distant from the front lot line. In the case of a lot 6 �.I po-inted at the rear, the rear lot line shall •be that assumed line parallel to the front line, not less .t han ten (iO) feet long, lying most distant from the fr-ont 1-ot line and wholly within the lot. 2 :28 LOT LI-NE, SIDE A side lot line is any lot boundary line not a front lot line or a rear .lot line.· A side lot line separating a lot from a _street is a side .str_e et _lqt line.. A side lot line separating lot from another lot or lots is an interior lot line. a 2:29 MINI!NlG Refers fo the site and/or -~ctivity of st~ne quarries, gravel or sand pits, peat operations, commercial excavation of · ~rt and other mining or burrowing ,activities related to the physical removal .for intended profit of natural materials and resources other than lumber. · - 2:30 MOBILE HOME . .. . . ~e TRAII,ER COAC!H 2:31 ' ,'.•. MOTOR SURPLY STATION .-, /~-_: A motor supply station is a bullding or struS;ture designed or used for the retail sale or supply of. ,fuels, lubrlcants; air, water and other operating commodities for mQtor ve'hic1es, a_n;d including space or facilities for -t he· storage, r_e pair, refinishing or other servicing thereof, 2:32 PIGGERJY For the purposes of this Ordinance, the word ."piggery" applles to a .place where pigs are raised eommercially and are fed substantial amounts of garbage or · other waste food ma,teriaJs having obnoxious or unsanitary characteristics. 2:33 PUBLIC U'NLITY Any person, firm, corporation, municipal department or board duly authorized to furnish, :;1;nd fur11ishing under municipal or stat,e regulation to the public, transportation, water, g.as·,. electricity, telephone, steam, telegraph, sewage disposal or other essential services. 2:34 ROADSIDE STANDS A roadside stand is -a temporary or permanent building operated for the purpose of ·selling only produce raised or produced by the proprietor of rflhe stand or his family, and its use shall not_ mak;e into a commercial · district land 7 �which would oth erwise be an agricultural district, nor shall its use be deemed a commercial activity, but such stand, lf of a permanent character shall not be more than one story high nor larger than 20 feet by 20 feet. 2: 35 SETBACK 'Dhe minimum horizontal distance between the front line of the building, excluding steps and unenclosed porches, and the front street or right of way line is tlhe setback. 2:36 STORY That portion of a building Included between the surface of any floor and the ceiling next above is a story. A basement shall be considered a story If its ceiling is more than five (5) feet above the average established grade or if it is used for business purposes. 2:37 STORY, HALF A story which is situated wl•thi.n a sloping roof, the area of which at a height four (4) feet above the floor does not exceed two-thirds (2/ 3) of the floor ~ea directly below it and wherein living quarters -are used only as a part of the dwelling situated in the story below, 2:38 S.IGNS Any structure, or part thereof on which there is lettered, pictured, or displayed matter, the chief purpose of w.hleh is for advertising or publicity. 2:39 TOWNSHIP BOARD The words "township board" appearing in this Ordinance shall mean the Township Board of Addison Township. 2:40 TENTS Tents as used in this Ordinance shall not include those used solely for children's recreational purposes. 2:41 TRAILER COACH OR MOBILE HOME Mobile home or trailer coach ls hereby defined and declared to be any vehicle used or intended for use, as a conveyance upon the public streets or highways and Ii. c.eµsed as such; and shall include selfpropelled and nonselfpropelled vehicles so designed, constructed or recontruct.e d or added to by means of portable accessories or ot;herwise in such a manner as will permit the occupancy thereof as a temporary dwelling or sleeping place for one or more persons, and having no founda·tion other than 8 �wheels, jacks or skirting so arranged as to be integral with or part of said Trailer Coach. 2:42 TRAILER COACH OR MOBILE HOME PARK This term applies to any lot or tract of land upon which two (2) or more occupied trailer coaches or mobile homes are harbored either with or without charge and including any building or enclosure intended for use as a part of the equipment of such park. 2 :43 UTILITY ROOM A room or space, located other than in the basement, specifically designed and constructed to house any home utilities or laundry facilities. 2:44 USE The purpose for which land or buildings ther-eon are designed, arranged, or intended to be occupied or maintained. 2:45 /i-:.-. USE, NONCONFORMING A building or premises occupied by a use )that does not conform with the use regulations of the dist;,i'ict in which it is located, shall be considered a non-:coiiforming use. Existing buildings or str uctures, shall n ot' b e deemed nonconforming, because they do not meet the area, height, yard requirements or swe of 'buildings as specified in the district regulations. 2:46 YARD An open space •a•t gJ.'!llde line between a ibuilding and the adjoining lot lines, unoccupied and unobstructed from the ground upw.ard, shall be tJhe minimum horizontal distance between a lot line and the nearest line of the main building. I ,I, 2:47 YARD, FRONT A yard ·extending acrosss the full width of the lot between the front line and 1lhe nearest line of the main building. 2:48 YARD. REAR open space extending across ·t he rear of a lot measured between lot lines and being the minimum horizontal dist'lnce between the rear lot line and the rear of the main building or any projections other than steps, unenclosed balconies or unenclosed porches. On cornier lots the rear yard shall be considered -a s parallel to the street upon An 1 9 �which the lot has its least dimension. On corner lots and interior ·1ots, tihe rear yard shall, in all cases, be at the opposite end of the lot from -the front yard. 2:49 YARJD, SIDE An open space extending -between the side lot line and the nearest side line of the dwelling and extending from the rear line of dwelling ,to the front lot line . . ARTICLE Ill GENERAL PROVISIONS 3:01 No buildi_n g or land shall be used, altered, constructed, reconstructed or moved -e xcept in conformance wi.th general provisions ·of this Ordinance and with the specific provisions established for the Zoning Distrfot involved. 3:02 SAiFETY The building inspector, who is charge,r with administration and enforcement of this code, may decree structures improper or unsafe for occupancy and may suspend construction, alteration or occupancy un,til the conditions are corrected. Violation of t,he •building inspector's decree is puniShable as described by the Addison Township Zoning Ordinance and Building Code. 3:03 HEALTH AND SANITATION Regulations of the Oakland county Health Departme~ t shall be used by the building inspector in his examination of matters involving health and sanitation. No outside privies shall be built, constructed or used except those in connection with a farm and then only if located more than 200 feet from any boundary line of the farm and from all highways. No basement or habitable room shall be located adjacent to any lake, stream, or water overflow area, or Within a poorly drained area, unless it is so situated that the floor shall be above the high water level. 3 :04 INGRESS AND EGRESS Each dwelling and each commercial or industrial building shall have at least two doors providing ingress and egress. One of these doors shall be at the front and the other shall be at the rear or side . . 10 �3:05 TEMPORARY DWELLINGS It shall not be lawful for any person to erect or occupy a •temporary dwelling ; provided, however, that .a garage, basement or trailer may be occupied as a temporary dwelling for a period of not more than six months i1 construction of a permanent dwelling is actually under way and in active progress during the period of temporary occupancy and providing sanitary and other condi-tions are expressly approved by the ·b uilding inspector as meeting the minimum requirement under this Ordinance. Occupancy 1beyond ·six months or failure .to ,h ave the s tructure approved for temporary occupancy shall constitute a violation puniShable under Article XIX of this Ordirrance. 3: 06 GENERAL STRUCTURA'L REQUffiEMENTS Improper buildings. Any building, structuxe or part in violation of this Ordinance, as far as nature, use or location, shall be deemed an unlawful structure and a nuisance and may be required to be vacate,d, torn down or corrected and shall not be used or occupied af.ter written notice has ·been given by the Building· Iits'P.ector that the structure is unlawful. Penalties for viota,t1on are described 'in Article XIX of this Ordinance. ', Height. All -dwellings shall have a height, above grade of at least 9 feet but not more than 35 fee.t. Commercial and industrial buildings shall have a height of not less than 12 feet nor more than 50 feet unless otherwise specifically approved by the Appeal Board. 3 :07 - FRONT YARDS Every lot or parcel of land on which a dwelling or other principal building is hereafter -erected, altered or moved, shall have a front yard not less .~han thirty-five (35) feet in depth measuring from the established or map indicated road line. In the case of a lot or parcel of land located in a block or area adjacent to existing neighboring buildings on the same side of .the street or highway baving front yards less than said depth, the front yards of said ,b uildings shall be not less -than the average depth of the front ya-r ds of such existing buildings. 3:08 SIDE YARDS al Every dwelling 'hereafter erected, altered or moved upon a lot or pare-el of land shall have a side yard on each side thereof which shall be not less <than five (5) feet in width. bl Every commercial or industrial ·b uilding hereaf,t er erected, altered or moved upon a lot or parcel of land shall have 11 �c) 3:09 a side yard which shall be not less. th.a n twenty (20) feet in width. No building shall be located closer than three (3) feet to a property line. The . width of a side yard abutting upon a side street or highway shall be not less than the front yard required on an adjoining int,erior lot or parcel of land fronting upon such side street or highway, but this shall not reduce the buildable width of any lot or parcel of land existing and on puplic record at the time of passage of this Ordinance to less than thirty (30) feet. REAR YARDS Every principal- building, including dwellings, shall have a rear yard of not less than fifty (50) feet in deptJh. 3:10 Yards for Apar,tment Houses, Multiple-dwellings, Hotels and ,Motels are set forth under Article VII of this Zoning Ordinance. 1 3:11 GARBAGE DISPOSAL OR DUMiPING GROUNDS No gar,bagie, sewage, rubbish, offal, · r.endering products, or industrial waste may be dumped ''in' any area of the Township unless in a public dump approved and author~ ized by the Township Board; nor shall any garbage, sewage, rubbish, or offal be fed to poultry,~ live stock or other animals. 3: 12 HOUSEHOLD PETS Animals weighing in excess of 100 pounds may not be maintained on parcels having less than 40,000 square feet of ground area, exclusive of the space occupied by buildings. Facilities for housing such animals, unless kept in the dwelling, must be a minimum of 75 feet from any boundary line and the keeping of such animals must not constitute a nuisance. ARTICLE IV TOWNSHIP ZONING DISTRICTS 4 :01 For the purpose of this Ordinance, the Township of Addison shall be divided into the following districts, which shall be ·known by the names and symbols here shown: RESIDENTIAL #1 R-1 RESIDENTIAL #2 R -2 RESIDIDNTIAL #3 R-3 AGRICULTURAL A SUBURBAN FARMS SF MINING M 12 �COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL PUBLIC OR INSTITUTION,AL TRAILER COURT'S C I C. R. P T. C. Except as otherwise provided in this Ordinance, erection of buildings and use of land shall conform ,to the specific provisions for the zoning districts involved. However, any lawful nonconforming structure or use existing at -the time of passage of this Ordinance may be continued, provkLing this structure or use was not initiated in violation of pr,evious zoning regulati-ons and further providing that •the struc-tu11e, ·building, lot, or land involved shall neither be structurally altered nor enlarged except to comply with the provisions of this Ordinance. Further, when a nonconforming use is discontinued through vacancy, lack of operation or otherwise for a period of six continuous months, thereafter no rig,ht shall exist to continue the nonconforming use unless the Board of Appeals grants such privilege within an additional six months period. Change from a nonconforming use tQ a conforming use does not permit later return to a noacqnforming use. Installation and operation of necessary governmental and public utility services •Other than buildings ',and yards is permitted in all dis·tricts. The Board of •Appeals shall have the power -to permi-t the erection and operi:i.tion of public service ,buildings in such cases where compliance with other sections of this ordinance would be detrimental to public healoth, safety or welfare. ARTICLE V RESIDENTIAL #1 DISTRiICTS (R-1) 5:01 Individual lots in R-1 Districts shall c-ontain not less tihan 20,000 square feet with a wi-dth of not less than 100 feet at the front building line. In all Residential (.R-1) Districts no ,building or land, except as otherwis,e provided in this Ordinance, shall be erected or used except for one or more of the following specified uses: (a) One family dwellings. (b) Public schools, elementary and high schools, and other public or parochial educational institutions. lc) Public parks and playgrounds. (di Churches, community buildings, municipal faciUties, publicly owned and operated museums and libraries, af11er approval by -the Board of Appeals. (e) Home occupations after approval by the Board of Appeals. 13 ----- -_...,. - . ---- -· -= - -·-·- -~-' �II II Temporary buildings for uses incidental to construction work, which buildings shall be remov-ed upon completion or abandonment of the construc,tion work. Such temporary buildings shall not be used as dwellings. 1g) Accessory J:mildings or uses customarily incident to any of the above permitted uses, when located on the same lot and not involving any business, profession, trade or occupa,tion. (h) Private garages an d carports. (i) Publicly owned buildings, public utility buildings, t elephone exchanges, tr ansformer stations and substations without storage yard, afteer approval gr an t ed by the Board of Appeals. , f, 5:02 Every building or structure in R-1 Districts shall be built and used as a one family dwelling, with or without an attached or unattached garage ,except as otherwise specifically allowed in this Ordinance. t 5:03 Every one (1 ) story dwelling· shall have an enclosed first floor area (excluding garages, utility rooms, -porches a nd breezeways) o:f not less th an 720 squa:r e fe et. The same exclusions apply to Sections 5:04 and 5:05, following. 5:04 The corresponding enclosed first floor area of ev,ery one and one-half story dwelling shall be not less than six hundred twenty-four squar,e feet (624) and shall have aggregate floor area of not less than nine hundred thirty-six (936) ·:Square feet. 5:05 If the dwelling is a full two (2) story structure, the first floor area shall be not less than five hundred twenty-eight (52·8) square feet and the aggregate floor area shall be not less than ten hundred fifty-six (1056) square feet. 5:06 Provisions applying to other structures, yards, yard lines, health, safety, erection, alteration, repair and other pertinent matters not specifically described in Article V will be regulated in other Articles of this Ordinance and in the Addison Township Building Code. ARTICLE VI RESIDENTIAL NO. 2 DISTRICTS 6:01 Individual lots in R-2 Districts shall contain not less than 30,000 square feet with a width of not less than 125 feet at the front building line. In all Residential (R-2) Districts no building or land, except as otherwise provided in this Ord-inance, shall be erected or U,1Jed except for one or more of the following specified uses: 14 �One.family dwellings. Public schools, elementary and high schools, and other public or parochial educational insti-tutions. (c) Public parks and 'p laygrounds. (d) Churches, community buildings, municipal facilities, publicly owned and operated museums and libraries, after approval by the Board of Appeals. (e) Home occupations after approval ,by the Board of Appeals. (f) Temporary buildings for uses incidental to consti:uction work, which buildings shall be remov,ed upon completion or abandonment of the construction work. Such temporary buildings shall not be used as dwellings. (g) Accessory buildings or uses customarily incident to any of the aboVle permitted uses, when located on the same lot and not involving any 1business, profession, trade or occupation. (h) Private garages and carpor-ts. (i) Publicly owned buildings, public utility- ;puildlngs, telephone exch anges, transformer stations ,an:d substa,tlons without storage yard, after approval granted: ,by •t he Board of Appeals. ·· UlJ (b) .1 I ·/ ·r 6: 02 Every building or structure in R-2 Districts shall ,be built and used as a one family dwelling, with or without an attached or unattached garage except as otherwise specifically allowed· by this Ordinance. 6:03 Every one (1) story dwelling shall have an enclosed first floor area (excluding ,garages, utility rooms, porches and breezeways) of not less than one thousand (1000) square feet. The same exclusions, here described, apply to Sections 6:04 and 6:05, following. 1., I J. 6:04 The correspon ding enclosed first floor area of every one and one-half (1½) story dwelling shall be not less than eight hundred (800) square feet and the aggregate floor area shall be not less than twelve hundred (1200) square feet. 6:05 If the dwelling is a full two (2) story structure, the first floor area shall be not less than seven hundred twenty (720) square feet and the -aggregate shall be not less than fourteen hundred forty (1440) square feet. 6 :06 Provisions applying •to other structures, yards, yard lines, health, safety, erection, altera·tion, repair and other per15 �nl ADDISON I Fro'ft:;;_~ Geo Clar/( 320 I/fl._ ~ Mi' ::• , I €!5 ':; ,, IID!LI"\ 320 _ RE,j/ OEN TIA L I [,;;;;;;:;;;;ii;! R£SII)£Al TIAL JZ"·~ RE.SIl}f/VT//1 L .ZlZ !::;:-::.1 _AGR!CVLTI/RA L c=J MI/V/#Gtmm . CCJMMEl?CML llllllll · /)/ILJtlSTRIAL IOMM£1i'CIAL RcCl?EATIOIVAL~ , ,Po'8LIC PJ?tJ.Pf/i'TY or.7.4/STITO"T/cJAIA L ~ .5{!8/JRBU/?1311/V FAl?MSl\\m\~\\li TR/1/LfR COtll?TS ~ L. . • !"' ) �tinent matters not specifically d•escribed in Article VI will be regulatory as established in later ar-ticles of the Ordinance and in the Building Code. ARTICLE VII RESIDENTIAL NO. 3 DISTRICTS (R-3) 7:01 Individual lots in R-3 Districts (Multiple Dwellings) shall contain not less than twenty thousand (20,000) square feet, plus ,ten thousand (10,000) square feet for each family unit of a multiple family dwelling constructed. The lot width at the front building line shall be not less than two hundred f,eet. (a} One-family dwellings. (b) Public schools, elementary and high schools, and other public or parochial educational insti,tutions. (c} Public parks and playgrounds. (d) Churches, community buildings, municipal facilities, publicly owned and operated museums and libraries, after approval by the Board of Appeals. (e) Home occupations after approval ,by the •iBo,ard of Appeals. (0 Temporary buildings for uses incidental to construction work, which buildings shall be removed. upon completion or abandonment of -the construction work. Such temporary ,b uildings shall not be used as dwellings. (g) Accessory buildings or uses customarily incident to any of the abov>e permitted uses, when located on the same lot and not involving any business, profession, trade or occupation. (h) Private garages and carpor-ts. (i) Publicly owned buildings, public utlllty buildings, telephone exchanges, transformer stations and substS1tions without storage yard, after approval granted •by ·t he Board of Appeals. 7:02 Every building or structure in R-3 Districts shall be built and used as single or multiple dwellings wi.tb or without attached garages except as otherwise specifically allowed in later articles of this Ordinance. 7:03 Not more than six family units shall be included in any s,tructure erected within R-3 Districts. Such structures shall be continuous, with unbroken foundation lines and a single roof. 7:04 The enclosed living area shall be not less than one thousand (1000) square feet plus five hundred (500) square feet of 18 �enclosed living area for each dwelling unit in excess of two uni-ts and designed for other than transient occupancy. 7:05 ~ i Dwellings and units of dwellings shall not be constructed or used in R-3 Districts for transient rental. Structures designed for or used as Hotels, Motels, Rooming· Houses or Boarding Houses are confined. to Commercial Districts (C), only. ARTICLE VIII SUBURBAN FARMS DISTRICT (SF) I In a Subul"ban Farms District no building or land may be used except for either residential or truck gardening purposes but such use may include the raising of poultry and animals and the proper housing thereof and necessary accessary buildings for permitted uses. ~Ol 1 However, the continuous non-conforming use as agricultural land -of areas occupied and used as farms at the time of passage of this Ordinance shall not be in vJola-tion of this Ordinance. · "· No dwelling shall be erected, altered or moved mto this District which provides less than seven hundred twenty (720) square feet of enclosed living space on- the ,.fiJ:st floor and otiherwise conforms to the minimum requi'.r~ments estab/isbed for dwellings in R-1 Districts u.n der ,this O1'dmauce. 8:03 -~ yards in this di.s trict shall have a minimum width of two hundred (200) feet a·t the front building line and the total lot area shall be not less than forty thousand (40,000) square feet per dwelling. · · 8:05 TOILETS. No outside privies shall be permitted in this district, and all dwellings shall be equipped with inside toilets connected with adequate septic tanks. REFUSE. No piles nor accumulations of refuse or manure shall be permitted in ·this district unl-ess they be at least seventy-five feet (75) from all boundary lines. 8 :07 HEALTH. All dwellings in this district shall be subjec·t to the provisions of the Ordinance and Building Code. · 8:08 TRAILER COACHES, etc. The use of trailer coaches, tents, · or por-ta•ble dwellings shall not he considered either as a dwelUng nor permitted as a legal accessory use in this District. 8:06 8:09 ROAD SiIDE STANDS shall be permitted if they are not otherwise in violation of law or regulation. 19 �I I ARTICLE IX AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS (A) 1 In (A) Di.stricts, except as otherwise provided for in this Ordinance, all buildings shall be erected and all land shall be used only for one or more of the following specified uses: One-family dwellings. b) ;Public, pa.r-0chial, private and nursery schools, churches, community buildings, municipal facilities, municipal parks and playgrounds. ) General farming, including horticulture, dairying, livestock and poultry raising, farm forestry and similar bona fide ag. ricultural enterprises or uses of land and struc-tures, except farms operated wholly or in par,t for the disposal of garbage, sewage, rubbish, offal and wastes from rendering plants. d) Farm buildings and greenhouses. e) Truck gardening and nurseries. f) Private parks, gun clubs, golf courses'. ~nd golf driving ranges and game refuge areas. g) The rai.sing of animals for medical experimentation, dog kennels and public and private riding sta.bles and riding academies may be permitted by •the Zoning Board of Appeals subject to the conditions specified in ,the Zoning Ordinance. h) The raising of fur ,bearing animals where the lot area is sufficient in size ·to provide not less than two hundred (200) feet between any lot line and any strueture, cage or pen, housing such fur bearing animals. i) Public utility transformer stations, substations and gas regulator sta·tions without service or storage yards. j) Cemeteries including animal cemeteries or the extension of existing cemeteries on approval of the Township Zoning Board of Appeals. k> Carnivals, outdoor circuses or migratory amusement enterprises subject to the approval of the Board of Appeal& 1) Airports, landing fields and platforms, hangers and other facilities for the operation of aircraft and the extension of such facilities on approval of the Board of Appea.Is. m) Accessory buildings or structures and uses customarily inC.~d,en tal -to any of the above uses when located on the same property. ~ J 20 �n) Road side stands if not otherwise in violation of law or regulation. 9: 02 BUIDDING HIEIGlHT In (A) Districts, no residential buildings, hereafter erected or altered, &hall exceed tJ:lirty-five (35) feet or two and one~half (2½) stories in heigh-t. No barn or prlnclpe.l farm building shall exceed forty (40) feet in height. Provided, however, public or semi-public buildings, churches, cathedrals, temples, hospitals or schools may be erected to a height of fif ty-five (55) feet w.hen set -b ack from all l ot lines not les.s than one (1) foot in addition to the required yard dimension for each foot such building exceeds thirty-five (35) feet. 9 :03 LOT AREA In (A) Districts, every lot ah.all have an area of not less than ten (10) acres, and shall have an average width of not less than one-folll'th (¼) the average depth of th"e lot, provided., however, that a lot shall not be required to have a width greater than three hundred' fifty (350) feet. Any dwelling or dwellings construc-ted for, tenants or used as a residence shall comply with the requir~¢ents of the R-1 Districts. ,·. ARTICLE X MINING DISTRICTS (M) In a Mining District no land or buildings shall be. used or erected except as provided .by this Ordinance. 10: 01 Residences and the use of residences built in Mining Districts must meet the minimum requirements established for R 1 Districts. 10:02 Mining, quarrying and excavating must be conducted in agreement with the provisions of this Ordinance. 10:03 Processing plants mu.st be approved as safe and properly constructed by the Township Building Inspector. 10:04 No gravel, sand, stone, peat or other natural materials and minerals shall be mined, extracted, or removed in any part of Addison Township to which this Ordinance applies unless a permit for such work has been issued by the Township Building Inspector. Provided, however, that the intent of such work is that of mining for intended profit and not a normal agricultural ac-tivity. 10:05 Applications for mining permits shall be made in writing 21 �and proper public notice shall be accomplished before a public hearing on the application. 10:06 Approval by the Township Board shall be subject to the posting of a corporate surety Bond for the faithful performance of applicable land restoration requirements as set forth by this Ordinance and by the 'I'ownship Board of Appeals. 11 I ·! 10:07 Said ,b ond shall be in the amount fixed by the Township Board, but not less than ten thousand ($10,000) dollars and shall be with iSurety approved by the Township Board. Said bond shall specify the time far the completion of all the applicable requirements and land restoration. Such permit shall be renewed for like periods, provided an application accompanied by bond is filed within six (6) months befor,e any expiration date, with the said Township Board of Appeals as provided herein in case of original application, provided the applicant is carrying out the requirements of his permit in good faith and there exists no judicial determination at said time to the contrary. · 10:r:JB All equipment used for mining shall be constructed, maintained and open.ted in such a manner as to eliminate, as far as practicable, danger, noises, vibrations or dust which are injurious or annoying to persons living in the vicinity. 10:09 No mining shall be permitted nearer than fifty (50) feet to the boundary of the district designated nor shall such production •b e permitted nearer than fifty (50) feet to the boundary of an adjoining property within any such District unless the written c-o nsent of the owner in fee of such adjoining property is first secured. 10:10 No excavation shall be made closer than seventy five (75) feet from the right-of-way line of any existing or platted street, road or highway, except mining of sand and gravel may be conducted within such limits in order to reduce the elevation thereof in conformity to the existing elevation of the adjoining and existing or platted street, road or highway and provided ,further, however, that the excavated area shall be •b ackfilled within twelve (12) months for a distance of one hundred and fif·ty (150) feet from •the rightof-way line of any existing platted street, road or highway to assure an elevation in conf_o rmity to the existing eleva.tion of the adjoining pla·tted street, road or hlghway. 10:11 All excavation must either be made to a water producing depth, such depth to be not less than five (5) feet mea,. sured ,from the low water mark, or graded and backfilled with the strippings, to assure the following: 22 �a) 1 ,! "' Th::1.t the excavated area will not collect and permit to remain therein stagnant water. b) That the surfac•e of such are,a ,be backfilled with the strippings, over-burden and top soil removed from the excavation and grad'ed as necessary so as to reduce peaks and depressions thereof .to ·a surf.ace which will result in a gentle rolling •t opography. The banks of all excavations shall be •backfilled and graded as provided herein and shall be sloped at a slope which will not be less than one and one-half Cl½) feet horizontal to one (1) foot vertical and said ·b ank shall be sodded, or surfaced, with a minimwn of siX (6) inches of suitable soil and the same shall be seeded wi-th grass seed. c) To plant ·t rees, shrubs, legumes or grasses upon the parts of such area where revegetation is possible. 10:12 The banks of all excavations not backfilled as here provided shall be sloped to the water line at a slope which shall not be less tl\an one and on·e-half (1½) feet horizontal to one 1 (1) foot vertical and said bank shall •be sodde,cL or surfaced with a minimum of six (6) inches of suitab~' ~oil, and the same be seeded with grass seed. · •, 10:13 Whenever the permi,t hereof shall have explrl}q. or whenever any excavation shall have been abandoned for any period exceeding twelve (1'2) consecutiv,e months, ,t hen all plants, buildings, structures (except fences), stockpiles and equipment shall be entirely removed from such property. 10:14 No machinery or equipment shall be operated, and no trucks, trailers, or other conveyances shall be loaded or unloaded in a District dm-ing the hours between 7: 00 o'clock P.M., and 7:00 o'clock A.M. 10:15 All reasonable care mus,t be exercised to prevent danger or harm to employees and to the public. Provisions here established for mining shall also apply to the drilling for and the extraction of oil or other m1nerals. ARTICLE XI COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS (C) In a commercial district no buildings shall be erected or used and no land shall be used except as provided by this Ordinance. 11 :Ol Residences as permiotted in Districts R-1, R-2, and R-3 may be constructed and used according to the provisions of this 23 �Ordinance related to residential use and construction. 11: 02 Public and ecclesiastic buildings and properties; schools, hospitals (other than men•tal institutions), parish houses and clubs may be erected and used subject to the Township Building Code and other· provisions of this Ordinance. 11 :03 Subject to other p1·ovisions of this Ordinance and fJhe Addi- ,I ii son Township Building Code, buildings may also be erected and used for one or more of the following purposes: a) The executive or administrative offices or de()artments of professional, philanthropic .and commercial activities, theaters and other places of amusement and recreatton; mercantile esta.blishments for the sale of goods at retail; public garages, and the repair, conversion, alteration, finishing, assembling, fa•b rication or storage of goods or sale at retail on the premises; provided there is not in connection therewith •the operation of any madhinery or the conduct of any process or activity or the storage or display of goods in such manner as to ,be noxious, or offensive by reason of the emission of odor; n.9ise, fumes, dust, smoke, waste, vibration or activity involving the use of machinery in excess of five horsepower, except with the approval of the Board of Appeals. · b) A motor supply station when so arranged and maintanied as not to aHect ad-versely ·the normal development or use of nei-ghboring property in the same District or adjoining when permitted by tlhe Board of Appeals. c) Apartment houses, multiple dwellings, hotels and motels. All buildings, erected, altered, or moved into this district to be used for the housing or two or more families, either permanently or transiently shall conform to the requirements ,for other buildings permictted in this oistrlc;t except ,a s follows: 1) Area of Lot. A minimum width of one h~ndred 000) feet at the front building line, tog-ether with an a,rea of not less than twenty thousand (20,000} square feet, provided, !however, that in dwellings housing more than two (2) families the lot area shall be increased ten thousand (10,000) square feet for each additional family. 2) Side Yards. There shall be a minimum side yard width of ten (10) feet on each side of every princip;[e building. For 'buildings containing moi:e than two (2) famiUes thls width shall increase three (3) feet per family for each side yard, however, this shall not 24 �require in any case a greater side yard width than twenty (20) feet. 3) Rear Yards. There shall be a minimum rear yard of fifteen (15) feet for every lot, which shall not include any space alloted for parking areas. 4) Area of Buildings. For apartments, multiple dwellings, and motels housing two (2) or more families and containing complete housekeeping units, the floor area shall contain not less than four hundred twenty (420) square feet per family exclusive of any garage, accessory building or utility room spac-e and this area shall be divided into not less -than two (2) rooms and one (1) bath. For motels where no housekeeping facilities are provided the floor area of each unit shall contain not less than two hundred fifty (250) square feet and shall be divided into not less than one (1) room and one (1) bath. 5) Parking area. A definite ,allocating of space for offstreet parking of not less than two· ,hundred (200) square feet exclusive of driveways a,n,~ ,other areaways shall ,be provided and set aside for each dwelling unit for the purpose of parking motor 'y-ehicles. In case of par.t ial occupancy such .as .c,ammercial and dwelling, this space shall be in addition to that set aside for commercial purposes. · ii :04 Signs and other advertising structures will be permitted subject to the following provisions: · · Permits. A permit shall be required for each sign and shall be obtained from the ,bu.ilding inspector. Tl:_le original permit shall be issued for a one year period and may be renewed for ,a like p_eriod upon application qf a..t l~ast 30 days before the expiration date of the earlier permit. Signs -0r billboards will. not be permitted in or immediately adjoining residential sections except as described under "exceptions" in ,this section. b I Construction Requirements. Each sign or outdoor advertising structure shall be constructed in a sale and workman-like manner, and the provisions of the Americ:rn Stand<1rd Buildim; Requirements for Signs and Outdoor Display Structures, issued by the American Standards Association, shall apply. Each sign shall be properly maintained to irisure good appearance and safety in the area surrounding each sign, and shall be kept clean and free of rubbish or debris. Each sign shall be plainly marked with name of persons or firm owning same. a) 25 �cl Setback. Each sign shall be set back a distance of at least fifteen (15) feet from the public right-of-way line and a distance of at least three (3) feet from adjoining property lines. d) Excep,tions. The provisions of the Section shall not apply to signs concerning produce grown on ,t he premises, real estate signs, advertising the sale of premises or professional signs providing, however, that suclh signs are not in excess of twelve (12) square feet. 11:05 Construction and operation of public utmty buildings, ,telephone exchang-e buildings, transformer stations and substations is permitted in this district but storage yards and water sewage pumping stations may not .be oper.ated in a Commercial District. 11 :06 F-0r all buildings other ,than dwelling units in this District, parking area equal to the total floor area of the building must be provided adjacent to the building and exclusive of public parking otherwise available. ,, .ARTICLE xn INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS 12: 01 Within approved manuf-acturing districts, legal uses and buildings are allowed if •t he trade, industry, occupa.tion r or activity is not injurious, noxious, otfensive or hazardous by reason of odor, dust, fumes, smoke, noise, vibration, fire or explosion danger, or unsightly because of open storage or other causes. 12:02 If application is made for approval of an industrial or manufacturing operation having in the opinion of the Township Zoning Board, objec,tiona ble, noxious, offensive, hazardous or unsightly charac_teristics, an open bearing may be had before the Board of Appeals but no permit shall be issued unless the majority of property owners within 2000 feet of the perimeter of the site of .t he prc;,posed activity shall have .been properly notified at least five days prior to the open hearing ·before fille Board of Appeals. 12:03 All buildings permitted in Residential and Commercial Districts may be erected if first individually approved by the Board of Appeals but must comply to ResidentLal or Commercial limi.tations as set forth by this Ordinance and applying to the type of Building involved. 26 �12 :04 All buildings erected or used for manufacturing purposes shall be of fireproof masonry construction not more .than 35 feet in height and shall comply with all Federal, State and County laws ,and regulations in relation to health, sanitation and safety of the persons frequenting ,the buildings or grounds, or exposed to the manufactured waste products of the manufacturin,g or processing activity. l I 12:05 For all Buildings, ofiller than dwelling units in this District, parking area eq,ual to ·the total floor area of the Buildings must be provided adjacent to the buildings and exclusive of public parking otherwise available. ARTICLE XIII COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL DISTRICTS 13:01 Residences constructed, moved to or occupied in CR DiStricts shall meet minimum standards established by this Ordinance for residences. 13: 02 Commercial or Industrial buildings other · -t han those expressly erected or used in direct connection : W'ith commerc.ial recreational activities are prohibited. -~ .- ' 13:03 Commercial buildings erected •or used fol' the ordinary and normal legal activities of commercial recreit,ion shall meet or exceed all specifications and requirements established for Commercial Structures within a Commercial District. 13:04 The distinction between Commercial Recreation and Public or Private Recreational use is defined as being that Commercial Recreational Activities ,are conducted for the purpose of. achieving profit and a charge is made for allowing the public or participating members to use equipment, facilities, buildings or grounds for sports or outdoor recreational purposes. 13 :05 Relating to thE! use of Commercial Recreational Areas, all activities prohibited or restricted for Agricultural Areas are also prohibited in Commercial Recreational Areas, even though directly connected with the recreational activities involved. ARTICLE XIV PUBLIC PROPERTY OR INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICTS 14:01 In all P Districts, except as otherwise provided by this Ordinance, all buildings shall be erected and all land shall be used only for one or more of the following purposes: 27 �a) b) c) All uses permitted in A, R, or CR Districts. State, MetropolHan, County or Municipally owned and operated parks and parkways -and accessory facili-ties. State, County, Municipal, Township or Legal Non4Profit Organization buildings and facilities. 14:02 Buildings erected or moved to be used as residences shall meet all minimum requirements established in tlhis Ordinance for single family residences. 14:03 YARDS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES. No minimum yards shall be required, provided, however, no building or buildings, in conjunction with any park or parkway use, shall be located closer than one hundred (100) feet from any other property in private ownership. 14:04 BUILDING HEDGHT LIMIT. In P Districts no building, herea-fter erected or altered and used for private residence purposes, &hall exceed ,t hirty-five (35) feet in -height or two and one-hal-f (2½) stories. Institutional buildings may be constructed to any height as shall be approved by tlhe Sta,te Fire Marshal's Office. ,_ : , 14:05 -PARKING adjacent to buildings other than residential shall ,be provided and the of.f-str~t total of such parking area shall •be no less -than equal to the floor space enclosed within the buildings. ARTICLE XV TRAILER COURT DISTRICTS 15:01 In all Trailer Court Districts, except as otherwise here provided, buildings shall be erected and land shall be used only for one or more of tlhe following uses: a) All uses permitted in R-1 Districts. b) For mobile home parks or trailer coach parks on approval of the Board of Appeals at open hearing and subsequent to 5-day notification of the majority of the property owners within 2000 feet of the proposed perimeter of the• Trailer Court site. c) The use of trailers, tents or portable structures for human habitation is hereby prohibited except that trailer camps may be established by special permission granted by the Board of Appeals at a hearing as described under item ",b", aibove. d) Wlhen permission for a trailer camp or mobile home park District is granted, such permission shall be in wriiting, 28 �I 'I together with a definition of the health, sanitary, safety and protective measures to be followed by the applicant and by his lessees, rentees or tenants. Decision of the Board of Appeals on matters of health, sanitation, safety and protection shall be guided by site, area, nature of adjoining districts, county\ regulations and by current ordinances in adjoining townships at the ,time •the District is approved for trailers and mobile homes. Conditions may not be established which are discriminatory against the applicant or against residents in adjoining areas. ARTICLE XVI ADMINISTRATION The Addison Township Board is authorized and directed to enforce all provisions of this Ordinance. It may appoint an administrative official or assign to the Building Inspector the duty of enforcement. The appointed person shall, for the purpose of ;this Ordinance, have the powers of a police officer and he may delegate this authority to assistants. ·-.. ; ARTICLE XVII " , ·, ·' '·...~ ~- BOARD OF APPEALS 0 17:01 POWERS AND DUTIES. The Board of A~peals shall consist of three members, who shall :be appointed and have the duties, responsi'bilities and powers that are provided for them iby Act 184 of the Public Acts of the State of Michigain for 1943, ,as amended, and in addition may, in specific cases where ·there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in complying strictly with the provisions of ,this Ordinance adjust suc!h conditions in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Ordinance so that the public health, safety and general welfare may be secured and substantial justice done. 17:02 MEMBERSHIP. The ,Board of Appeals shall consist of three members. The first member shall be the Chairman of the Township Zoning Board. The second member shall be appointed by the Township Board from its membership. The third member shall be appointed by the first two and be an elector residing in the unincorporated Portion of the Township and not currently holding an elootive ·or appointive position with the Township. 17:03 FEES FOR ABPEALS. A fee of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) shall ,be paid to the Building Inspector at the time of filing a notice of appeal from a ruling •by the Building Inspector 29 ------ - - - -- - - - -- -- - -- - -- - - - �or the Zoning Zoard. This . fee' will become a part of the Township general fund for covering the cost of the appeal. 17:04 HEARING. Applicants appealing to the Appeal Board will be notified of the -t ime and place set for the hearing as permitted by Act 184 of the Public Acts of Michigan for 1943 !ind all amendments thereto. ARTICU: XVIll CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS Provisions of this Ordinance may be changed or amendments made after majority approval of the Zoning Board, subsequent submission to and approval by the County Coordinating Zoning Committee and then submission to and adoption ·by the Addison Township Board. Public notice summarizing the change shall appear in at least one newspaper havlng substantial area circulation and such notice shall appear -at lea~ 10 days ,before decision .by the Township Board. If written protests "bearing twenty; (20) or more signa:tures of Township property owners are filed with the Township Board prior ,to vote on the change, the· amendment or clhange shall not ,be passed -except by the favorable vote of four-fif,ths (4/5) majority of the Township Board. . ARTICLE XIX ORDINANCE VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES It shaf l be unlawful for any person to erect, move, use, occupy, alter or maintain any structure or building in violation of any provision of ,this Zoning .Ordinance or to cause, permit o~ suf~r any such violation to be committed. Any such p~rson found to be in violati1:1n shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor ano. upon conviction shall be punished by a fine not exceeding .pne hundred ($100.) dollars, together wiith tJhe costs of prosecution, or by imprisonment in the Oakland County Jail for a period not exceeding thirty (30) days; or by .b oth such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the Court. :Vt shall be the responsibility of bhe offender to abate the violation as expeditiously as possible and each day such violation continues shall constitute a separate- offense. Also, the Township Board may, by wriitten resolution, order any public utility doing business in the Township to discontinue service to any violator of this Ordinance and shall assess against such violator all costs incurr~d by such utility in oarrying out these provisions: 30 �ARTICLE XX SEVERANCE OF PARTS If any portion of this Ordinance is adjudged unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, -t hat part shall be severed and such sev.;. erance shall not affect the remaining portions of the Addison Township Zoning Ordinance. ARTICLE XXI CONFLICTING PROVISIONS REPEALED. This Ordinance is not intended .to repeal, abrogate or annul any applica·b le law, ordinance, rule, regulations or permits previously adopted or issued pursuant to laws or ordinances relating to use of buildings or land; covenants or other agreements between parties except ,that this Ordinance supersedes the Addison Township Interim Ordinance of May 19th, 1955. Provided, however, that where any provision of this Ordinance imposes more stringent limitation on use of land .or ,buildings or upon land area or •bull-ding requirements, thjs Ordinance shall govern. The requirements of ,t his Ordinance shall not impair or affect these covenants, easentents, agreements or restrictions imposing greater limitations. ,, : , ARTICLE XXII EFFECTIVE DATE , The provisions of this Zoning Ordinance are h~reby declared to be immediately valid and necessary for the preservation of individual and public health, peace, saofety, morals, convenience e.nd for the enhancing of property and civic values and is established pursuant to authority granted by Act. 184 of the Public Acts of 1943, as amended. Passed and approved for publication this 16th day of March, 1959. Clerk Addison Township ROBERT A. Mc.CALLUM FRANK F. WEBBER Supervisor Addison Township 31 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Wyckoff Planning and Zoning Collection Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Planning & Zoning Center (Lansing, Mich.) (Organization) Wyckoff, Mark A. Description An account of the resource Municipal master plans and zoning ordinances from across the state of Michigan, spanning from the 1960s to the early 2020s. The bulk of the collection was compiled by urban planner Mark Wyckoff over the course of his career as the founder and principal planner of the Planning and Zoning Center in Lansing, Michigan. Some additions have been made to the collection by municipalities since it was transferred to Grand Valley State University. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Michigan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1960/2023 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Subject The topic of the resource Michigan Comprehensive plan publications Master plan reports Zoning--Michigan Zoning--Maps Maps Land use--planning Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-240 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Addison-Twp_Zoning-Ordinance_1959 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1959-03-16 Title A name given to the resource Addison Township Zoning Ordinance Description An account of the resource The Addison Township Zoning Ordinance was approved by the Township Board on March 16, 1959. Subject The topic of the resource Zoning--Michigan Addison (Mich.:Township) Oakland County (Mich.) Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/6b34c9d6baa55d98308d8ccaa1845343.pdf fc3957c13c93e75785577c114bd15ccf PDF Text Text ·'EL'i.:'.,' ,'',• r,y vr A~ .,·h, -r1r..• 1.1 1 •>..11·<1 ·- ~: fRR P,i,,,.·····,-" __ .. , .:> (:' L·'an· ,·.,~, '•b C,. . cn~~r, rrt:f~ ALBERT TOWNSHIP ,- COMPREHENSIVE PIAN : , ' Prepared by the Albert Township Planning, .Zoning and Sanitation Commission, Albert Township, Montmorency County, Michigan, with the assistance of the Northeast Michigan Regional Planning and Development Commission. September 17, 1975. �I Northeast Michigan Region P.O. Box 457 Old Hospital Building Gaylord, Michigan 497 35 The Northeast Michigan Regional Planning & Development Commission I I (51 7) 7 32-355 1 . 76-072 September 17, 1975 II I I Albert Township Planning Commission Albert Township, · Michigan Members: We II are pleased to submit the Albert 'l'ownship Comprehensive Plan. Intended as a guide for future development of the township, this plcm is based on an extensive inventory of the social, economic, institutional and p!l.ysical cha:.:-acteristics of Albert To"vmship. The desires of the corn:muni ty for its future gro·t1th have been analyzed and goals, objectives and policies have been formulated cormnensurate with thes'-.c! characteristics and desires. I I II The Comprehensive Plan is by no means an end product. The success of the plan, the realization of its concepts, can be assured only if the township actively p-.irsues the goals included within. Very truly yours •I Howard L. Anderso~ Chief Planner I • • • • • John N. Evers Intern Planner JNE/cm ~r-... C1uhov1an Oaw[Qrd Montmorency Oscoda Otsego P_reSQUC Isle �• FROM THE LIBRARY OF Planning & Zoning Center, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS • • • • • 1111 • • • No plan of this scope would be possible without the combined efforts of a variety of people in different capacities . It is not possible to list all of those who have contributed to the formation of this text, but the following have provided their time, efforts and interest in the planning process Albert Township Board William Moore Florence Moline Kenneth Rinke Raymond Hyek Eugene Thornton Albert To,mship Planning Commission David Paffi Eugene Thornton Jon Rise John Righi William Heine Bud Jones Earl Rinke Others Calvert Boyle - Zoning Administrator Clarence Smith - County Planning Commission These persons have spent - many hours of their time involved in the planning process for the township . Other individuals who have contributed their efforts include Mrs . Roberta Hanna, who provided the historical background of Albert Township; Pat Bolser of the Montmorency County Abstract Office who helped compile plat records for the land use map; and the staff of the Northeast Regional Planning and Development Commission who have provided extra efforts in the establishment of this document . 1111 1111 • • This document was prepared under the supervision of John Evers, under subcontract to the Northeast Michigan Regional Planning and Development Commission . ii Inc. �TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Letter of Transmittal Acknowledgments . Table of Contents Maps . . Tables. Figures ..... i ii iii iv V V Introduction. History . . . The Pase Planning Approach . . People . . . Activities. Services . . Environment. Goals, Objectives, Policies Goals . . . . . Objectives Population Local Government. Economic Objectives . . Residential I.and Use Commercial I.and Use . . Industrial I.and Use. Recreational I.and Use. Community Facilities Transportation . Health & Welfare Education . • Environment. Utilities. Future I.and Use . Implementation. 1 8 10 11 26 46 68 87 88 89 91 , , , , 93 . . . . 98 96 . 100 102 . . 104 . 105 107 . . 109 • 111 113 114 122 iii �I MAPS Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 I I I 24 25 26 I 30 31 32 I 21 22 23 27 28 29 33 34 35 Page Regional Setting. . . . . . • . Northeast Michigan Region . . . . . Albert 'fownship General land Use. Recreation Areas . . . . . . . . . . Proposed 40 Acre Park Facility . . 500 Mile Sphere of Influence for Tourism. Major Transportation Routes in Northern Lower Michigan. Existing-Circulation System . . . . . . . Region 9 - Railroads, Airports & Ports . • Media Available to .Ubert Township. . . . . . . . Average Well Depth of Groundwater . . Typical Ranges in Unsustained Yields, . Proposed Sewer Service Area . . . . . Lewiston Vicinity Storm Water Runoff Problem J\reas. Albert Township Sanitary landfill . • . . • . . . Public Health District 4 & Mental Health District 3 Lewiston Heal th Clinic. . . . • . . • • • . • . . . Region 2 - Department of Social Services. • • •.. Public & Semi-public Community Facilities - Lewiston Area Johannesburg-Lewiston Area School District. . .•. Cheboygan-Otsego-Presque Isle Intermediate School District . . Community Colleges in Region 9 . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . Normal Annual Precipitation Rate for 1940-69 . . . . . . . Average Rate of First Temperature of 32° or Lower in Fall . Albert Township Geologic Features . • . ..• Approximate Boundary of Niagaran Reef Oil & Gas Fields . . Albert Township General Slope . . . . . • • . . . • . . Albert Township General Soil. . . . . . . • . . Albert To,mship Slope & Soil Conditions . . ... /\lbert Township Areas of Potential Residential Development. Northeast Michigan Region - Unique Wildlife Areas . . . Albert Township Proposed Residential land Use . . . . . Lewiston Area Proposed General Commercial & Office Use. Albert To\.mship Future Industrial-Extractive lBnd Use Albert Township General Proposed land Use • . . . . . . I I iv I 4 6 28 35 36 38 41 43 44 48 51 53 54 56 57 60 61 62 64 66 67 67 69 69 71 73 74 76 80 82 85 116 118 119 121 �I II I -I I I II TABLES Number M_i gra ti.on Pat terns . . • . . • . . • . • . . . Percentage Increase in Projected Population . • Percentage of Total Population 1960 . . . . . Percentage of Total Population 1970. V Occupational Characteristics . . . . VI Employment Activj_ty Characteristics . VII Educa tional Characteristics of Persons 25 & Over VIII Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX Housing Units 13y Year St ructure 1970 . . . . . . I II III IV X XI XII XIII I 1· Page XIV Overcro,,rdin g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Suitability of Soil Types for General Farming & Forestry Degree of Limi tation for Recreational Use . . . . . . . Degree of Soil Limitation for Residential Development. Inventory of Game Species •- Montmorency· County • . • . . 11 12 15 16 17 17 19 21 29 31 75 78 79 86 FIGURES I I I I I I I l 2 3 4 Permanent - Seasonal Residents Population Distribution 1960 Population Distribution 1970. I.and Use Distribution . . . . V 13 11~ 15 27 �I INTRODUCTION Ill II II II Ill II • • •II II I • • What is a Comprehensive Plan? Any composition of people living in an area to form an identifiable community logically want to see that community develop in the best manner possible. In order to accomplish this, it is desirable to have broad guide- lines incorporated in a written document which attempts to analyze the community, its prior development and the people's needs and desires for the future. This is what this comprehensive plan does. It expounds upon those clements pertinent to the character and condition of Albert Township a nd synthesizes tllese components with the health, safety, and welfare needs of the township's residents. The result is a product· the people of Albert Town- ship can utilize in formulating their future physical, social, and economic development . Legal Jurisdiction This comprehensive plan was developed under the jurisdiction imparted to the Albert Township Planning Commission by the Michigan Townshj_p Planning Commission Act (Act 168 , P.A. 1959, as amended). One of the primary purposes of Act 168 is to provide for the health, safety, and welfare of the township's citizens by encouraging the wise allocation of existing resources "in accordance with their character and adaptability". Rationale of a Comprehensive Plan The comprehensive planning process is a rational means of meeting this responsibility, while at the same time allowing the people of Albert Township to guide the growth of their area. The comprehensive plan is an official -- 1 1 �public document adopted by a local govern~ent as a policy guide to decisions I about the pbysical development of the community. on anyone, but as a general development guide It is not lega l ly binding can indirectly determine local regulations and actions. I I The adoption of a general plan is looked upon favorably by private in dustrial and commercial interests seeking new locations, state and federal agencies concerned with community aid and local development programs, and potential residents in search of an orderly and desirable area to live . The word "comprehensive" denotes not only the physical, but also the social and economic development of the to,mship. I I I Since these tl1ree elements of the area cannot exist independently of each other, this document will consider them in light of their relation to one another. Re:?Jona1 Description Every jurisdiction is part of a larger entity which, to a greater or lesser degree, affects its operation and development. Consequently, Albert I I I I Township needs to be set in the perspective of the region and county in which it is located and should take into consideration the overall develop ment plan for the region . The Northeast Michigan Region consists of cigbt counties in the northeast section of the state incorporating 3,256,649 acres (5,088 sq . miles), of which 3,078,000 acres (96% ) is land surface and 122,000 acres (4%) is inland water surface . From the higher elevation of the western edge, tbe terrain gently slopes toward I.a.ke Huron, giving way to flatlands on the eastern boundaries . Wat er resources include numerous lakes and streams within heavily forested areas, as well as important watersheds such as: the Cheboygan . the AuSable; the Pt ne; the Ocqueoc; the Thunder Bay; and I I I I I I I I �I I I I i The region is prima rily dependent upon its land and ~~ter resources. From the advent of the lumbering industry) through the utilization of cleared land for agricultural production) to the r.ecent increase in small industries and tourism) the natural amenities of the area have been the major sustainers of the population. Approximately 9Li)OOO people resided in the region in 1970. result of a relatively steady population increase since 1930. and 1960J there was a net outmigration rate of 1. !~%. This is the Between 1950 From 1960 to 1970J the region experienced a net inmigration of 2,5%J indicating an increased popularity in the area. It is felt that the majority of this increase can be attributed to an influx of olderJ retired persons returning to northern Michigan after spending their productive years in the larger urban areas of the southern part of the state. On the other hand, a large proportion of outmigration can be traced to younger people seeking jobs in these urban areas. Regional Goals Regional goals include: the promotion of population growth while de- creasing outmigration; economic stabilization through diversified employment opportunities; reduction of dependence upon public assistance; improvement in the level of working skills; the provision for adequate educational! heal th welfare_, and other public services; the promotion of independence among local governmental units while maintaining liaison in programs of regional development; balanced recreation and tourism growth; quality housing for all residents; development of a comprehensive transportation system efficiently serving the region's residents while encouraging industrial and tourism activities; adequate delivery of utility services; the preservation and enhancement of environmental resources; and the development of necessary 3 �MAP 1 _______r r REGIONAL SETTING RI:X;IOH NINE 4 �I attitudes and programs for tl1e provision of a q_uali ty environment. I I I I I I I County Descripti on Montmorency County, in which Albert Township is located, contains 555 sq. miles with approximately 97% of the area as land surface and 3% inland water. As with the remainder of the region, the county's early development and growth can be attributed to the proliferation of lumbering activity. A rail- road network was constructed to facilitate the transportation of t:i.mber, and ~~s subsequently abandoned with the decline of the lumbering industry in the first half of this century. Farming has been rather limited in the county and today remains secondary to lumbering. Commercial forests comprise 81% of the county's land area making recreation as well as lumber:l.ng the two primary land uses. From 1959 to 1967, earnings in agricu·lture decreased 102'% - the greatest • • •• • • • • • decline in the region. · Earnings in manufacturing, on the other hand, :i.ncreased 602% during the same period - the highest proportional increase in the region . From 1970 to 1975, Montmore.ncy County employment figures reflected the great est increase in all categories in tbe region; a 69. 2o/o increase in the J.EJ.bor force; a 37% increase in the nw.nber of persons employed; manufacturing employment displayed the greatest growth rate in the county - an 84.6% increase from 1970. These figures indicate the county's trend toward greater manu- facturing activity. Urbanized land comprises only 0.4% of the entire area. 5,900 year-round residents lived in the county, per square mile. * Approximately a density of 10.65 people Net migration into Montmorency County between 1960 and 1970 was 15,5% of the 1960 population, compared to 2.5% for the region and 0,3% * 1973 Population Projections of Counties in Michigan; pub. by the Planning and Policy Division, Bureau of the Budget, Dept. of Management & Budget. 1974 5 �MAP 2 NORTI-iEAST MICI-IIGAN REc; roI'~ ,-FREEWAY -PRIMARY ROADS (f. 6 )NOARY CENTERS �I I I I I I I I I • for the state, indicating a movement pattern into more rural, recreational areas . I Coordino.t ion with Northeast Michigan Regional Planning and Development Commiss ion . The Albert Township Planning ·conimission, realizing the necessary benefits derived from the development of a comprehensive plan, has worked in close associat:ion with the staff of tbe Northeast Michigan Regional Plannin ,; and De'relopment Co:nm.i.s sJ.on in tl1e prcpa.rc.ti.on of this document . The Commi ssion realiz es tbe need for purposeful and ratj_ona l control of tbe township '· s future development. 'rl'1ey intend to efficiently discharge its goverrnuental functions and r.ocj_al obligations; j_mprove the overall economy of its jurisdiction while concurrently utilizing the area 's natura l resources in the most beneficial manner possible; and provide the township's residents with the highest quality of living environment possible . Tbe goals, policies, and objectives for future develop,nent of Albert I I I I Township are the result of a series of sessions during a three month period in which tl1e various social, physical, and economic components of the town ship were analyzed and placed in proper relationship to one another to achieve an objective and fairly comprehensive perspective of current ,lnd projected conditions . The characteristics of any living environment are predicated upon t}1e people and past activities whicb contributed to its present identity. I I I sequently, a brief analysis of the history of Albert Township will provide an insight into those components which combine to s'hape the locality as 'it is today. I I Con- 7 �Ill I I • II II Ill I Iii II Iii •II II I I I • • HISTORY • The history of Albert Townsbip is primarily the lJistory of Lewj_ston . The cultural character of Albert Township is heavily assocj_ated with events which occurred in this populated area . Lewiston was platted by the Michelson-Hanson Company in 1891 and named after Lewis Jenson) a company officer. Buildings were constructed at tbis time and a sawmill began operation in April of 1892 . A second operati on) the Kneeland-Bigelow Company) was initiated by two off:icers of the Michelson-Hanson Company . By the turn of the century 1 the village population had grown to approximately 800 with the two mills employing 150 men and as mo.ny more employed in the woods. The annual payroll at this time amounted to $70,000 and freiBbt costs fo.r :-;hipping lurnl)er· rose to !);80, 000 per year. A network of narrow gauge railroad tracks tra nsported logs into Lewiston and dumped them into East Twin lake for temporary storage . These logs were brought in from seventy lumber camps with the entire area 1 from East Twin lake to tl1e village, used as a storage yard for logs . Pine was harvested without adeq_uate reforestation and was depleted after a few years. By 1911, the mills bad closed and some of the existing houses were moved out of to,m 1 while others became dilapidated. Two major fires ( one in 1911+ destroying the east side of Kneeland Street and another approximately two years later demolishing the west side of the same street) ruined most of the commercial establishments . The two lumber mills 1 while in operation, supplied electricity to the business area and lake water for fire protection After the termination of activity in the mills, hardwoods were 8 �harvested in the township and sent to Grayl i ng, via train, where they were further transported to Bay City for milling . 1929 marked the end of this phase of lumbering activity in the township . The Michigan Central Railroad l had served the Lewiston area from 1892 to 1932 . The rail spurs between Grayling and Leuiston were removed .· In its "J-ieydc.y ", Lewiston contained five hotels a nd seven saloons to G.ccommodate the 2.umbcrje.cks work ing in the vicinj_ty. T}1e Congregntiona:i. Cl1w·ch (United Church of Christ) was const ructed in 1892 and j_s the only building in to-..--i.1 with one continuous identity. Agriculture ha.1; ahm.ys played a limited role in the eonomy of tb-3 townsl·J ip. During the 18':)0's, the Home Colony Company, a lo.nd-prorn ot ion co:i:pc,r- ation from Wisconsin, sold pnrcels for small farming operatior.s. Red clover and potatoes were grown until tl1e land becarce depleted and tlie railroad, which shipped potatoes as well as lumber, ceased operations . Currently, farming within ti1e township is insignificant . Tourism began to develop around 1935 . economic forces in the towns hip . Today this is one of the major Other important contributors to the local economy are building trades and a few small manufacturing industries . Today the to,mship bas a substantially greater population (approximate ly 5,000 permanent and seasonal residents ) than it sustained in its lumber ing era . Lewiston supports about 60 places of business, has three churches, a K-12 scbool district, curling and sportsmen ' s clubs, and various service organizations. The history of Albert Township, then, shows a chronological progression from fairly intense lumbering activity, to very limited farming, to a steady increase in - residential, recreational, service and indu strial a ct ivity . 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I �I I -I I I I I I I I I I I I I I THE PASE PIANNrnG APPROACH A variety of methodologies may be used in the formulation of a compre hensive plan . Some approaches are more applicable than others to a specific locality and others a.re_ fairly general in their adaptability . . proach, formu lated 1)y trie Nortbeas t Michigan Regional PlarLriing o.nd Development Commission falls in tl1e iatter category and i.s tl1e one used in this plan. PASE (People, Activities, Services, Environmerrl:,) re:f:'ers t o the classi-fication of rna,jo:r elements Jn tbe analys:i.s of Albcx·t '.ro,mship . It is a w-a.y of looking at the townsbip ' s social, institutional, economic, physical,_ and enviromnental features o.nd processes. An important phase of this analysis, and one utilized by tbe Albert To . . .rnship Plarming Commi ssion, is the esta.blishment of a matrix, or grid, -to clarify the results of interactions between tbese elements. In this manner, the effects of an action pertaining to one element (e. e . increased housing) are clearly seen in relation to other elements (e. g . increased property tax revenues or need for more classroom space). Tho se eff ects which a re desirable can be emphasized and those deemed undesirab le can be limited or abated. In many instances, therefore, trade-offs have to be made in arriving at the optimal combination of policies the township may adbere to. The PASE data, the matrix interaction approach, and the insi ghts of township's representatives, are combined to develop the goals, objectives, and policies whicl1 reflect the characteristics and attitudes of the township. This approach is, therefore, oriented toward the adoption of a realistic and viable guide to the future development of Albert To,mship . I I The PASE ap- J.b �-II PEOPLE POPUlA'rION The character, identity, and general atmosphere of an area is deter- I II II II II I mined by the combination of its people and natural environment and tl1e interrelationships occurring between these basic elements . berent capacity to define and change }1is physica.l environment to f.Ui t his immedjate and lon r~- r a n.?;e needs, it is important to analyze the human functions occm-ri.n3 :Ln the tO\mship. These activities and characteristics of the township's residents are establisbed for tbe maintenance e.nd improvement of their living conditions . A - J,11::i;ration I'atterns and Projections Migration in A.nd out of Albert 'l'ownship represents two major socioeconomi c characteristics. • •I • • •• --• Since man has a n in- They are tbe number of people entering or lea ving t he township, which contributes to the determination of future population statistics ; and the general origins of those entering the area, helping to formulate a broad, rationa l theory of tbe economic structure of these mi-grants . As Table I indicates, a substantially greater proportion of new residents migrate to tl1e area from different counties (probably from counties in the southern section of the state) • TABLE I MIGRATION PATTERNS - PERSONS 5+ BY 1965 RESIDENTS·>E- ~ of Tota l * Same Hous e - 554 5% Different House - Same County - 133 14% Di fferent County - Same State - 238 25% Source: 1970 US Censu s - Fifth Count Summary Tape ll �I Population projections for the township simulate the most logical and rational patterns of growtb up to the year 2000, and in tbis context, cirI cumscribe the elements included in the plan. _ To attempt to predict future population for the township is precarious at the least . •I The results depend upon a combination of past events and a I logical prediction of future national, state, and regional trends. Table II denotes the percentage increase projected during each ten year interval within tbe planning period for tl1e permanent and seasonal sec tors . I As clearly indicated, the projection assumes an equal proportional increase in both sectors. The se high projection rates are reinforced by the Northeast Michigan Regfonal Plannine; and Development Commiss ion's forecast that Albert Township will experience the l a rgest proportional increase in population in tbe county between 1970 and 1990. I TABLE II PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN PROJECTED POPULATION 1960-1970 Perma.nent Seasona l Total 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 170% 58% 29o/o 22% 7% 58% 29% 22% 42% 58% 29i 22% The current and projected population figures displayed in the trend lines of Figure 1 are based upon 1974 unit service data supplied by the Presque Isle Electric Co-op. Taki ng into consideration the current energy situation and the subsequent propensity to limit seasonal and week-end travel to areas witl1in a short distance of home, more leisure time for the working class, _and the increasing tendency of people (including young adults with families) to leave urban areas and adopt more rural lifestyles, these projections are considered to be the most realistic. 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I �I F.IGURE 1 Permanent Residents I I I I I I I I . -. . , Seasonal Residents Total Population I 15,000 14,000 13,000 119~ 12,000 11,000 10,000 9,000 8,000 7500 715 I I I I I I I ./ 7,000 / 6,000 5,000 473 4,000 / / 3076 3,000 ~ / 2,000 _:92~_ / 2838 / -. ~- 2629 --A- - -A( " 84-· 1,000 1950 1960 1970 • I - _ 13 1980 1990 200( �Because ·of lower national birth rates, the greater percentage of this population growth in the township will more than likely be a result of migration into tbe area. These migratfon and popul'a.tion projection factors reiterate the need for Albert Township to optimally accommodate a sizable increase in diverse human needs, and .their expected impac~s, through proper planning and implementat.ion. J3 - A~ The median age of the res:i.dents of Albert Tow11ship in 1970 was 40. 8 years (42 years for tlle female population and 39 years for the male population). This compares with a county median age of 36.3 and a regional median of 28.3 years, indicating a propensity for older, retired people to migrate to tbe tovmsbip and the younger productive age groups to leave the area for jobs elsewhere. This phenomenon is further substantiated by Figures 2 e.,, 3, which display the population pyramids for Albert Township for 1960 and ·1970. FIGURE 2 Age l+4 65 + 59 55 64 -57 45 54 35 !+4 25 34 15 2J+ 5 14 0 4 47 ., 24 32 51 19 90 80 70 I I I I I I I 60 50 40 30 20 70 -I '~ I I 32 · 20 30 Fema.l e POPU,IATION DISTRIBUTION BY AGE ALBERT TOWNS HIP - 1960 14 I I 10 J.O I 40 50 M3.J.e 60 70 I - �FIGURE 3 Age I52 75 1 + 29! ; 65 - 74 ]56 I 79 37 35 ... 4.11- 37 25 - 311- 70 60 50 40 30 . f16 20 10 701 57 l 331 15 ... 24 i I- J.4 I 0 ... 4 5 6 80 681 45 - 54 - I 48 90 64 55 7 771 J 611 I ·- 241. 10 20 30 40 Female - 50 100 i . - --- . ---· 60 70 ·------J.----·- Male POPULt\TION DISTRIBUTION BY AGE ALBE.Wr TOWNS HIP - 1970 Compared with tbe county and region (Tables III & IV for 1960 and 1970), Albert Township shows a predominantly smaller percentage of younger age groups between the ages of Oto 44 years. There concurrently exists a relatively higher percentage of older people (45+) in the township than the county or · region. TABLE III AGE - GHOUP PERCENTAGE OF TarAL POPUIATION 1960 Albert Towns hi u County Region under 7% 10.2',t 12.81%, 14 16% 20.6% 21. 6<fo 15 - 24 9% 12. CY,L 12. O',h 25 - 44 19% 20.11%, 26.6% 45 - 64 3Cf/, 24.1% 19. 3% 65 161/, 13.(1% 8.~ Age Group 4 & 5 & over 15 80 90 1( �TABLE IV AGE - GROUP PERCENTAGE OF TarAL PORJIATION 1970 I Age Group Alber~ Township County Re5ion 1+ & under 3°'p . 6.7~ 8.5~ 5 - 14 ·19% 20.6% 23.4% 15 - 2h lo% 13.3% 15.1% 25 - 41~ 15% 17.Bt · 21. 1% 45 - 61+ 2% 25-7% 20.8% 65 2af, 15.si 11.3% & over Th~se statistics indicate two cogent needs of the township: 1. To attract production, younger age groups to the area . 2. Provide adequate services to meet the needs of the older, . . retired residents of the community. C - Occupation The working population of the township consists primarily of service, operative, and kindred workers. These groups compose approximately 39% · of the tota1 employees in the township. The vocational composition of the Albert To,mship can be seen in Table V, co:nparing the occupation cllaracteristics of the township wit}.J those of Montmorency County. 16 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I �I I I I I I I I OCCUPATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS No. in Employment by Occupation Township Professional, technical, and kindred % of Labor Force County % of Labor l~orce 35 ,10 141 9 5 1 73 5 36 10 156 11 · 17 5 99 7 Sales workers 23 7 69 4 Craftsmen, foremen & kindred workers 35 10 266 18 Operators kindred workers 71 21 300 21 Service wo rk e rs (inc. priva te hous e holds) 60 18 200 14 Laborers (e xcept farm 24 7 102 7 Fanners, farm managers Managers, officials proprietors & Clerical and kindred workers & & min e ) I '.mBLE VI EMPLOY1·1ENT ACTIVITY CHARACTERISTICS I No. in Employment by Industrv Township of Labor Force % of Labor Force % Construction 44 11 179 9 Manufacturing 74 19 417 23 65 17 399 22 Transportation 17 .4 41 2 Wholesale 98 26 316 17 Durable Goods & Retail Trade Finance, Insurance, Business & Repairs 10 · 2 50 3 Other Professional 21 5 59 3 9 2 114 6 12 3 69 3 ·21 5 145 8 .0 0 14 0 & Related Services Educational Services Public 7\dministration other Industries Communications, Utilities & Sanitary Systems Source: 1970 US Census, FifU·, Cow1t . Summary Tape 1'( �The township has the same general composition of professional and technical workers:, managers, officials, and prop)ietors as the remainder of the county. foremen. However, it retains a lower percentage of craftsmen and This particular combination of professions in Albert Township reflects the predominance of the wholesale and retail trade, and manufac turing industries. (See Table VI.) The overall analysis seems to indi- cate a need for economic opportwiity for skilled labor (craftsmen) and there seems to be a reliance upon the retail trade :i.ndustry, which utilizes unskilled and semi-skilled personnel. D - Education The educational composition of the residents of' Albert 'l'ownship is an important element in definin g its cultural and economic status at any point in time. The creativity, ingenuity, and comprebensive knowled ge of tbe I I I I I I I I I I population of the area, as well as, its ability to attract desirable economic activities, is related to educational endeavors. Table VII exhibits the completed education levels of tbe working a·ge population for the township and the county. Thirty-one percent of Albert Township's population over 25 had only an elementary education in 1970, compared to 38% for the county . age 25 and over in the township, 62</o had terminated their c Of all people i 11 cation or after high school, whereas 51'% had done so in the count y. during Seven percent of all those 25 and over in the township have had some college experience, and lo% of this aGe category in the cowity had attended college. of those 25 and over in the township were college graduates, county's 25+ population had college degrees . 18 4% While 2% of the I I I I I I I I I �These statistics direct attention to the fact that a smaller percentage of the township's residents over 25 had terrinated their education during or after elementary school than their cohorts in the county. Subsequently, compared to the county, a larGer proportion of the township's residents in this age category had a high school education. Montmorency County, however, contained a relatively greater ratio of college educated citizens. ,~1ile the township bad a greater percentage of high school graduates, the county retained a greater relative share of college graduates . In attempting to improve the socio-economic status of the township and become competitive with the remainder of the county in luring professional activities into the townsbip, the need to upgrade skills and professional capacitie s are of primary importance . Economy The economic characteristics of the township can be depicted by an analysis of employment, income, and entrepreneural activity. Industrial, commercial, service, and recreational endeavors determine the opportunities for employment and subsequent income levels. Referring to Table VI, retail trade is the largest employer in the township. Lewiston contains the majority of this type of activity including grocery stores, drug store, hardware stores, lumber yard, restaurants, bars, and gasoline stations, as well as, a variety of other retail businesses. Manufacturing is the second largest employment category. The major em- ployer in the to,msbip is Lewiston UJ.stre, manufacturer of automobile trim, wbose employment rate more or less fluctuates according to the production activity of the major auto manufacturers. The current number of employees ·at Lewiston UJ.stre stands at approxirr.o.tely 120, of which 6c:;fo are female. 20 I I I I I I I I I I I I �I I 'r I I I I I I I I I I I Other industrial operations include lumber mills and wood pallet manufa cturers, a special machinery production plant, a countertop manufacturer, and sand and gravel extraction and hauling operatibns. Other activities in the township which re~1ire professional experience include banking, real estate, insuranc_e, legal, medical, and educational services. Although there is a substantial variety of serv:i.ces and employment opportunities available in the area, the provision of mercantile, manufacturing, and professiona l services are not as adequate as can be fo~md in other nearby larger co:nrrrunities. As a result, residents and vacationers in the township must travel to these primary cent ers to secure those provisions and services which cannot be found in Albert Township. The 1970 unemployment rate for the tovmship was lower than that for the (See Table VIII) county and region. TABLE VIII Albert Township Montmorency Counti 207 965 11 84 5 8 Female Employed 99 447 %Unemployed 10 15 Male Employed Unemployed o/o Unemployed EMPLOYMENT Percent of labor Force unemployed: Source: Township - 6% County - 10.6% Region - 10.4~ 1970 US Census Fifth Count Data 21 �I Individual and family incomes in the township for 1969 were fairly similar to those in the county and region. The median per capita income for the township during that period was $2,341.ool while the county's was $2,294.00 and the region's was $2,678.00. The median family income level for the township in 1969 was somewhat less than the county or region; whereas, Albert Township sustained a $5,600.00 median, the county's level was $5,851.00 and the region maintained a median of $7,470.00. US Census Fifth Count Summary Data.) (Source: 1970 These lower income figures for the township reflect the predominance of small businesses which can not afford to offer competitive wages, as well as the absence of a skilled and professional labor force. There were forty-one families in the township in 1970 below poverty level and with no public assistance, while at the same time, nine families required public assistance to climb above poverty·level status. These fifty famiries constituted 16% of all families in Albert Township, which compared favorably to the 19% rate for families in this income category in the county. Overall, 6% of ail persons under 65 in the township were below poverty level in 1970; whereas, 13% of all the county's 65 and under residents were in the same economic category. (Source: 1970 US Census Fifth Count Summary Data.) The statistics, then, indicate that while the overall income level of the township's residents was lower than the county or region, there was not as great a distribution on the lower end of the income scale. Government The ability of the township to maintain its present resources and to provide - for the future needs of its residents lies in the degree of sopbistication the local government, with county, state, and federal assistance, 22 I I I I I I -I I I I I ,1 I I I I I I �I I displays in its decision making efforts. Local policies, programs, and res- ponses to citizen needs and desires is dependent upon the interest shown by, and innovative capacities of, the members of the township board, planning commission, and various local advisory bodies. I I I I I I In order to promote needed programs and changes and assert their constitutional rights, the -citizens of Albert Township should understand tbe people and processes involved in local decision making. Since Albert Town- ship is an unchartered township, its powers in exercising home rule are limited. agencies: Various governmental services are provided by state and county Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Montmorency County Road Commission, District 2 Mental Health Services, District Health Department Number 4, and Social Service District Number 2, to name a few. The Albert Township Board is the administrative and legislative branch of the local government; making decisions pertaining to fiscal spending, government services, physical development, and other matters of local con~ I I I I I I I I I cern. It is composed of five elected members. The To,mship has various appointed boards and commissions including the Planning, Zoning,and Sanitation Commission; and the Police and Fire Administration Board. The Planning Commission was created in 1969 under Act 168 of the M_j_chigan Public Act of .1959, as amended. The Commission's charge is to guide the growth and development of the township while promoting the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. This entails holding hearings and making rec- ommendations on zoning changes and various requests and proposed development plans, and engaging in the .formulation of a comprehensive plan for the township. r·'• The Police and Fire Administration Board is appointed by the township supervisor to oversee the operation of the Police and Fire Departments. 23 �Recommendations are then made to the township board, which makes ~he final decisions on these manpower, equipment and monetary requisitions . f The township was the first in the county with its own zoning ordinance and building code, a reflection of the comprehension and foresight of local decision-makers in matters pertaining·. to growth . It is the responsibility of the loca l citizenry to insure that gove rnment keeps abreast of the needs of the area in light of new de velopment . This re- quires individual and group interest in local matters, a will ingness to respond financially and voluntarily, and insight mixed with innovation on the part of local elected and appointed officials . I I I I I I I I I I I 24 I I I I I I I �.f • • • • II II • • • • • I TOWNSHIP BOARD (5 Elected Members) Planning Commission Police and Fire Administration Board (5-9 Appointed Members) ALBERT TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE 25 �ACT T V '- E S �-I I I ACTIVITIES General Land Use: The physical development Albert Township is an outgrowth of the resident's attraction to, and confidence in, its social and natural environment. Spatial form, the proximity of various land uses to one another, is the expression of economic opportunities and constraints, accessibility, and aesthetic considerations. To facilitate the quality of living in the township, whereby these economic, social, and aesthetic considerations are optimized, the best quantity and distribution of the various land uses in the township need to be realized. (See Figure 4.) Analyses of current land use will expose existing assets and liabilities for accommodating human activities and protection of the environment. Map 3.) (See Knowledge of these characteristics is necessary for the formulation 1 of future plans for the township. I I I I I I I A - Residential Land Use -I bf Until now, the greatest residential activity has taken place in Lewiston and on properties surrounding East and West Twin Lakes, as well as, Big and Little Wolf Lakes. In these areas, the current density is approximately 1.53 persons per acre, the highest in the township. The majority of commercially sold residential subdivisions can be found in the Lewiston-Twin Lakes area, many dating back to the 1920's. Later subdivisions are located in outlying areas, primarily due to the fact that the Twin Lakes and Wolf Lakes areas have been substantially platted and developed. At the present time, there are over 3,000 of these subdivision parcels, and about 825 or approximately one-quarter have been developed for residen- tial use. �FIGURE 4 74.7% 32.7% Agriculture' 52 .0% Fore sted Land FORESTED 3. 2% Transp. · LAND 1. 7% Recreation .0% Urbanization Region 9 State 3.0% Urban 1.0% 8.0% AGRIC. l. 9% TRANSP. 0. l % REC. 80.8% 47.0% 49.0% Forested Land FORESTED vacant Land LAND. Albert Township Montmorency County I.AND USE DISTRIBUTION 27 �.MAP 3 ALBERT TCMNSHIP EXISTING GENERAL LAND USE Scale: l" Medium Density Residential Rural Residential & Open Space State Forest I~ commercial . [t)~'.N\U}Wi(W/:/W:I Industrial I- Primary Roads - ,~, Michigan Cross State Cycle Trail \,' 28 = 1. 37 Mi. �The more rural residential units are located on 5, 10, and 20+ acre privately owned parcels dispersed throughout the1township. The majority of I I I these are currently being utilized as seasonal residences for summer and winter vacationers. There are over 600 of these residential units in Albert Township not constructed within subdivisions; and of the over 1400 total dwelling units, approximatel y 130 (9%) are mobile homes or trailers. Housing quality and design ranges from simple one or two room huntin~ and vacat:i.on cottages to large ranch style homes. Even thou gh many of these ·1arger well built residences are now used for seasonal living, they can potentially be used as year round dwellings. Table IX depicts the chronological development of residential land use in Albert Township. TABLE IX* Housing Units by year structure built (1970) Year 84 9% 1940-49 223 24% 1950-59 283 3Cffo 1960 - 64 184 19% 1965-70 150 16% 1939 * c/o of Total now existing Number ) ~ 35% Source: 1970 US Census Fifth Count Summary Data The greatest percentage of residential units were built between 1960 and 1970 (35%), an increase from the preceding decades. There has been a steady increase since 1939 in the number of total units built in the township. 29 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I �I I The percentage of these housing units that have been occupied (full-time residences) has remained constant as a percentage lof total units in the tmmship (approximately 39%). I I I I I I These statistics tend to reiterate the steady proportional increases in projected permanent and seasonal residents, as well as, the 58% projected population increase per decade . The quality of living conditions can be determined by the analys is of overcrowding 2.nd lack of plumbing facilities found in the township's housing stock and the average value of o'l-mer occupied residences in tl~e area. Table X compares overcrow<linG and plumbing faciliti e s rates for the county and the townsliip. 'l'here are proport:i.onately more ad equa te plumbin[s and sani- tary facilities per resid.e ntial unit in tl1e to'l-mslJip than the county. Home ownership in Albert Townsbip is relatively greater tban in the county (92% of all units compared to 86% for the county). 'l'his would indicate a rela- tively greater interest among townsbip residents in decisions affecting rea l property. Additionally, home o,mers would tend to have higher incomes than non-owners and be more stable in tenure than the more transient residents in rental hous:i.ng . Tbe average value of owner occupied residences in Albert To'l-msbip in 1970 was approximately $1L~, 000, compared to $12,000 for the county as a whole. If all of the existing subdivision parcels were developed, a total of about 9,060 people would reside in them (at 3.18 persons per unit). Since this is the projected population for 1992, there would seem to be an adequate number of tbese parcels now existing to satisfy the potential population demand at least until 1992. However, a large number of lots are inadequate in size under existing local standards, and they may have to be combined to 30 �facilitate development. Under these circumstances, and to maintain a variety in types of development, provision should be made for additional I planned subdivisions in the township. I TABLE X* Overcrowding Township No. County % No. 'f: 1970 0\-mer Occupj_ed Uni ts: 1 or less persons/room 1.1 - 1.5 persons/room 330 1~3 1+ 29 153 18 10 194 40 124 843 I I Units Lacking Some Plumbing Facilities: Occupied ·X-Source: vacant year rot,i.nd units & 17%, 1970 US Census Fiftb Count Summary Data B - Commercial and Office Activity Commerce and the economic activity it perpetuates is of prime importance in determinine the welfare of the township. I I I Renter Occupied: 1 or less persons/room 1.1 - 1,5 persons/room I I I The provision and distri- bution of commercial facilities are often dependent upon the size and socio- I I I I economic characteristics of the area they purport to serve. seasonal residents who desire non-durable goods and whose needs are somewhat I I different than those who live in the area throughout the year. I In Albert Township, commercial activity serves the permanent residents who bave needs for more durable items; however, it is more ' oriented toward The majority of residents are attracted to the area, not because of its commercial opportunities, but primarily because of the existing natural amenities and rural characteristics. 31 I I I ... �-I There is currently a variety of retail facilities available to fulfill immediate needs, but these are limited in the quantity, quality,and variation of items which are offered. I I I I I I I The gr~atest dive~sity and opportunity for choice exists in the grocery and restaurant bu sinesses . There are five outlets in the township where grocery items can be purchased, rangin~ from three larger stores in Lewiston to two smaller resort-type facilities outside the central business area. Restaurants are among the most prolific of c2mmercial activities, and are mostly located :Ln and around Lewiston . These facilities enjoy peak business during the summer months, declining in activity durin.1 the w:inter. Other comrnerd.al activities, t}1e majority located in Lewiston and e.d,jacent to East and West Twin Lakes, :i.nclude gas stations, hotel-mote.l--res or t establishments, sporting goods stores, motorized sports equipment sales outlets, drug store, barber and beauty shops, clot'hing stores, hardware stores, and several other independently run businesses. There are real estate offices, insurance offices, lega l offices, a banJ~, a telephone facility, and a Chamber of Commerce Information Center, providin~ professional services to the community. C - Industrial Activity Industrial and industrial related activities in Albert Township are one of the major sources of employment, especially those pertaining to the manu facturing of non-durable goods. (See Table VI - Page 17. ) The phenomenon is somewhat surprising, considering the rural - seasonal character of the township; but a potential trend toward dispersed, smaller industrial units in small communities may make this activity more common. Some of the rationale behind industrial location in a small community 32 �include the f ac t that people are more involved in tbeir work situation, there is a lower absenteeism than in larger urban areas, and property ta.xes are generally lower . Additional potential for atfracting industry into the township lies in the provision of an industrial park for efficient, minimum cost operation; recreation and leisure amenities; and the absence of traffic con;estion in daily employee work trips. The tm~1shi p currently hns a 40 a cre designated industria l park, en compass in g nine subdivided parcels located north of Lewiston. Par;e 28 . ) (See Map 3 - There are also several other industrial acti v:i.ties disper se d througr1out the a:cea ir:c 1udin3 a pullet manufacturer, truckin,s; company, countertop manufacturer, special equipment manufacturer,- several home construct:i.on companies, plurnb :i.ng and ele ctr:i.cal contractors, well drilline; companies, petroleum products distributors, sawmills, woodcutters, ready-mix concrete plants, and exca,~ting companies . Tbe largest single employer in Albert Tovmship is Lewiston lustre, manufacturer of metal automotive trim . Employment in this or ga nization fluc- tuates according to activity in the automobile industry and currently employs approximately 120 personnel, 60% of which are female . 'l'he largest percente.ge of industrial related employment is in tbe "operatives and kj_ndred workers" category (21%) . "Craftsmen, foremen, and k·indred workers 11 ; "professiona l, technical, and kindred workers" ; and "managers, officials, and proprietors" each constitute 101, of the total labor force. "Laborers 11 compose approximately 7% of the total labor force . Therefore, the range of occupational categories in industry-oriented activities is mainly composed of semi-skilled labor, with craftsmen and other skilled workers primarily engaged in tlJose occupations related to physical development (construction, heating and plumbing, electrical contractors ). 33 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I �D - Recreational Activity Albert Township's identity lies primarily in its rural .recreational atmosphere. The low population density (approxi~ately .12 persons/acre) makes it an attractive area for open-space· recreation. Most of tbe recrea- tional activity takes place during the summer months and is generally oriented toward aquatic sports and outdoor camping . The 1316 acre West 'l'win and 830 acre East 'l'win Ls.kes, as well as, Little Wolf and Big Wolf I.r.1kes , (See Map 1+.) are the predominant recreational areas. Within 15 miles are Tee, Snyder, Big and Little Bear, Avery, and numerous otl1er lakes, as well as several streams, providin g a variety of fish habitats . There are two state forest campgrounds - Avery IE.ke and Little Wolf lake - witb :in the toun- • • • • • • • • • • ship and one - McCormick I1.1ke - located in Briley Township. 45 campsites. Avery J.ake has Little Wolf Lake contains 33 campsites and 12 ca10p sites are available at McCormick Ll.kc. In addition, Sage Lake Flooding l1as provisioP-s for boating and sanitary facilities . Four seasonal resorts are located on East Twin and I-lest Twin IB.kes and two are i.n the Little Wolf I..ake area . Two local picnicking and recreational parks are located in the Lewiston area, along with public and private bathing, and boat launching areas on East and West 'l'win IB.kes. A ski area., snowmobile trail, curline club, and bowling alley provide winter recreational activities . The township is presently attempting to establish a 40 acre park. Map 5.) (See This area is to be designed as a major recreational facility con- taining a variety of outdoor activities • Game available for hunting include deer, wild turkey, rabbit, woodcock, and ruffed grouse . The Michigan Cross State Cycle Trail is in the eastern ~ 34 �I I I MAP 4 J. McCORMICK .Q. LAKE CAMPGROUND 0 GOLF COURSE_ Jffi::R.EA. TI ON Aru1\ S 1~~1 Michiga n Cross State Cy cle Tra il ~~ Woodcoc k ··,. J.\ P.F.sf P}M'.:\}'./!i./\ri\:'J)));:";)_: :J l-----1 & Ruffed Grouse Area Public Fish.i.ng Site ski Area Source: "Autumn Color & Bird Hunter Guide" Montmorency Tribune 9-13-73 Snowmobile Trail 35 I I I I I I �I I I I I I I I I MAP 5 PROPOSED 40 ACRE PARK :ffiCILI'IY �portion of the tmmship. An eighteen hole golf course is located several miles south on state highway 489 i n Oscoda County. A variety of local recreational and enterta inment programs a re sponsored during the year by the residents of the township including a water ski show, service organization picnics, art shows, and a winter carnival . Key elements in determining the viability and success of recreational endeavors include environmental features such as climate, s cenery, natural areas, soils, and ,,c1ter, as well as, population characteristics ( s ize, dis tribution, n~e, and income levels) and proxj_mi ty o.nd access. M:lp 6 depicts the 500 m:Lle recreational and tourism spriere of influence for Micb:i.gan . Tl1is potential wo.rl<et 112.s been reduced from an origh1al 12 state attraction radius, to the current five state area and because of the "energy crunch" may dwindle even f\trther . By tbe same t oken, those people living in the soutbern sections of Michigan will tend to limit their vacation and weekend travel distances to attractive localities nearer to borne. Con - sequently, as the less dense northeastern section of Mi chi gan becomes more popular, access becomes more of a factor in tbe total recreational field . E - Forests, Agriculture, Open Sna£~ Almost 50% (22,000 a cres) of the township is state owned land, all in- cluded in the Thunder Bay River State Forest . 'l'he predominance of state forest land extensively limits the land area which the tmms1Jip can effec tively control, and in essence affects the overall population density of the area. Some logging of oak, red, white, and jack pines, aspen , birch, and maple, which are the major forest types , occurs on both state land and private • -I •I I - II J a I I I I I I ~ 37 I �M.7\P 6 . THE 500 MILE . PRIMARY SPHERE OF INFLUENCE FOR . GREAT LAKES TOURISM DU LU 1'H GARY RADIAL DISTANCE 500 Miles NO. PEOPLE 52 million excl. Ca nada '1n OF' ·U.S.- % E. MISS. R. 50%+ Michi ~an's tour is t traffic ori g i~ates primarily from within the above circle. It al s o represents an approxi~ate one day's d r i v e to N or th c a s t M i ch i ~a. n • Be c au s c o f g e o {-;r a p h y a 1 on o , ~ e, rt h e a s t Michigan is in the center . of this large population. �property. The primary wood using industries are related to wood pallet pro- duction, sa~mill operations, paper products, and building materials. While ' state property cannot be subdivided, it can be economically productive for lumbering activities. large, privately owned parcels of forested land are being partitioned into sma ller 10, 20-, and 40 acre parcels, making these units less economical for logging. Agricultur e ha s neve r b een a s predomina nt i n Albe r t Towns bip a s it ba s -A- in otber se cti ons of t be c ount y or re c;ion, prima ril y beca u s e of tl1e l a ck of ade q_ua te t ransportat ion, 1:1. short g:rowin~ s ea s on, and s oil limitations . At one per iod in tl1e t ownsh ip' s hist ory, r ed c lover and pot a t oes ,-,er e barve s t cd a nd sldpj)ed by t rain t o otber loca litj_e s . At pr es e nt, t bcr e i s no commerc ia l agricultura l pr oduction in the township. Several f act ors belp to expla in tbis current situa tion. As mentioned earlier, tbc soils (Rubicon, Gr_a yling, Ka.lka~ka, East lake, Ma ncelona , Leelanau, a nd Emmet) ha ve generally fair to poor suitabil i ty for farming. There are only 70 to 90 frost-free da.ys. The subdivision of lare;e acreo.f,e into 10 and 20 a cre parcels limits the amount of land that can effectively be put into agricultural production. Open space (vacant) l a nd substantially defines most of the area. The overwhelmin g ma jority of land use activity in the township pertains to residential units. As the area increases in population, many of the larger vacant parcels w-111 be utilized for both small and large residential subdivisions, diminishing the supply of a vailable vacant land. With proper planning to accommodate projected popula tion growtb, the optimum utilization of the vaca nt land can be realized. 39 . �I I F - Transportation Circulation and accessibility are important elements in the viability and growth of an area. Albert Township is removed from major transportation routes in the state, which reflects both beneficial and adverse conditions I I I I I I for the township and its environment. While economic progress may be achieved by easy access for commercial and industria l shipping of materials, the existing rural chara cteristics of tl1e area could diminish. Up until now, the loca l residents of a vicinity l1av0 not had much of a voice in tlJe tran sportation decision 1uaking procesf; at the state or county leve l) so a communit y may h3.VC exper:i.enced undesirable c;rowth as a result of exprc!ss,,c1y or thorougl1i'c.re placement witbout being ab le to control sucl1 growth. Eopef'ully , today the~; e larger units of gov<:::rnrnent are more r espon - sive to local concerns . Alb ert Township has an adva.ntage, then) of beinc; able t o determine t he direction it de~ires its future to take and can u s e I the transportation system, witllin ' its boundarie·s, and in conjunction with· I I I I surrounding toWJ1:sbip s and counties, as a means of influencing its rate of growtb. Map 7 displays the major transportation routes surrounding Albert Township. Interstate 75, US 23, and Michigan 33 are three major north-south traffic arteries in the vicinity of the township while Michigan 32 crosses Montmorency County in an east-west directj_on. I-75 is the main thorough- fare for traffic originating in the more urban sections of the southern part of the state and for vacatj_oners from other states. In addition, US 131 is proposed t o adjo in I-75 on EJ.n east--west coordinate) somewhere between Frederic and Vanderbilt. Thi s will increase the accessibility to the region for traffic emanating fr om tbe Chicago area . 40 �I JAY MAJOR TPJ\N'SPOR'JJ\TION ROll 'l'ES IN NORTIIEPl-l LO,qER ~HCHIGZ\N 41 I I �I I While these traffic flows do not directly pass tbrough the township) they increase the likelihood of travelers taking 'side-trips' into the area) as well as) improving the capab ility of Albert Townbhip to be accessible to I I I I I I I industrial and commercial transport. Map 8 gives a more deta iled perspective of the township's existing transportation system. The Montmorency County Road Commission is the over- seer of roads in Albert 'rownship . surface roads and 6. 21 miles of f;econdary roads within tbe tmmship . Propo sed improvementG to 1980 include 2 miles of paving and l.09 m:i.1es of curb and gutter instalJ.ation. A county ma i.ntcnance and stora c;e c;arac;e j_s also located in tlle to.mship . Access to tllc a rea is currently achieved via three pri~Qry ru~ds: County Road 61.2 , running ea st and wc:.t from I-75; County Roc~d l1 G9) whicb links t}1e township wi tll M-72 i.n Oscoda County _; County noad ~-91 , p2.ssinG in a northsouth direction from H- 32 . I I The county maintains 22. 78 miles of primary These are two-lane t11oroug11fe.res and are used by botb auto and truck traffic. There is a privately owned airport facil:i.ty loc:i.ted close to the industrial park. It contains two grass-strip runways, one being 3200 feet long and the other 1800 feet in length and can accommodate small twin engine aircraft. It is primarily used during the swnmer months. During peak periods an average of 12 planes per weekend use t11e airport, Map 9 indicates the airports wit}1in the northeastern reGion) the largest b.eing located in Alpena. Tbis airfield serves tl1e only commercial carrier in the area and bas the capacity to accommodate jet aircraft. There are numerous commercial flights serving Bay City and Traverse City, both of which are easily accessible from Albert To,rnship. 42 Gaylord also plans to expand their �ALI3ER'l1 TOi,'NSIJIP EXISTING CIRCULA'l1 ION SYSTEH Paved Roads Graveled Roads 1--.1 1-----1 --~---- Good Dirt Roads Poor Dirt Roads I I I I I I I I I • �- MAP 9 I I I I , 'I QJ..ndian flay ) L±_I I ICH [BOYGAN I _ _i_ _ _ - , O'A_.: I {G;, v10 1d I OlStGO 1 I - l ___ I ·0.:_ I A:l:1n~c J_ 0-~· - -· - .L~:·:::~-~c.. CR/\WFO rl J cru,v,•o I : OSCO Dr, --i- i Al. CON.C< ;,Zt ,·-,0' Gfdyl1ng I \I d ::::· I AI_P[NA M0h'll.1()1~[NCY I ' ~I A11oor1 :,:~ Greet Lah<.·s Sh!'Of)1ng H,Hf)O! I I I .'i"· ..;2, IH>r \ \!" I Cl of Re l upe:, way Det,011 ~ h'1ack1n;,c RY. - - r\lcw York Ccnlri1I f(y. Source: rvl1Chi9 <1n Den;,rtn1cnt of Na1,,,a1 Rr!>ourcc~ (Nor:hca s. t tv•11ct,i9an r~e9 to nal Plr1nnin9 £ Dcveloomcnt Comrr11!,!>1on) REGION 9 - MILRCT\DS, AIRPORTS & POR'I'S I I I 44 .!.. �airport facilities to handle jet aircraft . With these major facilities, Albert Township can be considered to be readily a ccessible by air . There are no railroad lines in the town s hip Jnd the region lacks pas senger rail service. The two lines that are within the region are aligned with the major motor vehicle routes . (See Map 9.) The state is currently studying the feasibility of expanding t he rail network in Reg i on 9 to in elude passenger service . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -I 45 I �s· ERV :" ( C E S • �I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SERVICES The quality and quantity of services provided to a community either contribute to, or subtract from, its overall attractiveness. Healtb, safety, and welfare considerations are integral elements of any decisi.ons to institute and ID9.int_a in adequate police, fire, sanitary, educational, and recreational facilities and proerams . Additional conveniences, including telephone, electrical distribution, and gas and oil for l1eating and cooking, are made available to residents of the tovmship on a private or semi-public profit making basis. The provision o:f tl1ese services ( governmental and non-govern."';}ental) is dependent upon t}1e size, distribution, and econom:ic c}iaracteristics of the township. Those proGrc:"ms and ut i. lities the local government assumes respon- sibility for are supported primarily by the c ollection of property taxes. . . Conse quently, tl1e c:apaci ty to allocate required services to the res:Ldents of the townsl1i.p is dependent upon tbe ability and willingness of the residents to pay for these aJ;enibies . Pri vate and semi-public services, however, are such that economj_c :profit may be re-invested in ec1uipment and processes which upgrade the efficiency of the particular operation. Local government fi:--ids it difficult to maintain suffj_cient services while attempting to minimj_ze · property taxes. TJ1rough cooperation with other state and local agencies, additional support for instituting community facilities and services can be realized. A - Communication The role of disseminating information (verbal and visual) is allocated primarily to non-governmental enterprise . 46 As with other similar businesses, �these undertakings are profit-making concerns and theoretically provide com petitive and efficient services . Communication resources are located outside ihe boundaries of Albert Township and, hence, the tmmship has very lit tle control over the dissemi nation of news originating in the area . Publications available to the town - ship residents include the Montmorency County Tribune from Atlanta, the Detroit Free Press and the Detroit News, the Otse8;0 County Herald Times from Gaylord, a nd tlie Bay City Times . (See Map 10 ,) Cable television is not available in the area; reception is provj_ded vj_a individual antenna s . Several sta tions can be received on local television sets, including a Publ i c Broadcas ting System station. AM comrnercial rf!dio reception is limited, the nea rest transmitting stations bein~ in Gaylord and Grayling . I I I I I FM s t a tions genera te clear reception du r inG the daylii:;ht and even- ing hours, wJth a pprox:i.mately 6 stations reaching the township. Telephone service is provided by the General Telephone Company of Michi gan, which bas an exchange and storage facility in Lewiston. According to 19'/0 Census Data, 89% of all occupied uni ts in the township had telephones; assuming this rate has been consistent during the past several years, approxi mately 660 permanent residences had phone service in 1974, A Uq Post Office facility is located in Lewiston and services approximately 730 residences in the township utilizing two routes and post office boxes within the facility. Special purpose systems pertaining to police, fire, and health protection I I I I I I I I I are available in the form of radio communication units in the tllree township fire trucks, police and ambulance uni ts, and fire and· ambulance personnel. 1 1 1 47 l �.cv I I I I MEDIA AVAILABLE TO ALBERT TOvlNSHIP <> Q1B []j Weekly Newspape~ =I= TV Stations Daily Newspaper o , lH U', ) BAY ., l' ILLf I I l05£8U SH A S A B "T L. L A M I �B - Transportation No public or commercial transportation is ~vailable in the to"mship . The Jobannesburg-Lewiston Area School District provides school buses to transport students to the elementary sc11ool in Lewiston and Junior & Senior High School students from Albert and Greenwood Townships to the Jobannesburg School. C - Energy Supply Electricity was originally supplied by the lumber mills to the commercial areas of Lewi.ston. Around 1932, Presque Isle Cooperative, under the Rural Electrj_ficatJon Act, be,'5an to supply electric service to the townsliip and is now tbe source of electr:Lcal energy in tlle area . Other sources of' ene:q~y include oil and propane gas for- heating and cooking. No natura l gas utilities are located in the township, as the nearest gd.s transmission lines are loc1;1-ted in easter:n Otse80 County . The lack of natural gas service may be disadvantageous to tl1e to~ship in attempts to attract industries which may require this form of energy. D - Municipal Uti lities Since past development in Albert 'rmmship has essentially been cha.rac terized by slow -growth and low density, the capacity of the soils to G.ccommodate the water and sewage disposal needs of the area has been adequate .· As population erowtb and development has accelerated durin1s the last several years and will continue to increase substantially, the ability of these natur-al features to remain unpolluted will diminish . Even now, there are problems with waste water run-off in and around the more densely populated lakes of · the township and additional development will contribute to this problem . �I I I I I District Health Department No . 4 and the Michigan Department of Public Health have outlined four major pollution concerns pertaining to Albert Township: ' (1) Because of the more dense population and commerci a l activity in the 112wiston area and the shallow aquifier level in this vicinity, sewers should be established to eliminate water pollution; (2) The East Twin Iake area has a high groundwater level and several problems have occurred with individual sewage disposal in this area , contributing to the need for a comprehensive I I I I I I I I I I I I I I sewer syster.,; · (3) 'l'he eastern bay of West 'I'w:i.n Iake also has a hi gh water table; (!~) The proposed industrial park is encouraged to become part of a sc:rni tary sewer and water system, instead of utilizing individual sewer and water facJlities . In essence, unless action .is taken to provide sufficient sewage dispos:11 at this point in the township's development, more o.etri.mental irni,acts may oecur to the qu~:: li ty of local groundwater sources . Water Supply . dividual wells . At present , all domestic water :i.s extracted through in- Tests run by the Montmorency County Public Health Departmen t indicate that the average well depth in Sections 14, 15, 21 & 22 of the town -ship (See Map 11) is approxirr.ately 85 to 90 feet, while the average static water depth (the depth groundwater rises in the casing before it has to be pwnped) is 67 feet. Section 27, j_n which Pine Beach Subdivision and other areas adjacent to East Twin lal<e are located, has an average well depth of 38 feet and fe et average static water level. 1;1 15 These well readings tend to bear out the fact that groundwater near the lakes is substantially higher than in areas · further removed, contributing to the potential of hazardous pollution of domestic water in the vicinity of East '.I\:in and West Twin lakes. 50 It should �I I I I MAP 11 ALBERT 1ro;,rnsHIP AVERAGE WELL DEPTH FOR SEX::TIONS 14, 15, 21, 22 ., I I OF GROUNDWll. ~ & 27 ..,, 51~ I I I I �• • be kept in mind that these are average readings and the variation in water levels within an area can be substantial . The average groundwater percoJ.a t tion rate (500+ g .p.m.) is the highest in the county, as well as the region . (See Map 12,) In effe ct, there is no problem in the availability of good quality dome stic water in the township. The major problem is the potential for seepage from individual septic uni ts mixing with existing ..·a ter supplies. Sewage Disposal. Public heal th demands that adequate sanitation facili - ties, comm~nsurate with the characte r of the township and in light of incr eased densities, be cstablj_shed either on an individual or commun i ty-wic'le basis. At the present time, there is no municipal san i tary sewage system in the area; a study is being undertaken to determine the feasibj _lity of establishi ng such a system. Preliminary analysis indicates the most desirable areal distribution of sewage facilities, based primarily upon engineering principles and the topography, is the area ·where current and future resi den- -,. • t tial, commercial, a nd industrial activity is evident. Map 13 depicts the proposed ' immediate, and future service areas'. The immediate service area is based upon the dense population, high groundwater levels and commercial and industrial activ ity in the vicinity . This area is desi gnated to se rve existing and projected medium to heavy developmen t , includi.ng the northern sections of West Twin Lake, most of Ea-st Twin Lake, and an enlarged central I~wiston area . The future area is the projected range for service to low density residential areas in addition to those already served. Storm Water Drainage. Lewiston has a small 1200 ft. storm sewer system in the central business area which terminates at the edge of the district and becomes an open ditch run-off where sandy soils absorb the effluent. reported trouble areas around Lewiston are: 52 Three Flooding in the .Lions Club Park J �J - - .l .,LI,... TYPICAL RANGES IN UNSUSTAINED YIELDS TO 6 11 OR L?.\~ER DI.l\METER WELLS 100 - 500 GPM More than 500 GPM 53 �MAP 13 I ALBERT TCWNSHIP PROPOSED SEWER SERVICE ARE:l-1. Immediate Servi ce Area Future Service Area I I I I I I I I �area on Knee l and Street; flooding and ponding of run - off water in the Pine Beach subdivision; improper drainage in the vicini11Y north of S9.llings Ave nue. ( See Map 14. ) Normal storm water run - off in Lewiston and other more deve loped sections of the township contains fine sand and silt p-3.rticles, I I I I small amounts of oil from roadways and parl<ing lots, phosphate::; from ferti lizers, and chlorides fr om road salt. If these cher.iic:i ls and particles reac h the l akes i:1 the arcn, t hey t end to increuse the natural aging process of these bo dies of ,,ater . If they are allowed to drain into the soils nt an accelerated rate, they may affect the quality of existing groundwater. It I I I should be to the township's benefit , then , to consider the impact of storm water run-off on the environment and rectify any adverse conditions. Solid Wa!5te Dis poca l. site northeast of Lewiston. Albert '1 0,msb:i.p now bas one solid waste dispossl 1 (See :tv'iap 15.) It covers five acres and in 1973 handled 6500 cubic yards of refuse (2275 tohs)·, the largest amount in t he county for a sing le site. The solid waste this facility handles is generated primarily from residenti a l and recreational use. Collection is from either individual transport or a private, profit-making trash collection service . This facility digested . 553 tons per capita of solid waste. In 1980 it is projected to take in . 663 tons per capita and by 1990, . 771+ tons of material per person should be discarded jnto this facility . * The Montmorency County Solid Waste Plan calls for the consolidation of all solid waste dis,posal sites into a county administered system; utilizing a central facility near the middle of the county .q nd "transfer sites" for burning of brush, stumps, etc., storage of bulky items, and placement of metal containers . *Source : I I I Preliminar~r Comprehensive Solid Waste Pl an f or Montmorency County - June 1974. 55 I I I I I I I I I �• =====-========~ DOROTHY ST. w l') 0:: 0 w l') I j I -·- · •• I I I I I I • •I • -:·.j ~ (j I •• EAST TWIN LAl<E LEWI STON VICINI'I'Y srroRM WATER RUNOFF PROBLEM ARF..t~S MAP 14 / �- - ,--·- - - - - - ,._.,...~---n-----:-1 .... . . •· 4 3 11 AIBERT 'l\'.Y.\TNSH IP SANI'.i:7\.RY 1Al\1DFILL 12 -I I I I I I I 57 I I I �I • • • •I Solid waste would be removed from these "transfer sites" to the central facility by private contractors. The purpose of this system is to meet the health ' and safety standards of Act 87 of 1965 and as amended by Act 89 of 1969 . As of yet , thj_s plan has not been implemented; if and when this system becomes operative, the Albert Township facility will become a "transfer site" . E - Hea l th Fi nd WP.lfare. Proe;r ams and · fncili ties pertinent to the -,,,:ell - bc:i.ng of the to,:nship' s residents reflect the iEte r est and response of the local decision-,makcrs to I I II I I ·1 I I I I I I I human nee ds . Much of th e required social and physical aid is provided thi-:ough l are;er governrnentEtJ. and administrative bodies_; such as, the county, region , and state . However, those health and welf2.re deli very systems no t provided by these bi gger unj_ts can be instituted by the township to add to the comprehensive benefits furn:i.shec1 to the town~,hip's r esidents . Included j_n these benefits· are law enforcement, fire prote~tion, end health programs. Some are administered on a cooperative basis with these larger jurisdictions and others are operated independently within the township. Police. police car. Albert Township currently has two full-ti me officers and one Additional polj_ce protection is macle available through the Montmorency County Sheriff Department. The Sheriff Department dispatches all patrol ca rs and supplies detective services. In addition , emere;ency contact between the township and county agencies is mai ntained for mutual benefit. Fire. The township operates its own volunteer fire department and with assistance from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources maintains one �truck and two tankers . This voluntee r unit , comprised of 15 members , pro - vides protection to the township . The DNR has jurisdiction for fighting f fires on state owned property . Both the police and fire departments make requests for additional equip- •I I I ment and manpower through a five member board, which in turn makes recommendations concerninu; such r equi si Uons to the township board . HesJ.th . (See Map 16.) The township is a part of District Health De1--ia rtrnent No . J-1-. The se health districts provide services to the po1itica1 sub- divis:i.on with:Ln the j_r Jur:i.sdic:tion. These services are fairly co:npre:hensJve and coordinated throu~b the di strict headquarters j n ,UpcnE1. 'l'h c re is a d:i. strict office in 1\tlanta . Ambulance ser·,ice is provided through the township. Private medical treatment is avaiJ.able at the Lewiston Clinic, located north of Lewiston . ( See J,18.p 17.) There is currently one physi"ciEJn j_n the township who admin - isters medical aJd through the clinic. Welfare. 1--lelfare services a re administered by the state via facilities and personnel in Montmorency County. Map 18 .) The county is part of Region 2. (S~e Some of the programs offered through these facilities include sup- ervision of foster homes, financial and marriage counseling , juvenile delinquency counseling, /\id to Dependent Children programs, nnd general assistance programs. There is a volunteer organization, United People, to deal with local problems related to drug abuse and alcoholism . through the state . • 59 I I I This program is financed I I I I I I I I I I I I �• • • • • •• • C h C b ~ - ~. g~a'. - n. I I CHEBOYGAN ;=::·;·~ CJ ~ i,.,,,, c .. , I ' ~ PRESQUE ISLE !K·~;',-_M_O_,N_T_MO~EN-:r Gaylord ;---'- - . ~) I .,,..,, f~/~ I l '• l( , , •~~ '-;\ I I OSCODA ALCONA Gr~yling i'i:! PUBLIC HEA.LTH DISTRICT 4 PA[SQUE ISLE -7-=~- , o,sec.o ~ M0NTMORC~CY ! Gaylord ALPENA I _, ____ j ~ CAAWFOflD ,, --,-~r.t.~L-liX.:.~t:·:'!"£1'~- ~"'l:~!':...."'r.~~,-u!"·a r-~~i~~i\'(i:::i.lt"l:.. ;":') CAJl.WFOHD Cl1 l\,_ ~LP[NA CHEBOYGAN • • • . O SC ODA · ALCONA Grayling f!J MENTAL HE.l\LTH DISTRIC'l' 3 MAP 16 �• •I •I MAP 17 6 1 l CRrSTAL 9 ...., "' ..., ,- - 7 => = I II II II ., -I I I I I I LEWIS~l'ON HE.Z\L'l'H CLINIC 61 l I II I �REGION 2 - DEPZ\.R'IMENT OF SCCIAL SERVICES I I 62 �• • • • • • • F - Community Facilities. The physical structures and equipment the township establishes and maint tains for the provision of services are pertinent to the protection and wel fare of its residents. If these facilities are varied and comprehensive in their utility, there is a greater probability the associated services will be more effective in serving the people of the tovmship. Curr ently, the township's pub lic and semi- public fac :ilities are located in and around Lewiston. • • • •• • 'These range from heal th, ss fety, and welfare facilities to religious nnd sports organizations. Facilities belonging to the township include n fire station , library, and township offices located at the corner of Kneeland and Ihrisen st:reets. 'l'he Lewiston Chamber of Commerce maintains a publ:i.c information office in th.e business di strict. The township has juri sdi·ction over th e- public park and tennis court facilities in the same general location. II II (See Map 19 .) Access to East and West Twin lakes is available through publicly maintained streets converging on these lakes. Street. A Lions Club park is adjacent to the public beach on Knee.land Public recreation is also available with a sportsmen's club, a curl- ing club, and a township ovmed softball field. The elementary school, containing a public auditorium, is located on the ·northern edge of Lewiston, as is a privately owned airport. Religions facil- ities include Catholic, Con gregational, and Lutheran churches . The Lewiston Clinic provides health treatment to the residents of the area, retaining one physician for medical services. As population growth continues and more services are required, existing facilities will have to be expanded and new ones constructed . These should �, ~ I I . I. I w (!) er I 0 w I.!) EAST I I I TWIN LAKE MAP 19 PUBLIC & SE:·H-PUBLIC COM.MlJN ITY FACILITIES - A - Albert To·,mship Hall (Fire Dept., Library) n - El f:;-;-.entary School C - CLc::::1.;)er o;: Co r.une rce D - ·Lewi~ton Park E _:,• Lion·s Cltb Park F - Public Beach G - Albert 'I'm.-r.s_r1ip Recreation F ie ld H - Spor~srnens Club 64 LEiHS'I-ON AR.EA I I I - Curling Club J - US Post Office K - Cat.holi·c_ Church L - Masonic Temple M - LutJ,ercn Church N Congregational Church 0 - Air Field P - Lewiston Clinic -• I �• • •• • • ••• •, I • be distributed in such a manner as· to serve the greatest number of people with optimum efficiency. G - Education . ,. Albett Township is included in the Johannesburg-Lewiston Area School District. This district includes all of Albert and part of Vienna Township in Montmorency County, part of Greenwood Township in Oscoda County, and all of Charlton and parts of Chester and Dover Townships in Otsego County. 20.) (See Map Students in the elementary grades (K-6) attend classes in Lewiston, while those in the Junior High and High School grade levels are bussed to Johannesburg to attend school. Student enrollment in the elementary school has been decreas- ing for the past 5 years, although the 1975 projected enrollment is higher than in 1974. Lewiston. pupils. In 1970, 191 children were enrolled in the elementary school in In 1972, this number decreased to 187, and 1974 saw 151 grade school The 1975 projected enrollment, howe~er, is 156. Secondary (Junior High and High School) enrollment is projected to be approximately 144 in 1975. I I I I I I I I These students will be bussed from Albert Township to Johannesburg to attend classes. Johannesburg-Lewiston Area Schools are part of the Cheboygan-Otsego- Presque Isle Intermediate School District. The birth rate for the county as a whole is declining, anq subsequently fewer students will be enrolled in school, but this phenomenon will probably be offset in Albert Township by the projected increase in inmigration of child-bearing age groups . The nearest junior colleges in the region (providing a two year college education) are Alpena Community College and Kirtland Community College. Maps 21 & 22.) (See These community colleges can be utilized as a means of train- ing local residents for skills pertinent to employment in the township. �I I I :I I MAP 20 OTSEGO CO. MONTMOnENCY CO. ELMIRA ;I MONTMORCNCY CORWITH c,v.JJf~~1i] ·1 HILLMAN >- UJ ..J a: CD !l2~~~~·~---••f HAYES OTSEGC LAKE •c,, . I AVERY RUST :~":'r-~-~ ,,,...--. Cl..lNTON 'LMSR z UJ w COMING a: <., BIG CREEK :1 M ENY <.• :t OSCODA CO. JOHANNESBURG - LEWISTON AR.El\ SCHOOL DISTRICT II • • • •I I 66 - �I I I 1· MAP 21 ALPENA I .I I· I I 1· I Al pen~ I ·1 CRAWFORD ALCONA Gr>yling 11 CllEBOYGAN-OTSEX:;O-PRESQUE ISLE INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT MAP 22 7 I I I I I I I Presque °Jsle _ _-::-=-----~ Cheboygan .;':,_, I EB I· Montm o,c_n_c_y_~.._-·_Al_pen a Otsego I t • I I Oscoda Crawford © Kirtl•na Alcona ! Community College! i I . i II I I CCI-1MUNI'IY COLLEGES IN REGION 9 �J\ E N V R O N M E N T �•I •I I I I I I . ENVIRONMENT The ma,jor asset of Albert Township and the tprimary contributor to its ~conomy is its natural environment. The c·ombina tion of forest type ve ee ta - tion, variety of lakes, and low-density population define those character is tics which give the area :its recrea tiom.l a_tmosphere . Si nce it is the desire of the residents of the township to r etain as much of the existing character of the are3. as possible in light of projected growth, it is pel'ti. nent in ' formulat ing a fu ture plan to an3.lyze the natural elements of ~1e a r ea . TI1ese elements should be s tud:i ed in reJ.atj_on t o their effect upon hur.n n act,-i vity and conven;ely an analysis should be made of tbe physi.c2.l and biolof;i.cnl con s equences c,f hunm.n act.i .vjty upon the area ' s naturnl processes . A - Climate . CJ.im3.tic cond iti ons tn the vicinity determine to a large extent the viability of the township i n offering seasonal recreation and establish its I I I I I I I subsequent econom ic identity . Map 23 i ndicates the norm3.l annual precipit3 - tion for the region over the past thirty years. The annual rainfall for the township averages 28", about 60%, occurring duri ng the May to October summer season. The average annual snowfall for thi's thirty year period was 70 i.nches to 90 inches, quite a subst9.ntial addition to the precipitation from rainfall. This heavy accumulation of snow is pertinent to the township's winter recreation popularity, particularly in reference to snow-skiing and sl)ow-mobiling. Map 24 shows the average date of the first below freezing temperatures for the fall. The t ownship is located in the earliest frost section of the region, a factor which may play an important part in any decision by a seasonal resident to leave the area during the winte~. I 68 In addition, there are �/ ., .. ,.., _____ ... ..... . ~ -- .I r--. i ,o I I ' NORMAL M iNUAL PRECIPI'JJ\TJ ; _RATE FOR THE PERIOD ' 1940 - 1969 ,, -··•..o· i ! -i i •' 1 i I iI j f MAP 23 i i i i. N , • c _s I S I j ____ _~ ---- ·r ·- --·-·- ·-·-·-•-.. ~·-·-·,! I . r·-·..J i O l ' S 0 lw:J-....,-., C , ····· Alp(NA ,,.1 I I \ \. · -- - ·- · - - >,~ ~ <'\. ··.--:· ~ \--- - ' '\...\ .. \.. --.s-L-~:J.-LA..- 1 i -ij C S A " '' I I fO R I, O l (. 0 H I. .. • n ;i I n · 11"" n :..- - - -- - - ·- - - -- ·-· MAP 24 r ·-·1· ' - ' OF 32°F OR LCWER IN THE FA] / I • --c.-.r - -· _J· ,.· I ' ·-·- ·7·-· . .I O l ' ~·-"". ~ i i I L .- --·~ I i - ij iI .. • .....,. I \._ ·.....,___ 1 SEPT 3u- 1 • OCT AUG 31- S(PT 10 0 • 0 0 S C .. • I - ow111i" -~=~·--- • i i 0 i c••wroRD i L 0 ' \ i i r ·- ·.J - ·- -- · - •- ·-r- •- ·- · - · - · - · '- l C 0 N A St~T 10 ·j20 i i ' I '---------' ' ...~ ,-: i I I I AVERAGE DATE OF FIRST TEMPE~ "· ~-~ -- I I I SEPT 20 - 30 -- - - - --- -- -- --·- -- - - 10 \_ I I I I I I �• • • •I I II I only 70 to 90 frost - free days in this vicini ty, affecting the propensity of seasonal residents to migrate from the area , a s well as , the capability of the township to sustain agricultural production . B - Geologl:._. The formation of the existing topography of the township can be attri buted to historic glacial deposits . The l ast glacier in the region , about 10,000 years ago, left the area with poor drainage characteristics resulting in a proliferation of swamps and larGer lakes . These areas are good sites for game refuge, contributing to hunting and fishing in the township. Glacial acU.vi ty also afforded a good supply of high quality groundwater at varying levels below the surface. In hilly areas, this water rne.y lie as deep as 300 feet; but in other locations, particularly near large bodies of water, the level may be relatively clcse to the surface and consequently more sub,1 ect to waste inundation from residential development. There are two gravel pits in the township - one located in an area of I I I I I I I • I outwash and glacial channels and another in moraines. (See Map 25.) Moraines are an accumulation of earth, stones and other geological materials resultin~ from glacial deposits. These pits are currently being used for extraction of materials for construction purposes . In a study prepared for the Center of Economic Expansion , Central Michi gan University-*, it is noted that Montmorency County has a potential for be coming a source of construction aggregates . Grayling sand ( See M~p 28. ) can be found in an extensive portion of Albert Township . can be used for various construction purposes . This sand is dry and Grayling sand ( gravelly phase) is also located in this area and contains a substantial amount of *A Comprehensive General Inventory of Aggregates Occurring in the Northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan . Center for Economic Expansion , Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant 1970 . 70 �MAP 2 5 I Outwash and Glacial Channels Moraines Ponded Waters Ground Mora ine s I 71 I �• Ill .. • • ,. rounded gravel. It is not presently kno,m ,,hat the capacity of this soil type is for extractive purposes in the township. There is also an interest in oil exploratiofl in the region. tial for oil and gas deposits extends from· Otsego County through Montmorency, Presque Isle, and Alpena Counties. As can be seen in Map 26, the northwest corner of Albert Township is included in this areal deposit . Although the possibility of si gnifica nt oil production in the township is minute at this time, the J.)otential occurance of such activity should be kept in mind . C - Topography. Albert To,mship lies in an area where the terraj_n is more varied than most other sections of the regjon. Yet the topogrnphy is such that the slope limitations for developr. ent <1re not substantial. classj_ficat ion of slopes in tbe vicinity. Map 27 di splays a general The western half of the tmmsh:i.p, which is pr imarily in private ovmership, is predominantJ.y flat. • •I I I I I I The poten - 'rhe eastern section, on the other hand , is characterized by a more varied topoc;raphy . Although these slopes are generally slight , there are areas where the incline reaches 25% and can preclude construction or other dense activity, particularly if the soils in the area are conducive to erosion and instability . D - Soils. The ability of the to,mship to accommodate a variety of activities is heavily dependent upon the soils found in the vicinity. Because each soil type has its own water retention capacity, variety of plant nutrients, and suitabil ity for specific vegetation, the proper analysis and utilization of soils is critical to the success of a particular activity. Agricultural production, forest growth, and cultured vegetation rely upon soils for their existence and cause minimal modification of the natural 72 �MAP 26 I I C)f.·· ·· - - - - - - ·- ·· - - ~ --0.- - - - ;- • ~:-=~~~-=---_-_-__-_-_-_·:.-_-:: .·... -----:_;;,/ / .. ·--_-.---~ _,,,-~~ . .f~~----_-_-: _ =---===· W/, ·- - - - - - - - - - ZJ(,(L'. ~~~~=~i}1/ I 7 ::===::.:7 i :~- --:~·; A \V F O R D co. i - Ii I C ~~ . -~--------~-<, O SC OD A ALCONA co. co [ __ ___!__ _ _.:...,___ _ APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY OF NIJ\.GARAN REEF OIL & GAS FIELDS ~J I I I -I I I I ' ;~ 73 ' -I �I MAP 27 I ALBERT ··ravNSHIP GENERAL SLO;E'E MAP % S lope 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 74 . �character of the soil. Residential, industrial, commercial, transportation, and other intense land uses which employ synthetic and natural materials for construction promote impacts which are often detrlmental to the natural state of soils in the area. Since erosion, siltation, and groundwater pollution are often the results of a combination of soil characteristics, contour of I the land, and degree of ·human activity, the suitability of a particular piece of property for a specific activity should be determined by analyzing I the effects -of the interaction of all three facto:cs. M-~p 28 is a representation of general soil types in Albert Township. These are generic classifications and are not applicable for detailed planning purposes, but do give a comprehensive overview of soil characteristics for comparative purposes and analysj_s of possible sites for large scale development. Table XI indicates the suitability of these soil types for general farming and forestry. This information ~efers -to farming activity that . varies in land use, degree of mechan:i.zation and production intensity, as well as, sustained production of marketable timber related to forestry. TABIB XI SUITABILITY OF SOIL TYPES FOR GENERAL FARMING & FORESTRY Suitability for Forestry General Farming Map Symbol 1 Poor Fair - poor 2 Fair Fair 3 Poor 4 Fair 5 Fair - poor 75 - fair Fair · good Fair- Good I I I II II II II .. II II fair g;ood I • • �MAP 28 ALBERT T(;J;,lNSHIP - GENERAL SOIL MAP Major Series and Approximate% of Each 2 • • Dominant Slope Rubicon - 50% Grayling 30% Croswell 10% AuGres - 5% 0-6% 0-6% 0-3% 0-3% Kalkaska - 40% East Lake 30% Mancelona 20% 0-6% 0-6% 0-6% Rubicon - 40% Graycalm 25% Montcalm 20% 2-18% 6-25% 2-12% Emmet - 45% 35% Leeland Onaway - 10% 2-12% 6-18% 2-12% Leelanau - 35% Emmet - 25% Kalkaska - 20% 6-25% 2-12% 6-25% - - .. �I I Since agriculture is not foreseen as extensive activities in the near future, the _s ignificance of its suitability is somewhat limited. Recreation I and residential land use, however, are projected ~o be predominant factors in the township's physical and economic development and the adaptability of I soil types to these activit ies need to be considered. Table XII refers to the limitations of the area's soils for recreation. These limitations, as mentioned before, depend upon the specific soil series I and topographic features. The impacts that human settlements have on soils are most profound in residential development. I While individual borne and subdivision location may not be as dense as commercial or industrial activity, the dispersion of these units has a more widespread effect. The need for paved streets, driveways, sidewalks, etc. as well as the siting of homes contribute to the increased water runoff and erosion poten- r tial of residential development. Consequently, the full direct and indirect environmental effects 9f home construction should be studied before this type of development is approved. tations. One of the most important factors to be considered is soil limiTable XIII is a brief analysis of soil restraints relative to residential development. ' .~ ." '. I I I I I I I I I I - I I �'I'.I\BLE XII DEGREE OF LIMI'mTION FOR RB:RFATIONAL USE* Map Symbol Dominant Soil Types Cottages & Buildings l· Rubican, Grayling Slight 2 Kalkaska, East Lake, Mancelona Slight Picnic Areas Paths & Trails Play Areas Golf Fairways Septic Filter Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Slight Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Slight Camp Sites •) Rubican, Graycalrn, Montcolrn SlightSevere Moderate- Moderate- ModerateSevere Severe Severe ModerateSevere Moderate Severe Moderate 4 Erranet, Leelanau SlightModerate SlightModerate SlightSevere SlightModerate Moderate Severe 5 Leelanau, Enunet, Kalkaska ModerateSevere Moderate- .t-~oderate- Moderate Severe Severe Severe Moderate Moderate 3 * Source: SlightModerate Slight ~ co r-- An Appraisal of Potentials for Outdoor Recreational Development for Montmorency County, Michigan February 1969 ,. .. .. - - - -- - --- - - - - -- - �TABLE XIII DEGREE OF SOIL LIMITATION FOR RESIDENTJ.AL DEVELOPMENT Map Symbol Limitation Major Management Problems . 1 Slight Possible groundwater pollution; - Difficult to maintain sod without irrigation 2 Slight - Seasonal high water table - Possible gr oundwater pollution; - Difficult to maintain sod without irrigation 3 ModerateSevere - Sloping Areas; - Erosion and Sediment damage; - Sidehill seepage from onsite sewage facilities 4 SliG;htModerate - Erosion and Sediment damage; - Sidehill seepage from onsite sewage facilities 5 ModerateSevere - Sloping Areas; - Erosion and sedimentation; - Sidehill seepage from onsite sewage facilities Tl1ese limitations pertain to intensive development common to subdivisions with onsite sewage facilities. Map 29 combines general slope characteristics with general soil characteristics. Those soils which have slight limitations for residential devel- opment are comparatively flat. Moderate to severe soil limitation areas are associated with relatively hilly terrain. It should be emphasized that degree of slope is a n important element in the classification of soil characteristics. 79 �II MAP 29 •I • • •• II I I I I I I I I ALBERT 'I'CMNSHIP - Residential Development Cond itions Area 1 & SLOPE & SOIL CONDITIONS 2 Slight Soil LimitationsJ Predominant 0% Slope 3 Moderate - Severe - Soil -Limitations; O - 2% Slope 4 Slight - Moderat~ Soil Limitations; 0 - 1% Slope 5 Moderate - Severe Soil Limitations; 2 - 5% Slope 8o �Map 30 indicates those sections of the township adaptable for development according to degree of limitation. Those areas designated as primary, secondary, and tertiary stipulate the preference f~~ residential land use based upon soil and slope characteristics. Primary areas should be developed first because they l1ave slight limitations which can easily be overcome. Secondary areas are less preferable because greater care must be taken to alleviate adverse consequences due to development. "Tertiary areas are the least desirable for residential activity insofar as limitations are severe enough to make development questionable. Again, these are very broad classifications and not applicable for detailed analysis. E ~ Vegetation. In addition to contributing to the scenic qualities of the township, the existing vegetation helps substantially in maintaining a viable environment. Without an adequate amount of forest, brush, and grass cover, soil erosion and wind blowing would become prevalent. Wildlife would decrease due to an absence · of cover and forage, and potential highway and industrial noise would travel further and with greater intensity. Albert Township has a variety of forest species and since much of the area is owned by the State of Michigan, it is assured a retention of these trees. The predominant specie is Oak (Red, White, and Black). of the pole and saw timber size. Most of these are Aspen and White Birch are also abundant, particularly at the reproduction stage of growth. Red Pine, Jack Pine, and N~rthern Hardwood are distributed throughout the•township. As mentioned in the Forest Activity Section of this document, Oak, Aspen, Birch, Maple, and Red, White, and Jack Pine are logged to a limited 81 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I �II MAP 30 I I I I I I , 1. I ALBERT TCWNSHIP AREAS OF POTENTIAL RESIDEN'fIAL DEVELOPMENT Primary Development Area Secondary Dzvelop~ent Area Tertiary Development Area State Forest I I I I I 82, �extent for milling and wood pallet production. A major portion of this timber is sent out of the township for mjlling operations. I Upland brush, containing Cherry, Hazel, Service Berry, and Willow vegetation is interspersed throughout the vicinity. grass, weeds, Bracken, Fern, and Sweet Fern. Additional growth includes • • There is also a limited amount of lowland brush, consisting of Alder , Dogwood, Willow, and Huckleberry. In order to protect wildlife, soils, and aesthetic values in the area, the Huron Pines Resource Conservation and Development Project recommends the promotion of orderly and wise development of forest resources through educational and technical programs. It would benefit the township to insure tba t its citizens, particularly ow-ners of large parcels of land, are aware of constructive forestry practices in order to maintain and improve the envirQij,mental qualities of the vicinity. F - Wildlife. Wildlife is a major factor in the identity of the township as both a rural and a recreational area. As human population in Albert Township in- cre3ses, the habitation areas of wildlife will become more confined. To accommodate an optimum balance between human and animal populations (a balance whereby infringement of one upon the other is held to a minimum), and yet maintain the recreational atmosphere of the township, the variety of animal life should be studied and their living pa·tterns understood. Forestry practices, as mentioned oefore, affect the quality of the environment and its capacity to accommodate a.. variety of wildlife. • Controlled timber cutting enables young trees and low-lying vegetation to flourish, supporting more animal life. Tree harvesting, particularly Aspen adjacent to Cedar swamps, improves the quantity of feed for deer while they are yarding, improving their ability to survive tbe winter. Forests also affect water-born ·- II • - �I I wildlife. Proper tree harvesting increases the watershed supply, insofar as openings in the forest allow more snow to reach groundwater levels, increasing stream flow and improving fish habitat. f Albert Township has a heterogenous mixture of wildlife, which can be classified into three generic categories: fowl. small game, big game, and water- Small game consists of birds and mammals, including grouse, woodcock (See Page 44), wild turkey (See Map 31), cottontail rabbits, snowshoe bares, squirrels, raccoons, foxes, and other similar species. lar big g'dme animal. Deer is the most popu- Waterfowl includes ducks, geese, and sl1orebirds. XIV is an inventory of lfcl.me species in Montmorency County. Table Trout, Bass, Pike, and panfish are the main fish species in the townsl1ip. Since Albert Township is assured of continual vegetation, because of state forest land and its capacity for private development is confined, the ability of the area to sustain its existing variety of wildlife is not as limited as other l ocalities might be. I I I I I I I ~ I But proper control and management on the pa.rt of state and tmmship citizens is essentia l to define and insure an optimum distribution of wildlife. All facets of the township's distinct environment - soils, climate, geology, vegetation, and wildlife - are separate entities in their own right, but are highly interrelated in the establishment of environmental processes. The proper utilization of this environment for living and recreation requires a realization of the importance of the to"mship's natural characteristics and the impacts of human activity upon the environment. 84 �MAP 31 . . NORTHEAST MICHIGAN REGION - UNIQUE WILDLIFE AREAS \ Wild Turkey Range Major Bobcat Range Elk Range i l iI i I • -I ·:· I ·- I I �I TABLE XIV INVENTORY OF GAME SPECIES - MONTMORENCY COUNTY f I I I I I I , Species Relative Abundance Deer Moderate to High Entire Couhty Elk Low NW Part County Bear Low Entire County Bobcat Low Entire County Raccoon Moderate Entire County Squirrels Moderate Entire County Ruffed Grouse Woodcock Waterfowl Snowshoe Hare Moderate to High Moderate Entire County Entire County Entire County Low Moderate I •I I I • Game Ranq;e 86 Entire County ��• • •I I I I • •· .1 •I I I I • QOAI.S, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES Up to this point, the text has analyzed the va.rious elements which combine to formulate the particular identity of Albert Township. system has logically differentiated the elements of the area to permit a fairly comprehensive insight into the township's characteristics. The following section is • the synthesis of these elements into goals, objectives, and policies to guide the township in its physical, social, and economic development. These statements have been approved by the township's residents as the most applicable reflections of their desires and attitudes concerning the future of their area. Goals _are very broad descriptions of the overall desirable characteristics tlie people of Albert Township wish to attain within the general planning period. These are the bases 1or the_ more d~finitive objectives and policies statements. Objectives delineate these goals in accord with the elements included in the PASE analysis process. These objectives are underlined in the following section. Policies are more specific statements commensurate with the given objectives. These attempt to define more clearly the proposed actions the township desires to undertake, but are not so definite as to preclude variations which may be required in specific instances. While all policies may not be· achieved within tl:Je planning period, the decision-makers and citizens of Albert Township should promote the realization of as many of these statements as possible. This can be adequately done only if knowledge, creativity, and most importantly, community interest and involvement become an integral part of Albert To"\o/l1ship. ~ I The PASE 87 �GOALS 1. Protect the physical environment of the to,mship. 2. Maintain a residential and recreational atmosphere. 3. Maintain the existing balance between residential, recreational, co~mercial, and light indus~ry. 4. Maintain 'an efficient proportion between age groups and promote an orderly population growth. 5. Stabilize the local economy with a diversity of light industry. 6. Create quality educa tional and technical training facilities in order to upgrade working skills, 7, Attain efficiency, strength, and autonomy in local government, while retaining constructive liaison with other governmental bodies. 8. Create an effective health and social welfare delivery system. 88 �-I PORJLATION OB.JECTIVES I. -II environment of Albert Township define its attractiveness, it is desirable to maintain tl1e existing population balance. 1. I I I I I I I ~ I Control industrial growth to the existing proportion of the township's economic activity. II II II , Because the present atmosphere and characterfof the population and 2. Keep commercial activity in its current proportion to the township's economic base. 3, Maintain the physical environment and provide for residential land use that will continue to attract seasonal residents. II. Since the township's capacity to retain its unique environmental, social, and cultural characteristics is limited, an excessive population gro,rth will tend to bave an impact upon these elements. Conseq_uently 1 it is desirable to limit any detrimental change in the overall atmosphere of the to,mship by striving to incorporate policies and programs which will promote orderly population gro,rth to maintain 1 as far as possible 1 the existing character of Albert To,mship. 1. Continue the promotion of light industry. 2. Encourage small commercial activities. 3. Procure a desirable mixture of residential density. 4. Limit specific areas of the township to low-density residential use. 5. Secure an equitable distribution of open-space. 6. Consider the sodal, environmental, and political implications of all proposed land uses in local decision-making processes. 7. Rationally plan for development according to the capacity of the environment and the availability of services. �I III. Realizing that there is a lack of variety and expertise in cu r r ent available employment, the township will strive to attract those ele f ments of the population whose abilities will fill the existinrs gap in total provision of desirable community skills and services. 1. Attract industries which utilize skilled and professional labor . 2. Encourage construction of modern, convenient office spac e de signed to facilitate professional use, such as : medica l , dental, and legal offices, etc . 3. IV . Institute educational programs to serve local manpower needs. In order to alleviate any adverse changes in the existing character of the to,mship resulting from a disproportionate growth of working-age personnel, th~ continued inmin;ration of retired and seasonal population groups should be cncotlra,s ed . 1. Institute programs and, construct fa<!ili ties to serve as socio recreational attractions for senior c itizens . 2. Allocate priority to the r et ention and enhancement of those natural and man -made cbaracteristics (lakes, forests, campgrounds ) of tbe to,msbip, wb.i.ch will attract seasona l residents and tou rism . 3. Institute cultural attractions . • • • •I I I I I I I I I I I I I 90 I �I I I LOCAL GOVERNMENT OBJECTIVES I. I I I I I I Administration and regulation of township affl).irs oriented toward continued improvement of all facets of the human settlement requires efficient} comprehensive} and creative sensitivity to the natural and human environment. ·Albert Township should attempt to provide local government services which will most adequately fulfill the needs of its citizens wM.le simultaneously minimizing} as far as possible, the costs of these services. 1. Provide service levels which will attract the same type of population mix as currently resides in the township. 2. Regulate quantity} quality} and density of residential growth. 3. Regulate commercial desirability through zoning and aesthetic control. 4. I I I I I I I Regulate industrial growth tbrough · zoning and environmental control. 5. Promote highway and parking facilities} pedestrian and nonmotorized circulation systems, and airport facilities according to the needs of the populatfon and economic a ctivity of the township. Study the possibility of eventually institut- ing a public transportation system. 6. Promote and maintain adequate sewer and water systems in accordance with immediate and potential needs of the township. 7. Create local health and welfare services and facilities which will fulfill those needs not satisfied by county} regional, and state programs. I~ I 91 �8. Promote educational facili t ie s and services proportionate t o t he capacity and willingness of the t ownshif ' s re sident s t o fi nance them. 9. Determine the need for quality and type of community facilities to optima lly serve the township's immediate and futur e requi r e ments and establish provisions for meeting these requirements . Utilize a vailable federal, state, and local funds to implement the construction of facilities and provision of equipment . 10 . Incorporate methods of analysis to determine the social and environmenta l consequences of new population and deve lopment activity. Implement policies to promote environmental prote c- tion and maintenance of the township ' s overall identity . II. For any composition of pe,ople to be able to relate to, and take pride in their living environment, they must be allowed access to the local de cision ma king process . In addition, by promoting the interest of the local population in tovms hip issues, the ability of local decision makers to more properly reflect the desires and needs of their constituents is substa ntia lly increa sed . Tovmship decision-mal,; ers should attempt to promulga te policies a nd programs which will increase c itizen interest and i nvolvement in loca l public affairs . 92 I I I I I I I I I r- 1 I II I I I I I "I �• • • ECONOMIC OBJECTIVES I. capacity of attracting and retaining permanent (or seasonal ) residents, •I nor the ability to provide desirable governmental services; therefore, the township should promote an increase in the quantity 1 quality, and variety of its economic base. 1. I 2. tax base. II. In order to facilitate the attractiveness of Albert Township to skilled and professional people, as ·well as, increase its variety of economic activity, it is desirable to encoura~e nolicies a nd facilities to attract industrial, commercial, service, and recreational activities. 1. Implement zoning regulations which will allocate commercial uses to easily accessible locations and adjust the size of the activity to the proposed service area. I I Encoura ge quality residential land-use in designated areas of the township which will substantially contribute to the local I I I I I I Promote quality and variety of commercial activity that will attract retail spending. I I ~ Unless Albert Township is economically viable, it will not have the 2 . , Insure variety in the provision of professional services throl+gh promotion and advertisement of tbe tmmship' s amenities to attract these desired personnel. 3. Contribute to the variety of economic activity by promoting recreational facilities. III. In attempting to attain economic diversity, while at the same time ma.intaining the township's overall character, Albert Township should encoura~e 93 �the development of all economic activities in the same general relative proportions as they currently exist. 1. Emphasize the growth of wholesale and ktail trade outlets. 2. Provide and limit real property for industrial use that will enable the township to maintain its current proportion of manufacturin,3 · activity . 3. Restrain or discourage those economic activities which have tbe potential of substantially changing the t01-mship' s character and identity. IV. Economic growth and diversity is predicated upon competition among productive elements of the township. It is, therefore, beneficial to the residents of Albert Township that rational competition between commercial activities be enc ouraged . 1. I I I I I I I I I Allocate commercial activities to areas easily accessible to all residents. 2. Stimulate the establishment of similar commercial activities commensurate ',lith the needs and size of the township's population. v. The overall education level of _the citizens of the township will, to a large degree, determine the in~enuity and skill applied in attempting to improve the economic status of the township, as well as, contribute to its capac.i ty to attract new economic activities. An important objec- tive, then, is to attain an educated population which will satisfy the requirements of new and diversified economic endeavors. 1. Institute local training programs _which will equip the township's residents with skills required by potential industries. 2. Encourage those economic activities wbich prefer to train local personnel according to the specific needs of the activity. 94 I I I I I I I I I �I I VI, To attract wage-paying economic activities employing people residing outside the township or to maintain a lack of quality, quantity, and variety in goods and services limits the capadi.ty of the township to I I I I I I experience economic development. An important objective, therefore, is to encourage an economic environment which will enable the township to retain the money earned wj_thin its boundaries and encoura.ze the influx of income from outside its borders. 1. Provide a comprehensive range of services, skills, and mercl1andise at competitive prices. 2. Institute promotional programs to enhance the public's attitude toward tbe benefits of economic activity in the tmmship. 3. Encourage the location of industries which will influence the establishment of subsidiary w11olesale and service businesses. I I I 95 �RESIDENTIAL LAND USE OBJECTIVES I. Quality in residential land use is a reflection of the pride of individual ownership and the perception tbe residents have of the area in which they live. In order to maintain the existing quality of dwelling units in the area, the to-vmship should strive for orderly growth and development of residential land use. · 1. Through regulatory controls, attempt to insure sequential development outward from existing populated areas . 2. Effici_e ntly provide new residential development with facilities and utilities commensurate with unit density. 3, Restrict new large scale development surrounding water resources (lakes) in the township. II. In any populated locality, there is a diversity of social and economic characteristics among families and individuals, and the more populated the area becomes, the greater the variety of its residents. Consequently, Albert Township should endeavor to provide each member o:f the community .' with residential opportunitj.es wbich correspond to his social and economic characteristics. 1.. Provide a mixture of densities through zoning regulatio1~,; . 2. Insure there is an adequate supply of low income housing equitably dispersed throughout the tmmship. 3. Encourage the continued high rate of owner occupancy, wl1ile increasing the amount of rental units available to seasonal and permanent residents. III. Residential activities both determine and result from a general pattern ., I I -I I I I I I I -1 I I I I I I I I I �I I of human behavior and often conflict witb other types of land uses which facilitate different types of activity. In order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the township's citizen51 and the attractiveness of the community, residential activlty should be planned to eliminate con- I I I I I flict with other land uses. 1. Attempt to provide natural or man-made barriers between residential and commercial activity. 2. Provide adequate open-space and recreation facilities at the nei~hborhood level, 3. Zone residential land uses to be easily accessible to commercial and industrial areas, yet adeq_uately separated to eliminate detrimental environmental conseq_uences. I 4. Design residential activity so as to limit the seneration and attraction of heavy automobile and truck traffic. I IV. I I I.and is a finite resource and the ability of tlle natural environment to optimally accommodate human impact is also limited. Since residential land use is not as restricted in its locational choice as commercial or industrial uses, its environmental impacts are more widespread. To pro- tect and maintain its existing level of enviroruuental q_uality, the township should encourage dwellin[, units in those areas where environmental impacts are least detrimental and discourage residential construction in locations where impacts are more profound. 1. Analyze the capacity of land, vegetation, and water to accommodate housing units and projected population for each development. 2. Promote policies to mitigate possible negative environmental effects from residential construction. 3. Adopt methods of analyzing and reviewing public and private facilities which will be required as a result of each new development. 97 �COMMERCIAL IAND-USE OBJECTIVES I. Accessibility to commercial development is a vrimary prerequisite for growth and development. At the same time, uncontrolled commercial growth creates traffic congestion and visual pollution . Albert Township should encourage development of commercial facilities which are easily accessible while alleviating congestion and "commercial blight" . 1. II").sure that adequate access and parking facilities are avail able for commercial activity to alleviate traffic congestion and excessive noise pollution . 2. Provide for the creation of "open space" or vegetation barriers between co~~ercial land uses and residential or recreational land uses. II. Tbe identity a community· portrays is heavily determined by the phys ical composition and aesthetic value of its commercial areas, particularly the central business district. .. To enhance the reputation of the to,m- ship and encourage c_ommunity pride and involvement, the characte r of the township 1 s centra l business area should be maintained as an area the residents can adequately utilize and identify with . 1. Project and enhance the character and identity of Lewiston as an attractive, competitive shopping district through innovative desi gn and architectural controx. 2. Institute a circulation system in the central Lewiston area to eliminate conflict between pedestrian and automobile movement. 3. Discourage the spread of strip commercial activities in all sections of the township. 98 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -, I I I I �-I 4. Attempt to attain a mix of commercial and service activities in the Lewiston business district . 5. I Promote the utilization of the central ~rea for night time activity throutsb the establishment of a theatre, outdoor commu·nity entertainment area, and adequate street lighting. ·1 I III. An overabundance of commercial facilities in a reas of the township which compete with the viability of the central business a rea tend to attract subsequent residential development and established commercia l activities I I I from the CBD, encouraging high vacancy rates in tbe central business area. This effect can be deterred if the t01mship provides for orderly commercial growth which be st serves tbe needs of the township. L Discourage ti1e development of large shopping facilities which will potentially create blight and inactivity in the central I I I I I I I I business area. 2. Discoura ge the location of commercial districts, particularly those which attract heavy automobile traffic, adjacent to conflicting land uses, such as recreation areas. 3. Determine the capacity of the township's commercial activity based upon the total population and their projected needs; then define the limit of commercial activity tbe township can endure to prevent outmigration due to a change in the township's charact er. 99 �lNDUSTRL'iL LAND-USE OBJECTIVES I. In order to ma intain an efficient economic balance in the township, in accorda nce with the maintenance of the existing population balance, Albert Towns hip should attra ct those industries which bave tbe lea st impact up on changing t he cha r a cter of tbe a rea. 1. Define i ndustria l a rea s for development in line with the desired proporti on of the activity in the township. 2. Limit t he size of individual parcels of industria l land to promote sma ller industries. 3. Encourage a variety of industrial activity to crea te a more balanced economic base. II. W'nile rea lizing that change is inevitable and tl1e township's cultural and physical environment will reflect the type of people attracted to tl1e area, the ability to upgrade the skills and profe_ssional q_uality of the township is reflected in the township's desire to attract those industries which utilize professional and sk illed employees. III. Detrimental effects on the environment, due to industrj_a l activity, tend to detract from the capability of an area to maintain a comfortable and pleas ing standard of living. Conseq_uently, Albert Township should attra ct t ho se i ndustrial activities which ha ve a limited environmental impact. 1. Regulate e"i:ivironmental impacts through the institution of local air, water, noise, and land impact standards. 2. Project the effects of industrial location as a catalyst for rei;ddential, commercial, and recreational development and limit detrimental land use mixes through zoning controls, 100 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I �'• ~ ' I I -~ •I 3. Discourage excessive extraction of the to"mship's natural resources for industrial purposes. DI. Because local industrial firms employ people within the community} there is a strong potential for utilizing the economic and social resources of various industries in promoting the welfare of the community. Albert Township sbould attract those industries wl1ich display a community spirit in providing the p}1ysical and economic resources for the creation and ma:Lntena.nce of local community projects. 1. Through promotj_on, emphasize the community spfrit of the tmmship as a beneficj_al resource for industrial location. 2. Encourage the establishment of those industrial and business firms which display a definite interest in supporting community projects and desire to maintain the current township character. 1-1 I I 1 • I I II I 101 �Ill I RECREATION LAND-USE OBJECTIVES I. Most living environments can be recogni:z;ed and classified accord in~ to their predominant economic activity. Albert To"msl1ip, because of its environmental attributes and low population density, currently enjoys a favorable reputation as a recreational area. To maintain its current proportis:m of activities and population ase groups, the tOimship should encoura1se the growth of open-sp.'lce re_~!eation. 1. • • •II Provide outdoor camping facilities in designated sections of the township. 2. Encourage small parcels in new residential development as neighborhood parks . 3. Establish a larger community park to facilitate the needs of large orr,anizations, groups, and seasonal tourists. 4. Establish horse, bike, motorized recreational vehicle, ski, and walking trails in the township. II. The needs of the local residents for recreational activity are often different from those of the more seasonal, transient population. To meet these needs, recreational facilities and pro~rams should be provided for all elements of the population. 1. Establish community-wide craft and recreation programs, designed for all age groups, for seasonal and premanent residents. 2. Construct a centrally located facility equipped to offer a wide variety of educational, recreational, and social activities. 102 • • �• • III. The location of open space recreation facilities is a major factor in f the success of recreational endeavors. If these activities are adjacent to conflicting land uses, such as industrial or high density commercial and residential, the attractiveness of the facility is diminished. Open-space recreational facilities sbould be re~ulated and developed to eliminate conflicting uses. 1. Restrict the placement of camping facilities in densely populated areas and adjacent to co~nercial and industrial activity . 2. Encoura.ge the establishment of small park and picnic areas within or adjacent to industrial parks. • 3. area of Lewiston. IV. • Provide picnic and park facilities within the central business Community recreational activities are ·c ontributers to the physical and psychological attractiveness of the township. In order to accommodate the needs of individuals and groups of Albert Township and to attract new commercial and industrial activities desiring local recreational amenities, community recreation programs and facilities should be provided in conjunction w:i.th the character and desj_res of the township's residents. • 1. Establish community sponsored arts and crafts programs for children, adults, and retired persons. 2. Encourage community sponsored skiing, swimming, and health clubs. 3. Provide playground equipment for township and community parks commensurate with the density and population age group. 103 �C.OMMUNITY FACILITIES OBJECTIVES I. The success of health) safety) welfare) and edtcation programs are often dependent upon the , quality and variety of facilities provided. To enhance cohesiveness and public pride among the citizens of Albert Township and to make quality services available to all residents) comprel1ensi ve comnruni..t y factlities shouJ.d be establisbecJ and adequately maintained. 1. Combine accepted location and space standards with knowled .<se of local population and physical characteristics to determine the optimum distribution of school facilities. 2. Analyze existing and potential land uses in the area and correlate tberu with the physical and financial resources of the township to ascertain tbe needs and potential locations for fire protection facilities. 3. Locate a community-wide recreational facility) including areas such as tennis courts) outdoor theatre, baseball) football) and basketball areas, indoor social and cultural recreation) etc. which are easily accessible to the majority of the population. 4. Promote tbe construction of a communitl center, including public meeting room) library, museum and art gallery, and local office space in a central location to meet increasing demand for services. 5. Provide ma,ior public health and welfare facilities in an easily accessible central location. �I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I jl ii I I '. ~RANSPORTATION OBJECTIVES I. The location of various land uses is often d!termined by the accessibility of the particular activity) especially commercial and industrial, The size and placement of roads is, therefore, an important element in the distribution of land use. The circulation system of Albert Town- ship should be planned to promote desired land use growth wl1ile limiting the distribution of undesirable activities. 1. Design circulation systems wi tb respect to the amount of activity tliey are proposed to facilitate. 2. Discourage tbe construction of primary and secondary roads in areas where development is not proposed or approved. '-.../' 3. Separate automobile and truck traffic from pedestrian and bicycle circulati9n. 4. Insure adeq_uate access and parking at public recreational facilities. 5. Improve the quality of local and collector streets in the developed sections of the township. 6. Encourage residential development which efficiently limits the amount of land devoted to streets, 7. Limit truck traffic to required industrial and commercial services. 8. Provide adequate access for movement of goods to and from areas outside the township. II. In recognizing the ch~nging pattern of lifestyles attributed to a decrease in the supply of available energy, and the need for offering 105 �I greater access a : · 1obili ty to different elements of the population, the township sh01 ·. ..d attempt to procure a var i ety of transportation modes which will serve all residents. · l. Promote the development of an airpor,t with facilities capable of supporting private and industrial requirements . 2. Establish bicycle routes throughout designated areas of the township to facilitate long distance touring , short distance shopping , and social recreation trips . 3. Study the feasibility of eventually incorporating a small vebicle public transportation system in the more densely populated sectors of the township. III. The construction of roads and other transportation modes requires the disruption of natural land _features, veg~tation, and water resources . In order to preserve as nruch of the natural environment as possible, the township will benefit by a thorou gh analysis and limitation of detrimenta l environmenta l impact resultin 0 from construction of transportation routes. 1. Construct man -made or natural barriers between residential areas and major thoroughfares. 2. Provide ad equate access to community facilities. 3. Determine the potential growth impacts result"ing from the proposed construction or improvement of township roads. 4. Limit the amount of paved area in the tmmship to efficiently meet the needs and comfort of the population, while confining the environmental impact resulting from increased run-off . 106 I I -I I I I I ~I I I I I I I I 1 I �l-I:$ALTH & WELFARE OBJECTIVES I. ' Because each individual residing in an area is different in personality I I and background from those around him, every community is unique in its I I I I health and community welfare services sl1ould be made avaik.ble to the population composition. dents of the township should reflect this uniqueness. Consequently, people of Albert 'rownship wl1ich will best fulfill the needs of tbe indivj.dual. 1. Through promotion, attempt to lure professional, medical, and social l)ersonnel to the tovmship. 2. Discourage overdependence on community welfare facilities and programs. 3. 'I I I I I I I I I The public services made available to the resi- Incorporate community welfare programs under one local agency to insure comprehensive and cohesive administration. 4. Promote the creation of public service programs (such as, dntg abuse, alcoholic crises center organizations) to meet the needs of .township residents. II. Through public avm.reness of health and sanitary practices, many health problems resulting from lack of individual knowledge can be alleviated. To instill and maintain a high level of public consciousness, educational programs and informative health practices should be instituted and made available to ·all members of the township. 1. Establish liaison between the school system and local health, education, and medica l services. 107 �III. Public safety and protection are pertinent factors in the attractiveness of any locality. If adequate police and fire ~ervices are available to all sections of the township, individuai insurance rates are decreased and personal loss from fire and theft are minimized. To insure personal comfort and confidence in local government, public safety pro.<_;,;rams should be created and continua lly improved to meet the demands of continued ~rowth. 1. Promote and maintain public safety programs. 2. Work in close ass ociation with county and state law enforcement authorities to establish the optimum efficiency in police protection. 3. Educate the public as to protection of personal property - both fire and theft control. l+. I I I I I I I I Promote community spirit and involvement in attempts to physically . ' and financially improve volunteer fire and comnrunity service organizations. I I I I I I I I 1o8 I �•I I I I EDUCATION OBJECTIVES I. The social, cultural, and economic future of the to,mship depends upon I the skills of its younger residents acting as catalysts for new, diversified growth. Township, educational facilities and programs should be established commensurate with the needs and ~haracter of the area . •-I 1. 2. 3. I Establ ish formal courses in technical skill trainins oriented toward the needs of existing and potential industrial and commercial act ivit y, procurir.g financial, physical, and instructional aid from these activities under a consolidated effort. 4. Promote communication between the local government and school board to obtain optimum efficiency. II. Education and information are synonymous witb the general awareness of the township's residents toward activities of local concern. To provide the citizens of Albert Tovmship with knowledge of various events, a comprehensive informat ion program should be established . 1. I I I I Stud y tl1e feasib:i.li ty of establishing a day care center for children of work:i.nB parents. , •I Formulate adult education classes employing local facil:i.ties and personnel when possible. I I I I To insure an increase in the economic base of Albert Construct a centrally located facility to disseminate public information . 2. Establish liaison between developers, realtors, entrepreneur~, and local eovernment authorities in improving communication and procuring cohesiveness in the township's overall development. 109 �III. Formal education is only one means of improvine the skills of the people of Albert Township. Informal community educa!ional pro.grams can be instituted to offer a variety of learninr; experiences to all members of the tmmship . 1. Local arts, cr·a fts, book clubs, etc. should be promOted to improve the overall skills and awareness of the township's residents. 2. Of·f er campin~, hiking, and outdoor recreation classes to seasonal and permanent residents. 110 �I I ENVIRONMENT OBJECTIVES r. I I I I I I Albert Township is currently a desirable placJ to live and visit primarily because of the character of its natural environment. Since the identity of an area is defined by its physical, as well as, social amenities, the maintenance of the township's overall attractiveness requires the feasible nreservation of the natural environment.. l. Create and maintain an oneoing environmental monitoring program to study the effects of development and human activity and ut:i.lize the results to institute protective measures. 2. Adopt noise and vj.sual pollution standards for inclusion in the zoning ordinance. ,.,, II. The abundance of natural and cultured vegetation contributes to the reduction of noise, soil, and visual pollutton resulting from human activities. I Therefore, the to,mship should strive to preserve as much of the existing vegetation as possible wbile E:ncouragi ng the growth of cultured plant life in areas affected by human activity. 1. 1. I Establish criteria for landscaping commercial areas and adopt these measures in the zoning ordinance. 2. III. Promote landscaping and garden-plot programs in tbe t .o wnship. The productivity and attractiveness of the natural landscape, as well as, the health of the township's residents, is closely interrelated with the rationai utilization of geologic characteristics. Consequently, the · capacities of the soils in th e township should be understood and adverse geoloGic impact s avoided or re st ricted. I, 111 �1. De fine areas and densities compatible for development based upon soil and groundwater characteristics, primtrily related to sanitation and pollution factors. IV. Except for limited sewage problems, Albert Township is presently devoid of any excessive environmental impacts. As the area experiences an expansion of human activity, tbe probability of subsequent pollution will increase. I I I I Provision sl1ould be made for acquiring federal, state, and local expertise and financj_aJ. aid in the limitation and abatement of future air, wa ter; noi s e, and visual pollution. I I I I I I - -~ -I I I 112 I �•• •• I UTILITIFS OBJECTIVES I. •· •I The hea·l th, safety, and welfare of the towns'iiip' s citizens is closely aligned with the adequate provision of water and sewer systems. Albert Township desires to maintain a preferred level of human, physical, and social welfare in the face of increasing population pressures, it must insure the provision of sewer and water facilities accordin.~ to the needs of the townsl1ip. I 1. I I 2. I I I I I I I Determine the capacity of tbe current ground water levels to sustain :fu.ture development densities. Insure adequate health and sani.tation in recreation areas by providing needed water, electric, and sanitary facilities . 3. r-1 I I If Construct and expand sewer systems in residential, industrial, and commercial areas, based upon immediate and long-range needs~ II. Since the ~o,mship's welfare is reflected in the protection of its people and environment from detrimental ecological impacts, the proper ut~lization of land according to its capacity for development should be of major concern. Therefore, the desi~n and placement of water and sanitary facilities are pertinent in defining areas of the tmmship where development is feasible. Albert Township should regulate undesirable growth, allocating sewer, ~Bter, and drainage facilities accordin~ to the capability of the township to sustain development. 1. Determine the impact additional growth and development will have on the financial, environmental, and facility characteristics of the to,mship and allocate development accordingly. 113 �' F U T U R E L A N D U S E �•I fUTURE IAND USE The physical development of Albert Townshipf is a reflection of its . • •I I •I ~"'I I •• I I I I (.I I social, economic, and governmental characteristics. Land use defines the living, working, and movement patterns of the to,mship's residents and conseq_uently must be considered in proposals relating to the area's future. This section will delineate very general distributions of land use, a broad portrayal of a future dispersion of uses which is in keepin .'5 wit}1 tbe purpose of a comprebensivc plan - to V,tide the ~~Eal development of an area. This level of specif:i.ci ty allows the toT,mshj_p to institute specific land use policies within the extended framework :provided by tbe proposed land use plan. Tiesidenti~l: As in the past, residential use is projected to be tbe pre- dominate development activity .in _the to,mship. Existing land use analysis indicates that tbe majority of residential units are in the Lewiston-'rwin Lakes area, many of these being seasonal homes. The density in t::iis general vicinity is approximately 1.53 persons per acre and since the majority of lots border-ing the lakes are already developed, this should not increase substantially. More dispersed residential distribution on 5, 10, and 20 acre parcels characterizes the outlying sections of the township, and hence these areas are more conducive to new development. Of the ' approximately 46,000 acres which constitute Albert Township, about 20,900 acres are in private ownership and eligible for residential land use. �J Because the health, safety, and welfare of the township 1 s residents is of prime consideration in the planning process, tht prevention of groundwater pollution via adeq_uate sanitation is a major factor in land u se activity~ Therefore, the proposed sewer line boundary mentioned in the sewa8e disposal section of this plan is a limiting element in residential dispersion . The prospective sewer system will incorporate 6300 acres, leaving 14,600 acres of privately owned land for residential development without sewers . According :J ~ I 1 I to projected population figures, if the 6300 acres served by sewers are devel oped at the existin3 density of 1. 53 persons per acre, about 9500 people or 75% of tbe total projected tow11ship population of 12,000, will reside in the area. The remaining 3500people would be located in the rest of tbe 14~6oo acres, at a density of .23 persons per acre (one person per 4.34 acres). The proposed sewer service area (1.53 persons per acre ) will be designated as medium density in the future land use map. This designation can accommodate both single and multiple family units. The remaining privately o,med sections of Albert Township will be c.lnssi fied as low density, rural residential at approximately .23 persons per acre . Since public health req_uirements stipulate a preferred minimum density of one unit per acre with individual septic systems , these parcels should be no less than one acre j_n area and preferably larger . Commercial : (See Ma.p 32 . ) Existing commercial activity is generally limited to Lewiston and the immediate vicinity. According to policies for commercial activit y formulated in the plan, Lewiston will continue to be the center of cornme1·c e in the township and the major. stores will locate here . ttstrip commercial 11 ·1 I I I I I I I I I I I 115 I �i '.£., .ol. I I I I I I 1· ..., .:.. ALBERT TClwNSH I P PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL LA1'.1D USE ~ ~ Medium De::-isity p:;~:7r:;::.<:y·;:,vcm Low Density - Rural ~ I 116 �.1 activity, should be discouraged and more dense commercial land use, to facilitate pedestrian circulation, should occur in thefpresent downtown area . (See Map 33.) In addition, smaller local neighborhood convenience stores should be considered . Industrial: 'rhe majority of industrial activity should be confined to tl1e present industrial park North of Lewlston. This area is included in the sewer service area, is in an easily accessible location, and would a.llow economies of scale in industrial operations. Extract:Lve industries will have to locate adjacent to their source of materials. Mc:1.p 34 depicts proposed industrial activity areas. Recreatj_onal: I I I I I Storage areas should be on property which is screened from public view and not within or immedj_ately adjacent to beavily trafficked areas. 1 I I Since recreation ls an important element in the economy of the township and is pertinent to the quality of life of its residents, tr1is activity should be dispersed to serve the optimum number of people wbile enhancing the area 1s environmental features. Major outdoor recreation areas (camping, I I picnicking, and water sports sites) to serve visitors and seasonal residents should be located in those areas of the township containing pertinent enviro!l.mental features and having the capacity to accommodate projected use . Neighborhood and community recreational facilities should be centrally located, as well as large and varied enough to facilitate all elements of the population. A community recreation center, incorporating indoor and out- door facilities, should be promoted in the Lewiston area. Transportntj_on: Pedestrian circulation systems and vehicular transportatio!l. 117 I I I I I I �I I 11...l ~ .) ..) .! ,. :.•: . I NORTHWOOD I I I 0 (/) -ri- 0: - o, er. . <t w w a 0 X ~ ~ w w . _J Cl .:w .. <t I _,l_o_oLI J' t- r a - - - - - J .___ _ __., ;;t; MONTMORENCY • •~ •~ r~ I . . . ij~,-futi••-~~! ~f=======~~~~;~~[] -lL n J l ~~-J 1' . ij~ [n o 'l u.J fi S.E8!1.CS;___/l__~!(;_ tiEL.,$.QI:L:· f-' qi~ I f:J ~. _ _ _J ; _ J - §- •' ._______ ' .-:.i:. 11r--------r-i~ ~~~-ifJt~:~i~~~~~-~~~~~~~t~~?~1~~~~~})\\~~-: :~:.::~~~\-~~\ ~~~\:)<":·i~~~-~'.~ :.~ -s-~~ ..;~'~@'~ f-:?,~~ :-;·\~~~':-"-~~-,~~)<~-~t~~:~~:~~~>>,~·;~~\~:~S:}> 7:.\~~,:@,l~!..-.;,~". . ~r~~~f..:·:".1~1--~.! l-t) ~i-!-¥) :.:,._1;i,~~~~'l,T,:-;., ~~- )i;-~~~~-~ /·~~--:_ Cu . R D. 61 2 i ,. , ~~~;,;'!{~\.:?.~~z~t.~~~ .;"--;~!!:~~·:-? ,...~-~~?~-=~-~~~~~t.z-:-~ir,: ~--. ~ ,-- . ---------- . ~L§_]~ ~i'j Ct~ - \ DARD Y ~ I. I I I I '.3 :t w I- TNNIS I 1... . - 1 >a:: E AS I_ 1~ ~ ~~ 0 r· <.:> IJJ . TWJN L A I< E 7 efl.LSP•~ J a:: <.:> ~e;J:1-----Of\)(~Q92-::1·, -~~-___.,..,., . : , , - - - ~ . . Lewiston Area Proposed General Commercial 118 & Office Use ~ . �I MAP 34 ~1 CRYSTAL 7 ..., 9 ........ ::, CD 15 "' TU.1NSIIIP ALBER.1. · , IN·•m.JSTRIAL FUTURE 14 SE E~1'RAC'rIVE LAND U ; I I ~ 119 I �networks often define residential, industrial, and commercial l and uses. Tlle development of the township, therefore, requires proper recognition of tlle possible effects of higliway and street patterns! New residential development should be designed to efficiently limit the •I I •I land area devoted to loca,l streets . Commercial and industrial activities should be easily accessible by automobile while concurrently facilitating pedestrian movement within tbeir boundaries. Public bicycle and pedestrian paths should be constructed in both medimn and low density areas of the township, preferably separated from truck and automobile traffic. These can be utilized for sbort shopping trj_ps, as well I as longer recreational cycling endeavors. should be undertak en for such Facilities : a Detailed studies end desi g ns system. Structures and areas dedicated to public use require easy acces - sibility in order to serve as .many of the township' £, resj_dents as possible, I -I I I I I I as well as be c f::icie:ni.;ly designed to fulfill required functions . Con se - quently, governmental and quasi-public facilitj_es should be located adj ac ent to each other or within one complex in the Lewiston area . Map 35 shows the combined f\1ture residential, commercial, and industrial land uses within Albert Tmmship . Combined with social ancl economic policies, tbe proposed distribution of these activities can enhance the quality ·of life available to the residents of Albert Tavmship while still enabling it to retain its individual character . l20 �MAP 35 ALBERT TOWNSHIP GENERAL PROPOSED L.~ND USE Medium Density Residential r.•.. . Low Density-Rural Residential S 'i . ~. r•••••o••••••o•f'•••••• O II e .... ( • ~ • ,. .. ... ···~·········~······· Commercial " µ L A . A . ~ ....................t ....:V.\.A..lt. ... , Industrial - Extractive State Fo res t 121 I I _I I I I I I I I �MP L E ME NT AT 0 N �-- 1. -~ I I I' I I I ·I I I I I I I I I I IMPLEMEI ITA'rION 1 The goo.ls, objectives, and resultant policies advocated in this document . cannot be realized unless programs ar·e adopted to facilitate tbeir implementation. Tbese programs include political, economic, and legal measures to induce action on the part of administrators in providing for local development. Tbe plan comes to light 01?lY when the people of the tovmship join tocether to work toi-.'B.rd the goals they ho. ve advoce.ted . This requires creative foretbougbt ter.Jper2d wit1i rationalism and political reality. Unless this is done, ~he plan becomes practically useless. Implementation procedures and programs are as varied as tbe indi--ridual elements of tbe plan, but for all practical purposes they can be classified into four major categories: Those concerned with physical improvement, such as public work s - capital improvements programs; those related to services o.nd programs, such a.s health and welfare delivery systems; tbe promotion of the tovmship t11rough public and pri va.te incentives and advertisements; township regul1;3-tions and polic:i.es tbrough zoning and planning. Public works and capital improvements programs are contingent upon tbe immediate ~nd long-range goals of the t01-msbip and more importantly, upon the availability of funds. Federal and state domestic programs are the major sources of additional funding for area or community development. The tovmsbip should review an- nually the federal and state programs which may be available to the locality and attempt to secure matching funds for projects deemed important by the decision-makers and members of the community. 122 �Monies for industrial park development , recreation facilities , health and welfare facilities, airport development , sewer and water systems devel opment, open-space land acquisition , bikeway systkms, and community facilities, as enumerated in this plan, are possible for the township depend:i.ng upon the availability of funds and the specific eligibility requirements for each proe;ram. It should be emphnsized that the township has a better chance of acquirin P,; ajd if the programs it desires to see implerr.ented are on-going, coordinated programs that the general community is aware of and has an i.nterest in . That is, individual "spur-of-the-moment" efforts are not desirable . State funding and assistance programs should also be analyzed in con junction with the to.mship' s needs. Fire and police protecU.on assistance The Michigan Dep3.rtment of Natural Resources has worked in conjunction with the township in the past in providine; fire fighting equipment and should continue to be utilized as a source of assistance. Montmorency County has jurisdiction over public roads in the township and as the area develops, the Montmorency County Road Commission should be Public I?ar.l~~ng facilities might possibly be built with the help of federal fund:i ng. Pu.blic services and programs can also be funded throug·;; .· t!deral and state agencies. Vocational rehabilitation funding ca,n be attained through federal project grants administered by state or private non - profit agencies. Tbese funds may be used to retrain individuals for gainful employment and could be applicable to retraining the unemployed in Albert To.msh ip fo r skilled employment positions. Local industries may also bene f it f rom in - stituting and coordinating training programs \ 123 I II can be found at the federal, state, and county levels . made aware of the need for local and collector street improvements. I I I I I I I - the area to prepare I II II II I I I • �• • •I prospective employees with particular. skills. Federal programs are available to provide technical and educational assistance fn environmental and recreational improvement. The art of "grantsmanship", the ability to define and acquire outside I I monies, is an important tool in implementing the goals a.nd objectives of tte II Albert Township, ar c a combine. tion of public and pri vatc effo:rts. •I I - tovmship. Promotional endeavors, those designed to att1·act people and business to Advertisin~~ through various media is a method of dissemin3.tin8 inforrcation about the township to outside professi.onals and firms . The township can institute an official public relations program empl1asizing the o.menities of the area and the community 1 s desire for preferable enterprises as outlined. in the comprehensive plan . weal organizations, particularly the Chamber of Commerce, should endeavor to publicize commercie.l a.ctivities in attempts to attract business. Special events, commensurate with existing attructions, should be main to.ined and expanded . J\.s tbe tmmship develops, more commer cial and indus- trial enterprises will contribute to the financi al back ing these activities reCJ.uire. In addition, team sports, local arts and crafts procrams, a nd I safety education can be sponsored by businesses within tl1e tmmship. "• controlling and coordinating future growth . land use and physical development policies are of primary importance in Tbe comprebensive plan is · an accepted method of ~iding long-range development to protect the welfare of the towns}Jip' s residents. Zoning is a rational means of allocnting and de- fining land use to facilitate desirable growth and avoid conflicting activities. In the past, zoning has been applied in many communities in a stan- dardized fashion and zoning ordinances have usually contained the same 124 �general stipulations. Recently, however, new and innovative zonin~ regula - tions have been proposed which attempt to promoteimore efficient control of loca l land use. One such method is tl1e use of timing and sequent ial controls, whereby development is controlled accordini to a general long-ranie facilities and utilities plan. Briefly, tbe riebt of an individual or corporation to de- velop property would depend upon the distance the propo sed develop:nent is from tl1e utilities and fac i lit ies network as outlined in the plan. A point system is used t o determine the priority a particular development has in receivi ng approval from the local aut hority. The closer the proposed cievel- opment to exiGting o:r. proposed facilities, the greater the numbe r of points it receives. I I I I ' ' ' ' Wben the requisite accumulation of points has been achieved, and otber re 6'Ulatory crit eria have been approved, t11e development will be allowed. Basically, t l1e impl ement ation of this type of program enables tbe to,ms}iip to develop in controlled phases, maint a in a desir2.b l e balance c.mong l and use s , achieve greater regulatory powers and maintain qual ity services and facilities. The institution of subdivision regulations and planned unit development crit eria will allow tbe townsbj_p to incorporate guidelines for a mixture of land uses with in a given zoning district. Advantages include the review of plans a t the conceptual sta ges to insure proper access, circulation, school and park development, and ade~uate utilities . The township ma y also retain professional aid in r eviewing and making recommendations pertinent to the proposed development. Performa nce zoning is another means of allocating land use ac cording to specific criteria. In addition to designated zones, the nature of the 125 I I I I I J J - �development and the resultant performances it promotes, define the accepta bi~ity of that particular activity in the com:nunity. St9.ndards such as the number of cars generated in a particular area, theipotential disturbance to tl1e environment and increased need for public facilities are based upon q_uantitative and qualitative measures . These standards then define tl1e pre - ferred densities and distrj_bution of specific developments . E:..1.ch proposed activity is there fore analyzed in rele..tion to its effe cts upon surrounding activities . Another legal method of controlling and planning future growth is tbrough transference of development rights ('rons ). This ideu is predicated upon tl1e fact that the bundle of property ri r;hts a land owner has can be ' separated. The rj_3;ht to develop, or not develop, can be acquired by the tovmship through outright purchase, taxation agreements, or tra din::s of rights wi tb tl1e owner. \-11,ile the loca l government attains development rights, the individual retains m-mership of the property. An al terna ti ve to outright purchase or tax reduction is to trade development ri ghts . If the township desires to limit grovtb in outlying areas an<l has already at tained development ri 5 hts closer to urbanized sections, it can dj_rectly transfer its rights to the developer in exchange for the development rig11ts in the outlying area; thereby promoting grovth in a desirable locality and limiting it in an undesirable area . There are nwnerous variations to these methods which would enable the -township to define and control its grovth . Aesthetic considerations are important in pr omoting the at t ractiveness of the township as a place to shop, live, and visit . Ordinances r e gulating size and location of signs, types of commercia l landscapin~, and architec tural controls can be developed according to the township's design preferences . 126 �. An Envj_ronmental Hevicw Board can be established to an::-1lyze and mal<e recommendations to miti 6s.te undesirable environmr,ntal conseq_uences resulting fI\Om individual larr-;e-scale development. The above are by no means a complete comprehensive listing of irnpler.1ent3tion programs and techniques. The elected and appointed decision - makers in Albert Township have the rcsponsibili ty to become a,;are of and analyze , as. thoroughly as possibl~, any techniques which will promote the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan in light of the township's individual cbaracteristjcs and specific needs . While all policies may not be achieved within tbe planning period) t!J.e decit;ion - rnakers ar,d citizens o~ Albert To'.mship should promote the reali.zat:i.on of 8 s many of these statements as possible. T'ni s can be a de qua te1y done only if knowledge, creativity, and most importantly, coimunity inter est and involvement ber.01ne an integrq.l part ·of Albert 'rownship . 127 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Wyckoff Planning and Zoning Collection Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Planning & Zoning Center (Lansing, Mich.) (Organization) Wyckoff, Mark A. Description An account of the resource Municipal master plans and zoning ordinances from across the state of Michigan, spanning from the 1960s to the early 2020s. The bulk of the collection was compiled by urban planner Mark Wyckoff over the course of his career as the founder and principal planner of the Planning and Zoning Center in Lansing, Michigan. Some additions have been made to the collection by municipalities since it was transferred to Grand Valley State University. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Michigan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1960/2023 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Subject The topic of the resource Michigan Comprehensive plan publications Master plan reports Zoning--Michigan Zoning--Maps Maps Land use--planning Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-240 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Albert-Twp_Comprehensive-Plan_1975 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Albert Township Planning, Zoning and Sanitation Commission. Albert Township, Montmorency County, Michigan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1975-09-17 Title A name given to the resource Albert Township Comprehensive Plan Description An account of the resource Comprehensive Plan for Albert Township, Montmorency County, Michigan developed by the Albert Township Planning, Zoning and Sanitation Commission with the assistance of the Northeast Michigan Regional Planning and Development Commission September 17, 1975. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Northeast Michigan Regional Planning and Development Commission (consultant) Subject The topic of the resource Comprehensive plan publications Albert Township (Mich) Montmorency County (Mich.) Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/974692e8346fe02f572700ed5f1b00a7.pdf a787bd151049a85bd76616c30209107c PDF Text Text ALGOMA TOWNSHIP Kent County, Michigan 1991 ) I �., FROM THE LIBRARY O.F1 Inc. Planning & Zoning Center, , ALGOMA TOWNSHIP Acknowledgements TOWNSHIP BOARD • Mark Doren, Supervisor Laural Walkons, Clerk Deborah Arends, Treasurer Paul Harris, Trustee Gerald Oele, Trustee TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION , Al Larsen, · Bob Powell GeraldOele Bob Wilson, Chairman Edgar Ault, Secretary Winnie Nash Lester Momber MASTER PLAN TASK FORCE Bob Wilson, Chairman Caryn Helmer, Secretary Stu Cok Denny Hoemke Steve Johnson Duane Mc I ntyre Winnie Nash Frank Vanderhyde Laural Walkons Deborah Arends GeraldOele Master Plan Adopted: November 19, 1991 Prepared with assistance of WW Engineering & Science 5555 Glenwood Hills Parkway, S.E. Grand Rapids, MI 495U-2091 (616) 942-9600 �l l 1 1 l Table of Contents Introduction 1 1. 3 Goals and Objectives Agricultural Lands and Interests Natural Resources Parks and Recreation Historic Sites and Preservation Residential Development Inter-Governmental Cooperation Commercial Development Industrial Development Infrastructure - Roads, Private Roads and Utilities l 1 J Page Chapter 2. Physical Description Regional Setting Natural Features 1 3. Social_ and Economic Characteristics Population Characteristics Economic Characteristics Households I I I I 4. Community Faci/ities Township Offices Fire Services Public Safety Libraries Cemeteries Parks and Recreation Historical Sites Educational Facilities Solid Waste Disposal Roads and Transportation A&C\Algoma\89564.01\AlgoT~b 3 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 14 14 22 22 27 27 28 28 28 28 28 29 29 30 30 30 31 �l 1 1 5. l Agriculture Residential General Business Industrial Public/Semi-Public Road and Railway 1 I 6. I 'r r r r r r r r Existing Land Use Analysis P Janning Analysis Population Projections Residential Land Use Needs Other Land Use Needs Parks and Recreation Roads and Streets 7. Future Land Use Plan Relationship of Planning to Zoning Plan Concepts Land Use Categories Future Roads 8. Implementation Zoning Additional Planning Studies Adopt Township Subdivision Ordinance Prepare and Adopt Capital Improvements Program Planning Commission Work Program Planning Education Revisions to the Master Plan A&C\Algorna\89564.01\AlgoT~b 35 35 37 38 39 39 40 43 43 43 45 48 48 51 51 52 53 66 69 69 71 72 72 72 73 73 �1 l List of Tables 1 1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. I Page Table 6. 7. 8. Historical Population Change Building Permits for Single Family Homes Age of Residents - 1980 and 1990 Per Capita Income 24 Hour Traffic Counts Existing Land Use Population Projections Traffic Volume Projections 24 25 26 26 34 36 44 50 List of Maps Page Map I I 'J 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Woodlands and Wetlands Soils Unsuitable for Development Prime Farmland Residential Building Permits by Section 1986-1990 Road Classification System Existing Land Use, June 1991 PA. 116 Parcels and Dates of Expiration Future Land Use Map Mixed Use PUD r r r r r A&C\Algoma\89564.0l\AlgoTCJC\5b 19 20 21 23 33 41 42 Inside Rear Pocket 68 �• l 1 1 I I J r r r r r r ALGOMA TOWNSHIP MASTER PLAN INTRODUCTION The fundamental purpose of the Master Plan is to allow Algoma Township to set forth in a comprehensive manner the goals and objectives for its physical development. The Township Planning Act, Public Act 168 of 1959, as amended, specifically gives Township Planning Commissions the authority to prepare and officially adopt a Master Plan. This Plan will serve as an advisory guide for the physical conservation of certain areas and for the development of other areas into a desira~le living environment for present and future township residents. Planning, in simple terms, is a goal-oriented and continuous process which seeks to improve a community and create a better environment. As such, a Master Plan is a "tool" by which this goal can be reached. It is used by both individuals and public officials to make decisions concerning the long-range future ·of a community. In 1968, The Algoma Township Planning Commission prepared a Master Land Use Plan to serve as a guideline for the rapidly accelerating growth in the Township. In 1990, the Township Planning Commission initiated an update of the 1968 Plan, by appointing a Master Plan Task Force Committee to accomplish this process. Over the past 22 years, significant changes have occurred in the Township, rendering a Plan update an imperative. Completion of the U.S. 131 Expressway in 1969 with interchanges at both 10 Mile and 14 Mile Roads has made the Township easily accessible from the Grand Rapids Metropolitan Area. Population has increased in the Township by 76.1 % since 197 0. The attractiveness of the Township, determined largely by an abundance of natural features and unspoiled landscapes, insures that the community will continue to be a desirable place for the location of new homes and businesses. The Master Land Use Plan provides: 1. A comprehensive means of integrating proposals that look 20 years ahead to meet future needs regarding general and major aspects of physical conservation and development throughout the Township; 2. An official, advisory policy statement for encouraging orderly and efficient use of the land for residences, businesses, industry, parks and recreation areas, and agriculture, and for coordinating these uses of land with each other, with streets and highways, and with other necessary public facilities and services; 3. A logical basis for zoning, subdivision design, public improvements plans, and for facilitating and guiding the work of the Township Planning Commission and the Township Board as well as other public and private endeavors dealing with the physical conservation and development of the Township; A&C\Algoma\'!9564.0l'algornarnp\sb 1 �4. A means for private organizations and individuals to determine how they may relate their building and development projects and policies to official township planning policies; and 5. A means of relating the plans of Algoma Township to the plans of adjacent townships, villages and cities and to development of the region as a whole. The final element of the plan will synthesize the recommended goals and needs of the Township with the analysis of existing conditions and trends. The plan will conclude with an implementation program that will define strategies and will address specific tools for implementation such as the zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, and a capital improvements program. The Algoma Township Plan is intended to be long-range and dynamic, based on long-term goals and objectives looking 20 years forward. With that in mind, there is an important caveat to this planning process: the Master Plan is general in scope. It is not necessarily intended to establish the precise boundaries of land use areas or the exact locations of individual future land uses. Its greater function is to serve as a decision making frame-work. The Master Plan insures that more detailed future decisions have a clear and rational basis. I A&C\Algoma\J!9564.01\algomamp\sb 2 �CHAPTER 1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Planning goals are statements that express the community's long range desires and serve to provide direction for related planning activities. Each goal has accompanying objectives which reflect the general strategy that the community will pursue to attain its goals. Following are goals and objective statements that have been developed for shaping the Algoma Township Master Plan, based upon citizen input and technical analysis of the data. The following goals and objectives were developed based upon information generated at two public workshops held on January 28 and February 11, 1991. Each workshop was attended by about thirty Township residents; the initial workshop included representation from the Kent County Road Commission and the West Michigan Environmental Action Council. Besides the goals that are specific to the categories listed below the Algoma Township Master Plan Task Force identified the following overall goal: Where existing conditions permit, moderate uses of land (commercial, medium density residential, etc.) will serve as a buffer between intense land uses (industrial, high density, etc.) and low intensity land uses (single family residential, agricultural, etc.) Agricultural Lands and Interests Goal: Respect the rights of the active farmer and ensure compatibility between farm and non-farm uses while providing for the long-term transition of active farm land to non-farm land use. Objectives: ' ' 1. Support the Farmland and Open Space Preservation Act, P.A. 116 of 1974, by encouraging use of instruments by area farmers and approving such use of instruments that are consistent with the land use plan. 2. Encourage property tax policies that assess farmland for its present use rather than its potential use. 3. Through zoning, allow reasonable minimum lot sizes for non-farm uses in areas zoned for agriculture. 4. Encourage "Hobby Farms" on four (4) acres or more in order to preserve and enhance the rural character of the area. A&C\A.lgoma\89564.01\algomamp\sb 3 �Natural Resources: Preserve the environmental and scenic quality of the Township. Goal: Objectives: r 1. Ensure that development takes place in an environmentally consistent and sound manner by minimizing the potential for flood hazard, soil erosion, and disturbances to the natural drainage network, and protecting the quality of surface and groundwater resources, wetlands, and woodlands. 2. Through zoning, site plan review, and education encourage approaches to land development that take natural features such as soils, topography, steep slopes, hydrology, and natural vegetation into account in the process of site design and building design. 3. Encourage soil conservation practices and education on the prudent use of fertilizers and pesticides. Encourage Township to consider implementing recommendations of the Greenbelt Management Program as proposed by the State of Michigan Department of Natural Resources in the Natural Rivers Act. 4. For all types of development, work with County and State officials to develop improved standards regarding the suitability of soils for septic system placement and use. 5. Through site plan review, discourage practices which would alter the natural, valuable function of wetlands, especially those not protected under the State of Michigan Wetlands Protection Act (P.A. 203 of 1979). 6. · Establish landscaping guidelines for existing and future commercial, industrial, and residential development which, through site plan review, would preserve and increase the numbers of trees and other woody vegetation in the Township including provision for the replacement of dead or diseased landscaping vegetation. 7. Through zoning and growth management policies, establish guidelines which would further protect the Rogue River and its watershed; calling upon recommendations in the Flood Hazard Study of the Rogue River, Valley Preserve System as presented in the Grand River Basin Comprehensive Water Resources Study, the Natural Rivers Act, and the Greenbelt Management Binder. 'r,. A&C\Algoma~9564.0I\algomamp\sb 4 �8. Identify factors that may contribute to groundwater contamination. Participate in regional and state-wide programs to monitor the quality of surface and groundwater. 9. Through permit application and enforcement procedures, require the satisfactory reclamation of lands after removal of natural resources such as sand, gravel, soil, rocks or minerals. 10. Through education encourage the participation of Township residents in the use of approved methods of solid waste disposal including waste stream reduction, recycling, composting, and other techniques. 11. Promote and support community clean-up programs. 12. In order to continue the unique views and vistas which occur naturally within the Township, through Ordinance, establish methods of protecting the country atmosphere, rolling terrain and open space nature of the long-distance vistas. In particular, these areas are: near US-131 between 10 Mile and 12 Mile, near US-131 between 12 Mile and 14 Mile. 1 A&OAlgoma\89564.0 l\algomamp\sb 5 �Parks and Recreation Plan for and develop active and passive outdoor recreation facilities to meet the needs of existing and future residents of the Township. Goal: Objectives: 1. Implement the recommendations set forth in the Algoma Township Park, Recreation, and Natural Area Plan of 1988. 2. Support development of the Rails-to-Trails program and through zoning and site plan review reduce conflicts between recreational trail use and adjacent land uses. 3. Work with residential developers to set aside suitable portions of land for neighborhood parks, and road easements for pedestrian/bicycle paths. 4. Encourage rural neighbors to develop reciprocal agreements for cross-country and hiking trails. 5. Pursue the possibility of Township acquisition of Department of Natural Resources lands through exchange of property of similar or equal value. (The proposed route for the Kent County ~icycle Trail Plan does not go through any sections of Algoma Township. The Trail does run north and south through neighboring Sparta Township and cuts in fairly close to the Township line along Long Lake Avenue. The proposed North Country Trail in Kent County does cut through parts of Algoma Township. The trail is shown to enter the Township in the southeast corner in the vicinity of the City of Rockford and runs north along Northland Drive until it exits the Township where Northland Drive meets the Township boundaries). 6. Work to implement the recreational components of the Valley Preserve Plan. ' A&C\Algoma\89564.01\algomamp\o;b 6 �Historic Sites and Preservation Identify and preseive for present and future generations, historic sites, architectural items, and buildings determined to have historic significant value within the Township. Goal: Objectives: 1. Support and promote historical preseivation activities of the Township. 2. Preseive the historic architectural style of the Township by identify the built architectural styles (including but not limited to farm houses, barns, fence styles, etc.) which symbolize the area's heritage. 3. Identify locations and structures determined to have local historical significance and encourage preseivation and/or improvement of these sites. 4. Call upon resources at both the County, State and Federal level to assist with identification and preseivation of local historic sites and structures. r r 'r , A&C\Algoma\89564.01\algomamp\sb 7 �Residential Development To create attractive, safe, and convenient residential environments providing a variety of housing opportunities with adequate schools, parks, utilities, and other facilities determined desirable or necessary for community development. Goal: Objectives: 1. Encourage the highest concentrations of residential development in locations where there are existing public utilities and where the greatest potential exists for public utilities and services. 2. Establish density standards that ate consistent with the natural capacity of soils to handle on-site septic systems and which promote the preservation of the Township's natural resources and rural and suburban qualities. 3. Provide opportunities for construction of affordable housing. 4. Encourage creative design of neighborhoods to enhance desirability by including sidewalks, bike paths, pedestrian paths, open space, parks and playgrounds. 5. Encourage residential development patterns that utilize small lot, cluster development in conjunction with open space or conservation easements that may be retained in agricultural uses. 6. Strengthen and protect the viability of neighborhoods by controlling the expansion of incompatible land uses on adjacent properties and protecting neighborhoods by open space and other buffers. 7. Plan residential development on Natural Beauty Roads with sensitivity to potential impacts and with priority placed upon preservation of the aesthetic and cultural value of the scenery. 8. Through watershed management planning, promote the highest feasible quality of Camp Lake as both a valuable natural resource and a quality residential environment. 9. Implement width-to-depth ratios to regulate the shape of parcels. I 1 1 1 A&o.Algoma\89564.01\algomamp\,b 8 �Inter-Governmental Cooperation Goal: Promote a coordinated approach among local units of government regarding goals, objectives, and policies that determine the development of Algoma Township and its neighboring communities. Objectives: - 1. Increase the area tax base and employment opportumt:J.es through increased coordination between industrial agencies, local chambers of commerce, and municipal governments. 2. Build local and regional support for growth management techniques and improved land use patterns. 3. Promote a coordinated approach among local communities for the provision and expansion of public utilities. 4. Increase local funding resources through the coordination of efforts of local government to secure and efficiently spend grants, federal dollars, etc. 5. Establish a communications network among officials of local governmental units. 6. Negotiate annexation and/or tax base sharing regarding industrial, commercial, and high density residential development with neighboring communities. 1 1 1 A&C\Algoma\89564.01\algomamp\sb 9 �Commercial Development Goal: l 1 1 .1 1 1 1 Provide a mix of commercial uses at planned locations which are aesthetically pleasing and create a safe and efficient traffic circulation pattern. Objectives: 1. Conduct a corridor study along Northland Drive and prepare sub-area plans on Ten Mile Road and Fourteen Mile Road. 2. In order to minimize traffic congestion and hazard, develop ordinances which require the shared use of commercial driveways and access roads, limit the number and spacing of driveways along arterials, encourage the use of frontage roads or service drives. 3. Incorporate design and performance standards into the Township Zoning Ordinance that will achieve commercial development which is aesthetically appealing, and which operates in a safe and efficient manner. 4. Through zoning or provision for Planned Unit Development, provide neighborhood commercial opportunities near high density residential development. l 1 1 7 1 l 1 7 A&.C\Algoma\89564.01\algomamp~b 10 �Industrial Development Goal: Provide for industrial development in areas served by adequate transportation systems and which will probably be served by public utilities and services. Objectives: 1. Encourage the extension of public utilities and services to those areas identified as desirable for industrial development 2. Promote the development of industrial plats rather than scattered single lot development. 3. Achieve quality industrial development through appropriate zoning ordinance requirements while expanding economic opportunities. 4. Separate industrial uses from less intense land uses such as residential through appropriate use of buffer strips, open space or transitional land uses. 5. Encourage the expansion of employment opportunities in the Township in order to reduce the percentage of residents who commute to their place of work. 6. Consider eliminating the Heavy Industrial District from the Township Zoning Ordinance, due to lack of appropriate areas near adequate transportation routes, and due to the existence of uses that are not compatible with heavy industrial uses. r A&OAlgoma\89564.01\algomamp\\b 11 �Infrastructure - Roads, Private Roads and Utilities Goal: Provide for adequate infrastructure that will ensure balanced, orderly growth and ensure the safety and well-being of Township residents. Objectives: 1. Develop a Township-wide street and transportation plan which addresses such items as: Traffic control measures such as turning lanes, traffic signalization, service drives, curb-cut design and location standards. Increased building and parking setbacks along major roadways. Functional classification of roadways. The relationship of land use to road capacity and function. , The interconnection/upgrading of existing and future private roads. The need and feasibility for alternate routes to reduce local traffic on major arterials and on other local roads. 2. Conduct a corridor study along major arterials such as Ten Mile Road, Northland Drive, Fourteen Mile Road, and Thirteen Mile Road to address issues of traffic safety, flow, and need for additional lanes. 3. Encourage the construction of pedestrian and bike paths on major arterial streets. 4. Encourage that private roads be built to respect natural terrain and other features of the natural environment without circumventing construction techniques. 5. Enforce design and construction standards for private roads to insure the possibility of converting private roads to public roads. 6. Coordinate private road development so that these roads may connect logically and efficiently with public road systems and adjacent private road systems. 7. Through ordinance, establish private road construction standards that permit adequate emergency vehicle access, that will not impede proper maintenance of the road, and that ensure the road will not constitute a danger to inhabitants of the Township. 9. Maintain and provide improvements to primary and local roads to insure safe access while maintaining their natural beauty. '1 ~ 'i A&C\Algoma~9564.0l\algomamp¼b 12 �10. Require residential subdivisions, multi-family developments, commercial and industrial development to utilize public sewer· systems where -available. 11. Maintain and enforce regulations for private roads that seek to protect the health, safety and welfare of Algoma Township residents. r A&C\Algoma~9564.0l\algomamp\sb 13 �CHAPTER2 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION This chapter examines the regional setting and the natural features that have impacted upon the community and have helped to determine what the community is today. Natural features examined include geology, water resources, topography and drainage, soils and climate. REGIONAL SETTING Algoma Township is located in northwest Kent County in the second tier of townships from the County's northern boundary. Composed of approximately 34.5 square miles, the Township is bounded on the north by 16 Mile Road, on the east by Northland Drive (old U.S. 131), on the south by Ten Mile Road, and on the west by Division Avenue. Neighboring Townships and communities include Solon Township . and the City of Cedar Springs to the north and northeast, Courtland Township to the east, the City of Rockford in the southeast, Plainfield Township to the south, and Sparta Township and the Village of Sparta to the west According to 1990 preliminary U.S. Census data, Algoma Township ranked eleventh in population among Kent County's twenty-one townships with a population of 5,439 people. The center of the Township is located 9.8 miles from the northern boundary of the City of Grand Rapids, and primary access to the Grand Rapids Metro Area is via the U.S. 131 Expressway which traverses the eastern half of the Township in a north-south direction. Algoma Township lies 26 miles east of Muskegon and 32 miles east of the Lake Michigan shoreline. NATURAL FEATURES Geology The bedrock of all of Kent County consists of the edges of the bowl-like rock formation known as the Michigan Basin. The oldest rock is Marshall Sandstone, overlapped in the central portion of the County in the vicinity of Algoma Township by the Michigan Formation which is primarily limestone, gypsum, and dolomite interbedded with shale and sandstone. Overlying these rock formations is a mass of glacial drift ranging from ten to several hundred feet in thickness that was deposited during the Wisconsin glacial period. Kent County is located in an area where the Michigan and Saginaw lobes of the Wisconsin ice sheet met. Consequently, a complex and strongly developed morainic 1 system developed and the present surface features are for the most part the results of glacial action. The glacial drift ranges from coarse gravel to fine lacustrine2 clay; It is the parent material in which many of the soils in the county are formed. 1 2 Moraines are glacial deposits of earth, stones, and other debris Materials originally deposited in lake water A&C\Algoma\89564.01\algomamp\sb 14 �Within Algoma Township, the physiography ranges from hilly morainic belts rising from nearly level valleys generally following the direction of the Rogue River and smaller streams, to gently sloping or rolling till plains3 generally higher than the morainic belts. Topography, Drainage, and Surface Waters Land formations in the Township vary from hilly areas with steep slopes found in the southeast and central-east parts of the Township to the low, plain-like valley of the Rogue River in the southwest portion. A series of lakes is located in the western quarter of the Township, and this series continues northward into Solon Township. The two major watersheds in the Township are the Rogue River basin and the Cedar Creek Basin. Other streams include Little Cedar Creek entering the Township in Section 1, Stegman Creek which enters the Township at the center of the eastern boundary, and a small portion of Shaw Creek which joins with the Rogue River just above the northern boundary of the City of Rockford. Where Cedar Creek enters the Township at 16 Mile Road, its elevation is 849 feet, and it joins the Rogue River in section 22 above 12 Mile Road at an elevation of 709 feet. The Little Cedar joins Cedar Creek just north of the intersection of Algoma Avenue and 14 Mile Road at an elevation of 779 feet. The Rogue River enters the Township in Section 30 at the lower western boundary at an elevation of about 729 feet and exits the Township at the City of Rockford northern boundary at 699 feet. Several formal county drains provide controlled drainage within the western one third of the Township. These include The Finch, Black Lake, Basin, Vandermeer, Dutch and Pickerel Lake Drains. The Kent County Drain Commission and the Township share in the maintenance of the established drainage system. The Rogue River and its flood plain are significant features and flood prone areas have been identified in detail as part of the Flood Hazard Study of the Rogue River completed in 1982 by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. The study reported 1224.6 acres in Algoma Township as being within the 100-year Floodplain. r r- r The surface waters of the Township consist of ten lakes, portions of four additional lakes,. several unnamed ponds, and the Rogue River with its associated network of streams. Camp Lake is the largest lake in the Township and has a water surface of about 140 acres. Other lakes include Whit, Wallace, High, Low, Nelson, and Meek Lakes which connect in a chain on the western side of the Township. Portions of the Ke-Wag-A-Wan Lakes group and the Indian Lakes system are found in the northwestern corner of the Township as are portions of Squaw and Lime Lakes. 3 Flat to undulating areas underlain by unsorted glacial drift A&C\Algoma\89564.01\algomamp\sb 15 �Hoskins Lake is located on Little Cedar Creek in Section 10. Lake levels range from 794 feet above sea level at Lime Lake to about 729 feet at Meek Lake. All lakes are private with the exception of Camp Lake on which a state owned public access site is located. The Michigan Resource Information System (MIRIS), which compiles land use date from infrared aerial photography, records 252 acres of open water in the Township. , - 1 Many wetland areas are scattered throughout the Township, and are primarily associated with surface water bodies and drainage patterns. The Michigan Resource Information System records 427 acres of wetlands in Algoma Township. Map 1 illustrates woodland and wetland areas in the Township as identified by MIRIS. There is some disparity between this map and wetlands as identified by the National Wetlands Inventory conducted by the United States Department of the Interior. While MIRIS categorizes lowland hardwoods and lowland conifers as forested lands, the National Inventory records these as forested or shrub-scrub wetland areas that are seasonally flooded. An example of this is much of the area along the Rogue River and parts of Sections 10, 11, 13, and 15. Consequently the Township in fact has more areas that may be considered as wetlands than Map 1 actually indicates. According to Kent County Health Department officials, one area of concern regarding ground water contamination exists within the Township. This area is located southeast of the intersection of 13 Mile Road and Northland Drive. Reports of metal and organic contaminants in the groundwater are currently under investigation; implications for public health are uncertain at this time. Soils The identification of soil types in the Township is an important consideration of both the existing and future physical development of the Township. While residents in the Camp Lake area are served by the Village of Sparta municipal sewer system, the balance of homes and businesses must rely on soil suitability to obtain a safe water supply and to dispose of waste water. In general, the soils in Algoma Township range from the poorly drained mucky or loamy soils along the Rogue River Valley to well drained or excessively drained sandy or loamy materials. Map 2 has been prepared based on soils and their unsuitability for development without public sewers. The factors considered include hazards of flooding, depth to water table, percolation rate, and slope. It should be noted that the soils with severe limitations will in most cases present problems for the efficient operation of individual septic systems. Because of high water tables or rapid lateral movement of subsurface waters in these areas, the use of septic tanks and drainage fields provides increased potential for pollution of wells and surface waters. In addition, there is a potential for seasonal flooding of basements. Intensive development in these areas often results in increased demands for public sewers and/or water systems to compensate for environmental hazards or health hazards. 1 A&.C\Algoma\89564.01\algomamp\.lb 16 �r r - By mapping these soils according to their unsuitability for development, patterns are identified which make it possible to determine the development potential of specific areas. Although the map is not intended as a substitute for on-site investigation or detailed engineering studies, it does generally define those areas that should be considered as unsuitable for development. Soils which generally have unsuitable characteristics for building or septic use may still be useful with on-site modifications or detailed site analysis. However, significant development in these areas will increase the need for public utilities. In particular the northwest quarter of the Township contains large areas of soils with severe limitations for septic tank absorption due to high percentages of clay resulting in moderately slow permeability, and due to high water tables. In some cases, excessive slopes are a limiting factor. The area on the west side of Camp Lake, previously the site of contamination problems due to high density residential development, is currently serviced by the Village of Sparta municipal sewer system. - ~ t Limitations for development also occur in the southeast along the Rogue River Valley and its tributaries. The central part of the southeast quarter of the Township is also limited by heavy soils and in some cases excessive slopes. The balance of soils in the Township are primarily sandy or loamy sand soils which are suitable for individual sewage disposal systems at low densities. Another important feature of soils within Algoma Township are the soils considered as prime farmland by the United State Department of Agriculture. Prime farmland, as defined by the USDA, is the land that is best suited to food, feed, forage, fiber, and oil seed crops, and produces the highest yields with minimal inputs of energy and economic resources. Map 3 delineates the soils within Algoma Township that are considered as prime agriculture soils. Soils that are unsuitable for on site septic systems, except for those along waterways, somewhat loosely delineate the prime agricultural soils in the Township, mainly due to adequate available water capacity of those soils. l -I Climate Temperatures in Algoma Township range from an average high and low of 30.3° F and 16.0° F. respectively in January, to averages of 83.3° F and 59.6° Fin July. In a normal winter, Algoma Township will experience nine days with temperatures of zero or below, while in the summer eleven days will reach 90°F or above. The annual rainfall in Algoma Township averages 33 inches with snowfall accumulations of 76 inches. The growing season, May through September, lasts about 170 days with threat of frost occurring on an average by October 12th and no later than April 25th. Sunshine is most prevalent in August and least prevalent in December. A&aAlgana\89564.01'-ilgomamp\sb 17 �- l r - - Fish and Wildlife, Unique Natural Features Algoma Township provides suitable habitat for the types of wildlife found throughout Kent County. These include Whitetail deer, small mammals such as squirrels, raccoons, rabbits, and possum, game birds such as pheasants, ducks, and ruffed grouse, and many species of birds that thrive in both forested and open areas. The lakes and streams of the Township may include game fish such as trout, bass, pike, perch, blue gills and sunfish. Steelhead trout and salmon migrate up the Rogue River in the fall. Scattered through the Township are remnant White Pines which for the most part were removed during the logging era of the 1800's. - - -r -l A&C\Algoma\89564.01\algomamp\sb 18 �) I. ' \ ) \ ) . J ' ) < ~ ) ' J' '·· \ .1 I t (SOLON TWP.) i ) •, ,:.__. ) "- ' ~ i 0 ~ E!II HJI zl~ / 16 Mil£ RD. ====•== 8 ~ 9!4w. I •-~✓- -~1J.J~ ~ \Jil iV N\ . ~ ~. ~ I ~~111/////h ~/h,,,,,;-.~~-- L'._'_ I I_ I I fl -~g-ga I I II 15 Mil£ RD RUSSEU. ST w \) 0 BROMAN sr. I I L____ ~8 . 17 -~ T~ I ---a.. ~ ~ ~ f' 13 Mil£ RD ~ ~ ~ a::: 0 z 5 I- a.. a::: ,,,,,,,,,,.,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,, :::, 0 12 Mil£ RD 1~, I a.. ~ <( Cf) ...__,, 0 , ~I C Ff- b I J I ~ ~ \ , l 7 -~ ~'h\ I\I 1 I w I ~ ~ j I I rl I'>' ' u ...__,, 10 Mil£ RD. (PLAINFIELD TWP.) ~ Ii: ALGOMA TOWNSHIP KENT COUNTY, MICtlGAN MAP 1 ~ ~ WOODLANDS & WETLANDS .I.EGEHll: T BJ BJ WOODLANDS - INCLUDES NORTHERN HAADWOODS, COORM. HAAOWOODS, AND LOWLAND HAAOWOODS WHICH MAY INDICATE PRESENCE Of WE1\N4DS 'NET\ANDS - INCLUDES WOODED, SHRUB, SCRUB, AND EMERGENTS WETl.NIOS -__..........._~,,,,. .... _,. -.................__ ,,_......... ~ SOURCE: MICHIGAN RESOURCE INFORMATION SYSTEM, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES �.~ ) I • V } I I ) ' J ' · - J; ~ (SOLON TWP.) ifr-1} ) I ) I J 0 It: ~ .;,~ I '.A ZI 16 Mil£ RO • .,......, IJ Mil£ RO (L ,.......,_ (L ~ ~ ~ D z ~ (L ~ I- Cf) ........... 0::: ::J 0 u ........... ~ 10 MILE RO. 1"\. // ~ ~ (PLAINFIELD TWP.) ~ ~ 0 l"' ALGOMA TOWNSHIP KENT COUNTY, MICIIGAN ~ ~ MAP 2 SOILS UNSUITABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT :r .LEG.El:il2: - SOILS WHICH AAE GENERAU.Y UNSUrTABl£ FOR ON SITE SEPTIC SYSTEMS DUE TO ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING CHAAAC11'RIST1CS: - SOIL PERCOIATION RATE - SLOPE(MORE TtWI 18:t} - DEPlli OF HIGH WATER TABl£ l£SS TtWI SIX FEET - FLOOD ~ O (PONDING, WETNESS) ON-SITE INVESTIGATION MAY STILL BE NECESSARY TO DETERMINE SEPTIC SYS'1EM SUrTASIUTY. CAMP lAKE SEWER SER\IICE AREA . ___ _,. ...... _....,_,__ _________ ,.. ...... -...-... , ......,....... ~~ �., 11' •.~ ' 1 ~ (SOLON TWP.) ~ I I - _) _I a "' ~ . .«.Jw. 15 R<'I xs, .... f 16 MILE RD. 14 - ,........,, CL ~·' ' '.-J 1J MILE RD ,........,, CL ~ ~ ~ (l:'.: 0 z <( CL ~ C/) ...__... ::i I- 21 (l:'.: ::) ~ 0 12 MILE RO (.) ...__... I 26 '< I I ~ - . ~ , ~4 10 M!I..E RO • 1,, // ~ ~ (PLAINFIELD TWP.) i I i !.., l ALGOMA TOWNSHIP KENT COUNTY, MICtlGAN MAP 3 ~ ~ PRIME FARMLANDS :r .LtG£tlQ: - PRIME rAAMIAND - SOILS BEST SUITTll TO rooo. F£ED, FORAGE. FlBER, ANO OIL SEED CROPS 1'S DET£RMINED BY THE UNJTt:S STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ___......-,..1 ................... DMIIM~· _.................... - ." ..... ~L" I �CHAPTER3 .. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS Understanding the people of Algoma Township will help establish the basis for developing the Master Plan. This discussion will review the Township' population characteristics and trends as well as economic conditions and housing characteristics of the community. Population Characteristics Table 1 illustrates past growth of Algoma Township relative to the four surrounding Townships and the three nearby communities of Sparta, Cedar Springs, Rockford. Kent County totals are also shown. Township totals exclude incorporated areas. , The decade between 1960 and 1970 saw substantial increases in population for the townships surrounding Algoma Township, although Algoma itself grew at a lesser rate, recording a 24.3% increase. Between 1970 and 1980, Algoma Township increased its population by 42.8%, outpacing all of the surrounding communities except Courtland Township and the City of Cedar Springs. During the last decade, 1980-1990, the rate of growth in Algoma Township slowed to 24.6%. Other communities also show a decrease or leveling off of growth rate, except both Sparta Township and Sparta Village which show increased rates of growth during that ten year period. In all cases, the rate of population increase for Algoma Township surpassed Kent County as a whole. Table 2 illustrates building permit activity in Algoma Township over the past ten years, and permits taken out through October of 1990. The data show an average of 42 new single family homes each year since 1980, and an average of nearly 55 new homes per year over the past five years. Using an average household size of 3.09 persons for 1990 (see following section on Households), 55 new homes will yield approximately 170 persons residing in new dwellings in 1990. Map 4 indicates the numbers of building permits issued for new home construction in 1986-1990 by section. 1 . I :t Another important factor when exanumng Algoma's community profile is the age of its residents. Table 3 shows a comparative age breakdown as reported by the 1980 and 1990 U.S . Census. Although the median age has increased in the last ten years from 27.4 to 31.8, Algoma Township still Jlas a relatively young population with 73% under the age of 44. Only a small portion is over 65, 6.7%. Although not shown in Table 3, the median age for Algoma Township in 1990 was 31.8 compared to 30.7 for Kent County as a whole. In 1980, Algoma had a lower median age than the County 27.4 to 28 years of age. All together, these figures indicate the presence in the Township of a high percentage of persons in the childbearing years and with young children. y A&c:.\Algoma\89564.01\algomamp~b 22 �.I ,, __,,,_ J ,,, l j .) . _} ~ I } J . J 1 ..., I.., ~r J,=' ,,I 1..._.. '. !!i: ·~ 15 _ > '11 <'.I ) I 4 ..--... _J · Iii,( / I I ,. I . .j •. I a ~ (SOLON TWP.) _J ) -l 0: ~ JL of WI zj / \I I 1 1 //~ I ------ ' BROMAN ST. • ~ 0 r'-" - II~ 11§ _ ~ I a.. ~ II I I ~ a::: <( 81GH I I a.. en I I '-" LAKE ) I I I I I I I 15 1 .,......_ RUSSELL ST @/ I I 17 16 I I I 13 Mil£ RO ®i )I RECTOR ST. 20 a.. 0 z ~ fa::: 24 21 ~ .,......_ ~ ® I I I I 15 Mil£ Rq --+---'--Ir-,..,----------+- p- I ®i ~~ 'No~ LAKES RO. ® 12 9 8 1&MIL£Ro. :) 0 01 2 0i!i'?0 ·,~..:·~~ ... , , ... ·-rw~ I 27 . I 26 I I '-" ~~} ' \ C 0: JJ '< I 11 I ~ Iii :IE a ,~.J;? I ) f;p_;, ~ ~\ I ( ~ (PLAINFIELD TWP.) ~ i -, CI -"(II)) \ •1 'I• . \ "I 1-L~II I',., 10 Mil£ RO. ~ 1 ~ i !!! ~ 0: ALGOMA TOWNSHIP KENT COUNTY, MICtlGAN MAP 4 RESIDENTIAL BULDING + \rt:wf T PERMITS ISSUED 1986 - 1990 BY SECTION 0 NUMBER OF PERMITS ISSUED G] AREAS OF tlGtEST GROWTH - ............---........._, ..__,.,.,. ________ ,,..,;,,,,,.~ _____ ~ I 0 I I - �,J ~~ - ~- ~ - 1! r ·, - - u - , - It ~ ''J -- ·1r -'-" ll = "II . ll • I( TABLEl Historical Population Change Algoma Township and Surrounding Communities, Including Kent County 1960- 1990 Municipality Algoma Twp. Courtland Plainfield Sparta Twp. Solon Twp. Sparta Vil. Cedar Springs Rockford City Kent County Source: 1960 2,485 1,585 11,680 2,498 1,589 2,749 1,768 2,074 363,187 % Change 1960-70 24.3 38.5 45.0 35.0 33.0 12.6 2.2 17.1 13.2 Absolute Change 1970 3,088 603 611 2,196 5,255 16,935 874 3,372 2,114 525 3,094 345 1,807 39 2,428 354 47,857 411,044 % Change 1970-80 42.8 49.0 21.7 5.8 32.9 8.9 44.7 36.9 8.1 Absolute Change 1,323 1,076 3,676 194 695 274 808 896 33,462 1980 4,411 3,272 20,611 3,561 2,809 3,373 2,615 3,324 444,506 U.S. Census data from Kent County Master Plan Update, 1986. and 1991 U.S. Census. Note: Township totals do not include population of incorporated areas. A&OAlgoma\89564.0I\algomamp\sb 24 % Change 1280-90 24.6 20.7 21.0 25.8 29.9 17.6 -.6 12.8 12.6 Absolute Change 1,085 678 4,335 918 839 595 -15 426 56,125 1990 5,496 3,950 24,946 4,479 3,648 3,968 2,600 3,750 500,631 . 11 -l �TABLE2 BUILDING PERMITS FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES (1980-1990) r- Year Number of Bldg Permits 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 39 29 25 28 40 38 50 49 53 66 .i5. 472 Total r Source: Algoma Township Records_ "- I r I r r A&C\Algoma\89564.01\algomamp\sb 25 �,,... I - TABLE3 AGE OF RESIDENTS 1980-1990 Year i % Under 20 Years %20-44 Years %45-64 Years % 65 years and over Median A~e 1990 34.3 38.7 20.3 6.7 31.8 1980 39.2 37.4 18.0 5.4 27.4 --------- Source: 1980 and 1990 U.S. Census Data 7 TABLE4 PER CAPITA INCOME 7 Place .... , • • • Algoma Twp. Courtland Twp. Plainfield Twp. Sparta Twp. Solon Twp. Cedar Springs City Rockford City Kent County State of Michigan 1979 Per Capita Income1 6,925 7,528 7,914 6,976 6,843 5,415 7,397 7,522 7,688 ------------ Source: 1 1980 U.S. Census 2 Estimates by U.S. Census Bureau A&C\Algcma\89564.0l\algomamp'8b 26 1987 Per Capita Income2 Percent Change 10,185 11,441 12,488 10,444 10,576 8,289 11,623 11,883 11,973 47.08 51.98 57.80 49.71 54.55 53.07 57.13 57.98 55.74 �r"'I Economic Characteristics I n A comparison of per capita income levels for 1979 and 1987 (Census Bureau estimates) shown in Table 4 for Algoma Township and surrounding communities including Kent County and the State of Michigan shows Algoma ranking above only Solon Township and Cedar Springs City in 1979, and predicted to rank only above Cedar Springs by 1987. experiencing the least amount of increase percentage-wise than any of the surrounding communities including the county and the state. · Households In 1980, there were 1,353 households in Algoma Township, an increase of 65.2% since 1970 according to U.S. Census date. Preliminary figures for 1990 show 1,801 households, an increase of 33 .1 % or 448 households since 1980. Household size in the Township decreased from 3.26 persons in 1980 to 3.05 persons in 1990. A household is defined as an occupied dwelling unit. i I f - - 'I A&OA!goma\89564.01\algomamp"b 27 �, - CHAPTER4 I COMMUNITY FACILITIES The Townships community facilities are those which provide tangible services to the residents. A well rounded set of services is necessary to meet the needs of a growing community like Algoma. The services provided are discussed below: I .... I I. r r T r Township Offices The Town Hall is located at 10531 Algoma Avenue at the site of the former Algoma school. The Township purchased the building from Sparta Public Schools in 1983, and began using the building for office space in 1984. Since that time many physical improvements have been made to the building which include meeting space and office space for all Township personnel, a kitchen, and space for the collection of the Algoma Township Historical Society. The Hall is also used as a voting location. The · Township offices are staffed on a full time basis by a combination of full-time and part-time personnel. Fire Services The Township utilizes a volunteer fire fighting staff as well as a part time Fire Chief compensated for his services. Fire fighting equipment is housed at two barns located at 782 Street and 10910 Edgerton Avenue. The Fonger Street location houses four trucks in four bays, Edgerton station also houses four trucks in three bays. Algoma Township does .not share fire with any surrounding communities, but does have a mutual aid agreement. who is Fonger and the service Public Safety ' 'I I General police protection is provided by the Kent County Sheriffs Department and the Michigan State Police out of the Rockford Post. Kent County maintains a substation in Kent City that has an eight to ten township jurisdiction with two to three sheriffs cars covering that area at any one time. Emergency medical .services are provided by Rockford Ambulance and Northwest Ambulance out of Sparta. Libraries Algoma Township financially supports the Krause Memorial Library located in the City of Rockford. Residents also use both the Cedar Springs Public and Sparta Township Libraries, but do not contribute monetarily to their support. All three libraries are members of the Lakeland Library Cooperative. A&OA!goma\1!9564,01\algomamp\sb 28 �I '""' .... Cemeteries I - The Township actively maintains the cemetery at 10516 Grange Avenue; another cemetery exists just within the Township boundaries on Northland Drive, but is no longer maintained. Parks and Recreation - Algoma Township maintains one park on Fonger Street adjacent to the fire barn, which was previously the site of Chalmers School. The park consisting of 5.3 acres includes picnic facilities and ball diamonds. Plans are to construct a picnic shelter on the site. Little League baseball utilizes the Fonger Street facilities. - An area used for both baseball and soccer exists on property adjacent to the Township Hall. This area may be improved for recreational use in the future. ( I. -r -•I r - Currently, grant money is also being sought to develop a park on 2.5 acres on the west side of Camp Lake. This park would include both picnic and recreational facilities primarily for use by the Camp Lake neighborhood. The Township also owns a ten foot wide access strip to Camp Lake located on the east side of the lake off Orchard Park Drive. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources maintain a public access site on the southern end of the lake. Also located within the Township is the Moose Lodge on the southwest side of Camp Lake. The lodge maintains a private nine-hole golf course on 54 acres. Iii" , -•I i • I While no state parks are located within Algoma Township, the Department of Natural Resources owns 437 acres of land, primarily adjacent to the Rogue River. Of this amount over 200 acres are open to the public for hunting. Most of this property falls under the administration of the Rogue River State Game area. Other recreational facilities located outside of the Algoma Township boundaries include Long Lake Park located just beyond the northwest corner of the Township. This 231 acre park maintained by Kent County includes a ballfield, playground equipment, picnic areas with shelter, swimming, boating and fishing. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources also maintains a public access site on Lime Lake which is primarily within Solon Township and partially within Section 5 of Algoma Township . The 5,587 acre Rogue River State Game area is located nearby in Tyrone and Solon Townships. This game area includes the Howard Christiansen Nature Cen!er as well as hunting and passive recreation opportunities. Township residents also take advantage of recreational facilities and programming in the neighboring communities of Rockford, Cedar Springs and Sparta. 1 1 I ~ A&OA!goma\89564.01\algomarnp~b 29 �Historical Sites r - ... . The Township has an active Historical Society which displays its collection in the Township Hall. Several sites have been discussed for possible future preservation or restoration. One site is the old stone trestle over the former Pere Marquette Railroad, located on Summit Avenue north of 13 Mile Road. This trestle is constructed of field stone obtained from nearby fields. Another site is that of the old Cain Mill located on Cedar Creek on the southwest comer of 14 Mile Road and Algoma Avenue, where lumber was milled as late as the 1930's. Three former schools are of historical significance to the Township. One is the site of the former Chalmers school on the southwest corner of Fonger Street and Pine Island Drive. While the Township currently uses the building as a fire barn, the historical society has expressed interest in the site should fire fighting facilities be relocated. Another former one-room school house, the Birch Town School, is located on Indian Lakes Road east of White Creek Road and has been converted to a residence. The Foxhill School located on the southeast comer of Algoma Avenue and Indian Lakes Road has been converted for use by the Maranatha Community Church. Centennial Farms in the Township include the Powell farm located at 10519 Algoma Avenue and the Don Gray farm located at 11332 Grange Avenue. Educational Facilities Three school districts serve students in Algoma Township. Sparta Public Schools serve most of the western half of the Township, Cedar Springs Public Schools serve students in the northeast portion, and Rockford Public Schools serves the southeastern and extreme southwestern parts of the Township. No public educational facilities actually exist in the Township, aside from 93 acres of school forest land belonging to the Rockford district. The Algoma Christian School maintains facilities at 2100 13 Mile Road, where students in grades 7-12 attend. The property is currently for sale, and plans are to construct additional facilities in the Kent City area where elementary-aged students are currently served. Solid Waste Disposal Private haulers in Algoma Township utilize the South Kent Landfill located west of U.S. 131 off 100th Street in Byron Township. This facility has a programmed life expectancy of at least ten years; length of service will be influenced by Kent County's recently constructed solid waste incinerator, and by recycling efforts currently underway by the County. Drop-off points near Algoma Township for recyclable materials are located at the D&W Food Center on 10 Mile Road in Rockford, at Great Day Foods on 17 Mile Road in Cedar Springs, and at the Big Wheel store on Applewood Road in Sparta. Kent Disposal operates a waste transfer station located at 10251 Northland Drive in Algoma Township. A&C\Algoma\89564.01\algomamp~b 30 �- ,.._ Roads and Transportation r l ,r- The street system forms the most basic framework for growth and development of a community. By providing a means for internal and external circulation, it serves the community by helping shape the intensity of land use. Thus, this costly and long-lasting element becomes one of the most dynamic forces of the community. · ,- The street system serving Algoma Township, (illustrated on Map 5), can be classified as·follows: Controlled Access Arterials - These facilities perform little or no land service function but instead are devoted entirely to the task of traffic movement by providing for large volumes of traffic at relatively high speeds. These are characterized by limited access, multi-lane; divided highways. In Algoma Township, the U.S. 131 Expressway functions as a controlled access arterial. :: Major Rural Arterials ( county primary) - This class of streets serves major movements of traffic within or through the area. Mainly designed to move traffic, the secondary function is to provide access service. This class of street typically interconnects major state arterial highways. According to the Kent County Road Commission official Highway Map, major arterials in the Township include Pine Island Drive, Algoma Avenue, a portion of Edgerton Avenue, Northland Drive, the portion of 14 Mile Road between Algoma Avenue and Edgerton Avenue, 13 Mile Road an~ 10 Mile Road. A portion of 13 Mile Road is also classified as an inter-county road, as is a one mile segment of Edgerton Avenue. A one mile stretch of 14 Mile Road between U.S. 131 and Northland Drive is classified as State Route M-57. Within Algoma Township there are approximately 33 miles of major rural arterials. Collector Streets (county local) - These streets provide internal traffic movement within specific areas and connect those areas with the major arterial system. Generally, they are not continuous for great length. The rural collector street is intended to supply abutting property with the same degree of access as a local street, while at the same time carrying the "collected" traffic of local streets. Traffic control devices may be installed to protect and facilitate movement of traffic; however, these devices would not be as elaborate as those on arterial streets. In rural areas like Algoma Township, rural collectors typically represent the highest percentage of street miles. Within Algoma there are currently 41 miles of paved collector streets and 16.5 miles of gravel collectors. Local Feeder Streets - The sole function of these streets is to provide access to immediately adjacent property. In developed areas, they may make up the major percentage of the streets of the community, but carry a small proportion of the vehicle-miles of travel. In Algoma Township, these streets include those within platted subdivisions such as those throughout the Camp Lake neighborhood. Private Road - There are 83 private roads within Algoma Township. These roads, maintained by the landowners who utilize them, serve varying numbers of lots and homes. Private roads in the Township are regulated by the Township's Private Road Ordinance. A&OAlgoma\89564.01\algomamp\sb 31 �' \ r ,..... t. - - - Natural Beauty Road - Two natural beauty roads have been designated in Algoma Township. They are Friske Drive located in Section 22 and Elstner Avenue located primarily between Sections 34 and 35. Under Act 150 of 1970, the native vegetation along these roads is protected from destruction or substantial damage by cutting, salting, and other means. The Kent County Road Commission is responsible for the maintenance and improvement of all county primary and county local roads in the Township. Improvements to county roads are determined by Road Commission officials in conjunction with Township officials in January of each year. The County pays 100% of the cost of improvements to county primary roads, while the Township shares approximately one half of the cost of local road improvements. According to Kent County Road Commission officials, no major improvements to existing roads are scheduled for the next five years. The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) is responsible for major repairs and improvements to U.S. 131, and contracts with The Kent County Road Commission for routine repairs. A bridge is currently being constructed over the Rogue River to join Grange Avenue with Jewell Avenue in Section 33. The cost for this project is being covered by the State of Michigan Critical Bridges Program. Traffic counts obtained from the Kent County Road Commission are shown in Table 5. Counts shown are for 24 hours for the direction indicated; 24-hour rated capacity for each location is also given. The 24-hour capacity for Northland Drive exceeds those of other county primary roads due to wider lanes, paved shoulders, and turn lanes at some intersections. Where 1990 counts are lacking, estimates were made allowing a 3% increase in number of vehicles per year for paved arterials. Accident information for the Township was obtained from the Michigan Accident Location Index compiled by the Michigan State Police. Of the 328 accidents that occurred in 1989, 93 of those occurred on either North- or Southbound U.S. 131. The streets having the next highest incidence of accidents are Algoma Avenue and 13 Mile Road reporting 37 and 34 accidents respectively in 1989. Northland Drive totaled 31 accidents for that period. Other streets showing a high incidence of accidents were 14 Mile Road, Pine Island Drive and 10 Mile Road. The three traffic fatalities recorded in the Township in 1989 occurred on Algoma Avenue, 14 Mile Road and 10 Mile Road. A&C\Algoma\89564.01\algomamp\\b 32 �J ) J J ] ) ) J ) J ) } ~ 0 II ROUN LN<E .,, I ,----- 0 II #- LN<E ~~ \ 1 / I , -~ J ~t"°tA-WON J "" ,~ I (( ~ (SOLON lWP.) I 0 a:: ~ 0 ~ i!: a:: fil{ I'// w,oj I ) , ~ 116 / J j MILE RD . z ---r---, 0 - - - - -,j- - _cQ.tfilll4ERS.. ell'MER.... ---------~~e:..._ z ~, 0 0. ll 5 4 I ~ \I I ___ l _ Vl l 21 . J" 1•NOIAN LAKES RO. Ill z 2 Ill ---- __r___,_ __ - - - - - - - £ l 9 8 I II I / I 15 12 MILE RO I RUSSELL ST fia I I I BROMAN ST. I »u I J\ I I I 17 ~ I g I ............ Cl. '81GH ~ I I I 1 I I I ~ a::: <( a.. (f) "--/ I I 13 MIL£ RD ~ I LN<E I I I I I I I ::> w '-' I I I I ' 0 . I ?Al (_) "--/ 12 Mil£ RD I /..<.-4>' /)/'JI I 26 I jJ --ifi--l. .,~ ~ 0 "' I r ~ 15 z I JJ ,, I/ ~ (PLAIN Fl ELD lWP.) ~ 0 • J. II/ - V1 a 10 MILE RO. ~ ~ I ., i i ALGOMA TOWNSHIP KENT COUNTY, MICtlGAN MAP 5 ROAD CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM ~ ~ LEGEND: =- J I- a::: ~ ' '( I z ----+--2 0 J :s I I 20 I 0 I 1 )I RECTOR ............ 0... 0 ® CONTROLLED ACCESS ARTERIAL STATE ROUTE MAJOR RURAL ARTERIALS (COUNlY PRIMARY ROADS) COLLECTOR STREETS (COUNTY LOCAL ROADS) ----- NATURAL BEAUTY ROADS .. ...,...,......_,_,.. THI _......,..,. .......... -........ .....-..w .............. �:~ .,;..~ TABLES ALGOMA TOWNSHIP 24-Hour Traffic Counts and Capacity at Selected Locations by Year 24-Hour 1990 Rated Capacity 1 11,614 11,157 14,000 12,114 14,225 14,000 8,686 7,491 14,000 N-S 8,569 7,893 14,000 5. 14 Mile - West of Northland Drive E-W 9,363 10,231 6. lOMile- EastofU.S. 131 E-W 13,140 8,000 7. 10 Mile - West of U.S. 131 E-W 6,531 8,000 8. Wolven Avenue - North of 10 Mile N-S 7090 * 8,000 9. Algoma Avenue - North of 10 Mile N-S 5,793 8,000 10. Algoma Avenue - North of 13 Mile N-S 2,535 2,689 • 8,000 11 Algoma Avenue - South of 13 Mile N-S 2,646 2,807 * 8,000 12. Pine Island- North of 13 Mile N-S 1,739 1,845 * 8,000 13. Pine Island - South of 13 Mile N-S 1,635 1,735 * 8,000 14. 13 Mile - East of Pine Island E-W 3,615 3,835 * 8,000 15. 13 Mile - West of Pine Island E-W 4,445 4,716 * 8,000 Location Direction 1986 1. Northland Dr. - North of 12 Mile N-S 10,532 2. Northland Dr.- South of 12 Mile N-S 3. Northland Dr. - North of 14 Mile N-S 4. Northland Dr. - South of 14 Mile Source: 1987 1989 6,883 Kent County Road Commission, Michigan Dept of Transportation 1 Capacity is given in vehicles per 24 hours • 1990 Estimates by WWES based upon 3% increase in number of vehicles per year per 24-Hour count. A&OAJgoma\89564.01\algomamp\sb 1988 34 * 10-12,000 �CHAPTERS EXISTING LAND USE ANALYSIS This chapter describes the existing land uses in the Township and analyzes changes that have occurred since the completion of the 1968 Master Plan. This evaluation is a necessary tool in assessing the character of a community, identifying problems and opportunities, and will be useful when developing goals and objectives to guide future development. i Several events have had a major impact on land use in the Township since 1968. Probably the most significant event was the completion of the U.S. 131 Expressway ;n 1969 with interchanges at both 10 Mile and 14 Mile Roads, making the Township highly accessible to and from the Grand Rapids Metropolitan Area. Another event was the passage of the Natural River Act of 1970, and the consequent designation of the Rogue River as a Natural River. The Act authorizes local units of government to regulate land use along designated rivers in order to preserve the natural amenities provided by river environments. The Algoma Township Zoning Ordinance designates a Natural River District 300 feet on either side of the Rogue River, and a Conservation and Agricultural District located in the southwest corner of the Township. Other important events include the construction of sanitary sewer around the Camp Lake area in 1985 and the rapid proliferation of private roads with subsequent residential development throughout the Township. Existing land uses are identified on Map 6. This map was completed in June of 1991 using plat maps, field inspections, and through conversations with Township officials. Structures under construction at the time of the land use survey were classified as existing land uses. f r r f r Table 6 shows the current land use breakdown in acres by category. Generally, the land developed for commercial and industrial uses is concentrated along Northland drive and along 14 Mile road (M-57) east of the U.S. 131 expressway. Residential development has occurred primarily in the southern and central portions of the Township, and in the Camp Lake area. The existing land uses in the Township have been classified into a number of categories which are described as follows: AGRICULTURE This category includes those lands used for cropland, orchard, or pasture at the time of the land use survey. Agricultural and Open Land accounts for approximately 10,993 acres; the number of those acres actually devoted to active agriculture is estimated to be 3,800 acres in 1991. Agricultural uses have declined appreciably in the Township since 1968, and these uses are expected to continue to decrease as small scale farming becomes increasingly less profitable, and as the Township continues to be an attractive area for residential development. r A&C\Algoma\89564.0 l'algomamp\sb 35 �A number of parcels of land in the Township are enrolled in Public Act 116 of 1974, the Fannland and Open Space Preservation Act, with a total 2,116 acres or 9.6% of the total land in the Township enrolled. Under this Act, farmers or owners of large tracts of open space forego the development rights to their land and continue to farm it or maintain it as open space for a minimum enrollment period of ten years in exchange for tax benefits. Map 7 illustrates those areas of the Township enrolled in P.A. 116, as well as dates when the current agreement on each parcel or group of parcels is due to expire. Most of the parcels enrolled in the Act are located in the central and northwest area of the Township. TABLE 6 EXISTING LAND USE, 1991 Approximate Acreages .... r f r ~ % Total 10,993 49.7 7,675 34.8 Commercial/Office 157 .7 Industrial 141 .7 Public/Semi-Public2 453 2.0 Roads and Railway 1184 5.4 252 1.1 1,225 --2,Q Land Use Agriculture and Open Land Residential 1 Lakes3 100 Year Flood Plain4 Total 22,080 acres 100% i ,. 1 2 3 4 Assumes 5 acre average lot size per housing unit with separate calculations for Camp Lake area and Algoma Estates Mobile Home Parle. Includes Consumers Power Acreage and Rockford School Forests. 1978 Michigan Resource Infonnation System Figure. 1982 Flood Hazard Study of The Rogue River A&Cv\lgoma\Jl9564.0I\ugomamp\sb 36 �RESIDENTIAL This category includes detached single family houses, duplexes, and mobile homes. In the future, this category could also include multi-family dwellings and condominium units (condominiums may be constructed either as multi-family units or single family detached homes, both owner occupied.) One mobile home park, Algoma Estates, exists in the Township, and is located on the south side of 13 Mile road, about one half mile west of Northland Drive. It currently has 200 units and a clubhouse on 70 acres. The single family detached house comprises the majority of the 7,675 acres used for residential purposes in the Township. When determining residential land acreage in the Township, a five acre average lot size per housing unit was used, based on the rationale that most homes throughout the township are placed on parcels with a minimum of 42, 000 square feet Gust under an acre) of lot area required and many homes occur on lots much larger in size. It is probable that homes on larger parcels, for example 10 or 20 acres, will likely remain in residential usage, but parcels greater than 20 acres may conceivably be used in part for agricultural purposes. Acreage figures for the Camp Lake area (140 acres) were calculated separately, as was the acreage for Algoma Estates mobile home park (70 acres) and these amounts are included in the 7,675 total acres ofresidential land use. Most of the Township is zoned Rural Agricultural, a district intended primarily for farming practices and single family dwellings. Minimum lot size in this district is 42,000 square feet for a single family home. These lots are generally located along paved and unpaved section line roads, and many of them tend to be long and narrow. This type of land division results in lots which are often unused or underused in the rear section, and hinder the development of future platted subdivisions by making road extensions and land assemblage difficult Smaller areas of the Township are zoned as either Rural Residential or Suburban Residential, which restrict certain agricultural practices. Minimum lot size in the Rural Residential District is 42,000 square feet for a single family dwelling. Homes in these areas occur in platted subdivisions or on lots one acre or larger in size. The Suburban Residential District, located adjacent to the western limits of the City of Rockford, is an area intended for the expansion of residential development where public sewer and/or water are available. Currently, no utilities extend into this area. Minimum lot size in the district is 35,000 square feet without utilities, however most lots in this area are currently an acre or greater in size. Algoma Township provides for a Lake Residential District in its zoning ordinance. These areas occur around Camp Lake, Indian Lakes and High Lake. In the Camp Lake area, older plats on both the east and west side of the lake were designed with small 50 foot wide lots that have resulted in a dense clustering of homes. Other more recent plats around the lake contain larger lots. The Camp Lake area is presently served by The Village of Sparta wastewater treatment facility. A&C\Algoma\89564.01\algomamp\sb 37 �. ., According to the Algoma Township Zoning Ordinance, residential lots in the Lake Residential District are required to have a minimum area of 20,000 square feet when served by public sewer, and 42,000 square feet where not served by public sewer. Most of the development around Indian Lakes and High Lake, where public sewer is not available, consists of residential lots of at least one acre in size; however, several lots exist which are less than the required 42,000 square feet. V While the Algoma Township Zoning Ordinance allows for a Low Density Multi-Family Residential District, no areas of the Township are currently zoned for that use. GENERAL BUSINESS This category includes those uses which provide retail goods and services and office uses. The 1968 Master Plan reported 22 business and office structures in The Township. The present land use survey records 37 commercial and office structures, several of which contain more than one commercial or office use. The majority of these uses are concentrated along Northland Drive and on both sides of 14 Mile road (M-57) east of U.S. 131. Another area of commercial uses, including operations of a light industrial nature, has developed on Algoma Avenue just north of Ten Mile Road near the U.S. 131 Interchange. Other scattered commercial uses exist throughout the Township. Along Northland Drive, land is zoned for General Business uses to a depth of 600 feet between 16 Mile Road to just south of 14 Mile Road and to a depth of 300 feet from just south of 12 Mile Road to north of 13 Mile Road. Both sides of 14 Mile Road between Northland Drive to just west of the expressway interchange is zoned for General Business to depths of 500 and 600 feet, and to 800 feet west of U.S. 131 on the north side of 14 Mile. The result is approximately 425 acres of land available for commercial uses in a strip-development pattern. Concerns to be addressed along these segments of roadway should include the construction of access drives, the number and placement of curb cuts, size and location of signs, and landscape requirements for existing and future commercial establishments. Other areas zoned for General Business include the area surrounding the Algoma Estates mobile home park (mobile home parks are allowed only in the B-2 zoning district), the area north of Ten Mile Road near the U.S. 131 interchange, small areas at the intersection of Fonger Street and Pine Island Drive, and a small area on Division Avenue near Camp Lake. Along Northland Drive, commercial and industrial uses are mixed with residential uses. In addition, both commercial and residential uses are found along the eastern side of Northland Drive in neighboring Courtland Township. Significantly less property fronting on Northland Drive is zoned for commercial uses in Courtland Township, especially between 14 Mile Road and 16 Mile Roads. Decisions concerning the uses along Northland Drive in either Township will impact the neighboring Township and efforts to coordinate policy concerning the future of Northland Drive will be beneficial to both communities. A&C\Algoma\89564.01\algomamp\§b 38 �Likewise, the properties immediately south of Ten Mile Road near the U.S. 131 interchange in neighboring Plainfield Township are zoned for general business development, and efforts should be made to coordinate uses in these areas with Plainfield Township. INDUSTRIAL i This category includes such uses as manufacturing, warehousing, and processing of goods and materials as well as the outdoor storage of goods and materials. Industrial uses in Algoma Township have increased from 13 structures reported in the 1968 Plan to 26 industrial uses existing at the time of the present land use survey. This accounts for .7% or 162 acres of the total land area in the Township. Industrial uses tend to be concentrated along Northland Drive between 12 and 13 Mile Roads and range from light manufacturing to tool and die and wood milling operations. Another smaller concentration of industrial uses occurs in the General Business District on Algoma A venue just north of Ten Mile Road. Operations here include manufacturing and a construction business. Other uses throughout "the Township include the Kent County Road Commission maintenance facility just east of the expressway interchange at 14 Mile Road, and several auto body repair shops. Extractive operations such as sand, gravel, and oil or gas removal may also be considered industrial in nature. Active extractive operations are located north of 12 Mile Road in Sections 23 and 24. Areas zoned for industrial uses in the Township are found primarily between the Michigan Northern Railroad and Northland Drive, south of 13 Mile Road; just north of 12 Mile Road, 57 acres are zoned for light industrial uses only. Another industrial zone exists northeast of the expressway interchange at 14 Mile Road and includes the Kent County Road Commission facility. Together these areas total approximately 336 acres zoned for either industrial or light industrial uses. To the south of the concentration of properties zoned for industrial purposes along Northland Drive lies the Rockford Industrial Park which is serviced by both public water and sewer. Industrial development in this area within the Township may depend upon the extension of water and wastewater treatment services from the City of Rockford into the Township. In neighboring Courtland Township, no industrial zoning or uses exist fronting Northland Drive. As in the case with commercial land uses, efforts to coordinate industrial development with adjacent communities will be beneficial to all. PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC This category includes those areas and facilities such as schools, cemetaries, the Town Hall, fire barns, parks, State access sites and golf courses which are available for use by the general public. Semi-public uses are those used by a limited number of people with specific interests which are generally non-profit in nature such as churches, non-public schools, private golf courses and medical or instructional facilities. The Existing Land Use Map identifies the public/semi-public uses by name and symbol. A&o.Algoma\%9564.0 l\tlgomamp\sb 39 �Approximately 453 acres of public/semi-public uses exist in the township, comprising 2.0% of the total land use. This figure includes 93 acres of school forest land owned by Rockford Public · Schools and 219 acres of Consumers Power Company right-of-way, easement, or transfer station property. While land devoted to public utilities is not available for public use in the general sense, it cannot be considered as land contributing to the industrial tax base nor as land available for development. It is, in essence, land set aside for the public good. For the same reasons, 21 acres of land used for the Kent County Road Commission facility has been included in acreage totals for public/semi-public use. Another category of land designated as public is that owned by the State of Michigan Department of Natural Resources. The DNR owned property (473 acres) is not included in acreage totals for public/semi-public lands in Table 6. Rather, most of the DNR owned lands are river front properties that are also either partially or wholly within the 100-year flood plain. As indicated on Table 6, flood plains account for approximately 1225 acres in the Township. ROAD .AND RAILWAY Public roads comprise about 1127 acres of land within the Township, with U.S. 131 contributing 394 of those acres. r r The former Michigan Northern Railroad, which runs for 5.7 miles in a north-south direction through the eastern side of the Township, accounts for 57 acres of land previously designated for rail transportation purposes. The railroad no longer carries train traffic, and has been purchased by the Michigan Department of Transportation (MOOT). MOOT will remove the railway between Cadillac and Grand Rapids (including that section in Algoma Township) during the summer of 1991. Currently, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources is negotiating with MOOT to acquire the railroad right-of-way for inclusion in the Michigan Rails-to-Trails recreational train system. When acquired and improved, the trail, which may be a paved or nonpaved surface, will be maintained by local jurisdictions such as Algoma Township. Preliminary plans are for that section of the trail in Kent County to restrict usage of the trail to non-motorized pursuits such as hiking, biking, and horseback riding. A&O.Algoma\89564.0 l\algomamp~b 40 �et:: w 0 0 (SOLON TWP.) z ::s 0 ~ et:: w VJ 1~.~ - - - =,,,,~.= = • : . ' 4a. ~ i~II ', - MARANATHA COM M. CHURCH • t- -I " w w c@su= E'DWEIL. - -=- - - •I f "" > - •1/'. ~ • • ~ . f tT 2: ' _}/ I !,LJJ w >· <( I 1· •_. MILE RD. •1 1/ (\~f /Nf1lt.N -~.!':~S ~8. VJ z '<'. VJ - - - - ')\. .i. I'7 /. . - - -· ---l 1....!.. I• ~ ..· , I I • .I ~ MILE D ., 12. 9 8 I· · r:--· . I I • 1 I • I . • O • •• u. ..0 ... 15 ·, -17 . 18,,/1 // 9 WALLACE _LAKE . . .. I• • j I lI I I I l I• .J i v, !i ' ·. . . . . . · I Jo • \ f- : i 11 H.£~ · i~ 71 ~j _11II19 <( l- a: \ <( I ,,. , I o__ , BAPTIST C~URCH ! __L..l.L R~c1oor ·r. I • • • (f) •, 'f' 20 · _ALGOMA ALGOM rw.P• ·sc:HaoL ~l'>.4.-TFRY • CEMETERY : ALGOMA YOUTH • CENTER . '· • ,. • • I/ / . • 1 . · · _/' ,NR c /'"'-.. ,,.--..._ I I• o__ ~z I / / /~ w 5 , : 1: : \ ll '\~~ I - l- 8. o > _J - z 0 :s 3: 1• ~ 2~ 21 w . - I \ ---+--; I I I ~ f- a: Cl'.'. 0 > <( ,. '-....../ j __ ____ ALGOMA \ ...) • • J. • • A·, r.mA A CHRISTIA 1- • ROCKFORD SPORTSMANS CLUB D I I I • \ ' I : _,,,; _ .. I • o__ 5 O 14 ') I I • I I ( \\ I I I ---""i II II 1 ,I ;:' • /• t 0 (( ,,.--..._ - <; v r- u RUSSELL ST • • ~ ..,-~ 1 O MARANATHA-- COMM. CHURCH • • ---- • •• ·o ~ I ·,I . . . . l • 0 /1 C> -1 I BRO MAN ST. RD => w 0 (.'.) u z -(! -- MEEK _ -t--rt- LAKr • - w· -- - - - <t -:I -- - 0::: (.'.) 1 I I I' . .. . I. . . .~· .!·.. II~ 1 r /Jf If 1" . . , .r I .. i t / 1 '., ,' • i. } <::, ©,b I .1~ . i ... .•:. I 12 '-....../ MIL E RD I I I I '1 ,f.,Q;~ '-0<-v oc; 0 °FONGER ST FONGER ·' .~ --- 29 . . D I / J 0 (:t: I• I I ., I 11 MILE RD. <;1 ~ I •I L /7 27 I I / I , • •: 11 . •• > <( J•I I R MILE RD w c:t:: w z ,- I ~ (/) ., ,.._, _J . 0 33 I .----. 'i • • : I ( I ~I )~ I I I 1} I I I ~\;';7)~~1 · > ~ l ~ 0 0 ::s z ~ /,~7T7 (PLAINFIELD TWP.) ~ ci ~ .., 10 MILE RD. \ w ~ z w > _J <( ::;: 0 (.'.) 0 _J 3: <( (/) w z 0:: ALGOMA TOWNSHIP KENT COUNTY, MICHIGAN i!, ~ MAP 6 "- EXISTING LAND USE .JJNE, 1991 LEGE ND: t.r -~ -=:l ~711 Sc.AU IM rUT :r • SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE @ GROUPS OF SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES IMHPI • • • ,_ Of"l<ll'\otl MOBILE HOME PARK COMMERCIAL / OFFICE INDUSTRIAL PUBLIC / 1' CHURCH .r. :::.., 1 SEMI-PUBLIC USE -~,.:..CTiVE RESOURCE . ---------- ------- PRIVATE ROAD 00000000 COUNTY DRAINS WW l!nglneerln1 a Scleno•""-'\1..1-, CoY9fflmentol SttN!ce. D1-,,efon BS ._... ... ,__,,. !£ • 0-.. ~ \YD 1111 ...,_ • (1\1) Ha- MOO �,_. - . ___- ,.... ) , J ,.. ~J J I J ) J ) ~ (SOLON lWP.) 1! ... l .1 ,} ,I ~,( _J J 0 "' ~ II ~( ~ / ~116 MILE RO. z 0 - - - - -1,i- - ~- _\l,.,n.,.,' 1t' 11 ,,,; ;rr ) I5 ~ Q t ! ~ gQ-.:f;R_ 'I~ 1 I 4 1 ~1 WV~ • 2 '"' I II I 1 Yo-d I'"''"'"'"' z"' ~ _____ ,_____ I " ( I ~ I>-' I I - 15 Mil£ RO 12 RUSSELL ---t---''-fr-::n:----------1-- ,~ 0 BROt.WI ST. [~ II~ 11\Q JJ8 -~ 15 ST 14 .......... 13 Mil£ RO a.. ~ 181GH "' I I I 1 I I I ~ a:: <( a.. (/) '--' a.. ~ LAKE 1 )I ,,.--... 0 z RECTOR ST. ::i I- 24 20 a:: ::> 0 (.) '--' 12 Mil£ RO lJ 10 Mil£ RO. ~I ,;' I z 0 ~ ~\ i / )'--'~ I ~ ~ ii! ...~ 0 ..,z~ 0 I I,.-r-hn (PLAINFIELD lWP .) ~ i ~ 0 JO ii: ALGOMA TOWNSHIP KENT COUNTY, MICtlGAN + ~ :- MAP 7 P.A. 116 PARCELS AND DATES OF EXPIRATION FARMLAND AND OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION ~ : PA 118 PARCEL DATE TO WHICH PARCEL IS ENROUED IN PA 118 PROGRAM ~. ___.._ .............. _,_, ....,,...,... - ..... • - . ••- ... • - • - - - - I l �CHAPTER 6 PLANNING ANALYSIS This section of the Plan analyzes population, traffic volume projections, existing land use mix, growth trends and community characteristics in order to determine future land use needs for Algoma Township. Through this process, the Township Board and Planning Commission will have a basic guideline to follow in determining how much land is needed to accommodate future needs. POPULATION PROJECTIONS When making population projections, assumptions are based on a combination of historical trends and judgements made with a knowledge of the local area. Projections are only refined estimates of future conditions and it is impossible to precisely forecast the end result of the actions of individual and public decisions. While recognizing the uncertainties in forec~ting future population growth, it is reasonable to assume that the forces at work in the past will continue into the future. Table 7 illustrates population projections for the years 1995, 2000, and 2010 using four different methods to calculate future populations. An explanation of each of the four methods used is also described in this table. For purposes of this Plan, Alternative D has been selected as it represents an average of three different methods of projecting population and integrates historical growth data. Based on this alternative, the Township could be expected to experience an increase of 828 people by 1995, 1,637 people by the year 2000, and 3,725 by the year 2010. Assuming an average of 3.05 persons per household, 1,221 new dwelling units will be needed by the year 2010 to accommodate the projected population. RESIDENTIAL LAND USE NEEDS In Algoma Township, the average lot size for a residence has been estimated to be five (5) acres, which takes into account lots both within and · outside of plats. The average lot size in the Township is expected to decrease within the planning period for the following reasons: 1. Increasing land costs will result in smaller parcels being purchased for single family detached houses. 2. The extension of sanitary sewer from surrounding communities may encourage more plat development which uses less land per lot. (However, it is not anticipated that a significant number of these plats will be developed within the planning period, and those that do develop could possibly be annexed by surrounding communities.) 3. The advent of site condominium development will minimize the need to create parcels in excess of ten (10) acres to circumvent the Township and State of Michigan's land subdivision regulations. Also, the Subdivision Control Act of 1967, which regulates the size and timing of land divisions, will likely be amended within this planning period. A&C\Algoma\J!9564.0l\il.gomamp~b 43 �4. As the price of both land and single family homes increases, the demand for multi-family residential units (apartments or condominiums) will also increase resulting in more dwelling units per acre, thereby decreasing the average lot size in the Township. Average lot size in the Township can be expected to decrease to within a range of 1.5 to 3.0 acres including road rights-of-way within residential developments. Therefore, the amount of land needed to accommodate the projected number of new dwelling units in 2010 has been calculated as follows: 1,221 dwelling units x 1.5 acres/dwelling unit 1,221 dwelling units x 3.0 acres/dwelling unit = = 1,831 Acres 3,663 Acres Thus, approximately 1,831 to 3,663 acres ofland will be needed to accommodate the projected population of 9,221 people by the year 2010. While current residential land use acreage stands at 7,675 acres, the needs for 2010 will represent an increase in lands used for residential purposes within a range of 24 to 47 percent. The existing land use inventory shows a total of 10,993 acres of agricultural, -vacant or undeveloped land in the Township. It would appear that, based strictly on acreage, there is sufficient land in the Township for the projected residential needs. In addition, larger parcels of ten to twenty acres in size, which are currently being used solely for one dwelling unit, may be split to absorb some of the future residential growth. Consideration must also be given, however, to the suitability of vacant areas to residential land use. Suitable soils, topography, wetlands, street type, traffic volumes, adjacent land uses and availability of public utilities will affect the feasibility of future residential land uses. TABLE 7 ALGOMA TOWNSHIP Population Projections 1990 1995 2000 2010 Census Estimate Estimate Estimate Alternative A 5,496 6,221 6,947 8,399 Alternative B 5,496 6,096 6,696 7,896 Alternative C 5,496 6,655 7,756 11,370 Alternative D 5,496 6,324 7,133 9,221 Alternative II A 11 assumes an average of 47 new dwelling units constructed per year over the past 20 years with an average of 3.09 persons per household. Alternative "B" assumes yearly growth of 120 persons (based on the 1970-1990 average annual growth projected mathematically). .,.. Alternative II C 11 assumes increased in-migration to sustain the 1970-1990 growth rate of 3. 9% per year (geometric progression). Alternative 11 D 11 is the average of projections 'A', 'B', and 'C'. A&C\Algoma\J!9564.0I\algomarnp~b 44 �,.. OTHER LAND USE NEEDS Commercial. 1 ,,. 'I r Commercial retail and service areas are described as being neighborhood, community, or regional shopping centers. A neighborhood shopping center provides for the sale of convenience goods (foods, drugs, and sundries) and personal services (laundry, dry cleaning, banking, barbering, repair and professional services, etc.) for the day to day living needs of the adjacent surrounding area. Such a center usually includes one super market. In Algoma Township, the nearby communities of Rockford, Cedar Springs, and Sparta function as neighborhood shopping centers. In addition, convenience stores are located near Camp Lake, on Algoma Avenue just north of Ten Mile Road, and on Northland Drive. The trade area for these types of commercial uses is generally within a three mile radius or five to six minutes of driving time, which would place all Algoma Township residents within the trade area of at least one neighborhood shopping opportunity, although not all of these shopping opportunities offer the same variety of items and choices. Also, since 5 - 8,000 people are generally considered the minimum number needed to support a neighborhood shopping center, the existing population in the Township is sufficient to sustain the existing uses. As the Township continues to grow, the demand for shopping opportunities will increase. By the year 2010, the local population has been estimated to be 9,221 people. Additional retail and service businesses will be needed to serve these additional residents, and market forces will likely determine the types of uses necessary. It is expected that the communities of Rockford, Cedar Springs and Sparta will continue to provide a portion of the neighborhood and convenience shopping opportunities for Algoma Township residents. In addition, Algoma Township citizens indicated, during the public workshops, a desire for neighborhood commercial opportunities near high density residential development. Currently, residents within the Township are able to shop, to some extent, for non-convenience goods such as apparel, furniture, appliances, and hardware items in the communities of Rockford, Cedar Springs and Sparta, and to a greater extent in the Grand Rapids Metro area, particularly along the Plainfield Avenue Corridor in nearby Plainfield Township. The Northland Drive Corridor, also located in Plainfield Township, provides additional community shopping opportunities. A community shopping center usually includes a supermarket, small department store, and other speciality shops and normally trades to a population of between 40,000 and 50,000 people within a 15 to 20 minutes driving time. While it is beyond the scope of this study to determine if stores offering such goods would be economically feasible within the Township, it is unlikely that populations projected for the planning period will be sufficient to sustain additional community shopping opportunities, especially in light of the numerous community shopping areas already in existence within the trade area of the Township. The Township presently has approximately 157 acres being actively used for commercial or office purposes, and a total of 556 acres zoned for either Neighborhood or General Business. Of A&O.Algoma\89564.0I'algomamp~b 45 �• that 556 acres, approximately 70 acres are utilized by the Algoma Estates mobile home park. Thus, subtracting the acreage already in use for commercial purposes (157 acres) and the acreage utilized by Algoma Estates (70 acres) from 556 acres, the result is approximately 329 acres zoned for commercial development that are not currently used for commercial purposes. Presently, the Township maintains a ratio of 28.6 acres of commercial land use per every 1,000 people. By the year 2010, an increase of 3,725 people is expected. If current ratios are maintained, an additional 106 acres of land would be actively used for commercial or business purposes within the scope of the planning period. It appears that Algoma Township has more than sufficient lands already zoned for commercial uses to supply that need, especially when considering the availability of shopping opportunities in neighboring communities. Industrial ' - . , Algoma Township currently has approximately 141 acres (excluding the Kent County Road Commission facility) or .7% of the total land in the Township in use for industrial purposes. Currently, approximately 315 acres are zoned for industrial and light industrial uses (again, excluding the County facility), leaving 174 acres available for industrial development. The majority of industrial zoned lands are located east of the former Michigan Northern Railroad, between 13 Mile Road and the northern limits of the City of Rockford, and east of the U.S. 131 interchange at 14 Mile Road and south of Russell Street. The present ratio of active industrial acres of land per 1,000 population in the Township is approximately 25.75 acres; assuming this ratio holds constant, there will be a demand for an additional 96_acres of land for industrial purposes over the next 20 years (an average of approximately 5.0 acres per year). Based upon this ratio, it appears that Algoma Township has more than sufficient lands available for industrial purposes. Industrial land use needs are probably the most difficult to predict of all land use needs. Industry often draws upon a regional labor pool, whose occupational skills and educational levels are important in attracting and retaining industry. Other factors that are critical when allocating land · for industrial use are accessibility, adequate sites in terms of topography and soil types, cost of land, tax rates in the community, and adequate public utilities such as water, sewage disposal, stormwater drainage, electricity and natural gas. An important impact upon industrial development in the Township will be future industrial development as planned by the City of Rockford. The City's 1990 General Development Plan shows a large parcel located between Northland Drive and Courtland Drive planned for industrial use. This land, owned primarily by Wolverine World Wide, Inc., is not yet available for 4evelopment, but could possibly become available within the next twenty years, according to the Rockford plan. Adjacent to this parcel, and fronting on Northland Drive, is an area proposed for Planned Enterprise which would be a blend of light manufacturing, heavy commercial and accessory businesses which could include research and development, warehousing, retail and office uses. A&O.Algoma\89564.0 l'algomamp~b 46 �r r f .... Another large area planned for industry is the Rockford Industrial Park located on the west side of Northland Drive, just south of the southern boundary of Algoma Township. The land available within this area has been detennined sufficient to satisfy the projected 20 year needs of the City. Industrial land use needs for the City of Rockford were based upon the projected population and industrial job demand for a total market area that encompasses portions of Algoma Township. Therefore, it is feasible that a percentage of the industrial land use needs in regard to jobs for Township residents may be met by lands in the City of Rockford; however, industrial development outside the Township will not contribute to the Township tax base. Other nearby communities' plans for industrial development will also impact Algoma Township's need for industrial acreage. Additional land for industrial development is available within the Appletree Development located south of 13 Mile Road, west of the Village of Sparta and is served with both public water and sanitary sewer. Sparta Township also contains available sites that are zoned for industrial use; an area north of 12 Mile Road adjacent to the eastern Village boundary has the potential to receive wastewater treatment services from the Sparta Village facility. Another site is adjacent to the Sparta Municipal Airport just north of 10 Mile Road. The City of Cedar Springs recently completed a Comprehensive Development Plan which identified additional areas planned for industrial development. One area located near the northeast intersection of 16 Mile Road and White Creek Avenue consists of 38 acres; another site west of the City boundary between Solon Road and Cherry Street consists of between 50 and 60 acres, and has been proposed for annexation. The development of either of these sites for industrial purposes will be, to a high degree, dependent upon increasing the capacity at the Cedar Springs wastewater treatment facility, and the consequent extension of sewer and water services to these proposed areas. Currently, the City of Cedar Springs has limits on new connections to their wastewater treatment system. ,- , t Courtland Township currently has no plans for industrial development within the community. In 1986, the West Michigan Regional Planning Commission attempted to forecast future demands for industrial acreage in the greater Grand Rapids area through the year 2010. Forecasts were based upon an expected ratio of lands actually used for industrial purposes to lands available (either planned or zoned) for industrial purposes. The study found that adequate acreage was probably available to meet the area's needs through the year 2010. However, true availability of these lands is greatly dependent upon such factors as parcel size, services available to the sites, location, accessibility, and environmental constraints. Therefore, although there appears to be sufficient industrial zoned land in and adjacent to Algoma Township for the next 10 to 20 years Algoma Township may wish to consider planning for additional industrial areas that would offer potential developers a choice in terms of location and parcel size, and that may offer the potential for water and wastewater treatment services. Additional industrial lands may offer Township residents opportunities for employment, and may increase the tax base available to the Township. A&C\Algoma\89564.01\algomamp\sb 47 �PARKS AND RECREATION Algoma Township completed a Park, Recreation and Natural Area Plan in 1988, which sets forth goals and objectives for the development and preservation of parklands and natural areas into the future. Additional goals as identified by participants in the Public Input Workshops held on January 28th and February 11th, 1991, are included in Chapter II of the Master Land Plan, titled "Goals and Objectives". ROADS AND STREETS r -,-_ .... . ' ,. • ., In order to analyze future traffic conditions, projections of traffic volumes to the year 2000 at selected locations were compared to their existing design capacity. These comparisons are shown in Table 8. The theoretical capacities, as determined by the state and local authorities, reflect the amount of traffic the street was designed to accommodate daily and still provide a relatively smooth flow of traffic. When daily traffic volumes are higher than the capacity, motorists experience more frequent delays, reduced maneuverability, congestion at intersections, lower overall speeds, and increased potential for accidents . When the volume to capacity ratio exceeds 1.00, congestion occurs. When the volume to capacity ratio exceeds 1.25 (125% of designed street capacity), congestion can occur and alternatives should be evaluated to increase capacity or divert traffic to another route. When volumes exceed 1.5 times their capacity, congestion can become severe and frustrated motorists may select alternate routes, increasing traffic on those streets. At that point, methods to increase the capacity of the street, provide an alternate route, or divert some traffic to a new facility should be considered. At double the capacity (a volume/capacity ratio of 2.0 or greater), traffic may be at a standstill during certain periods of the day . Deterioration of a street's traffic-carrying capacity may also be measured in terms of "level of service". This term is defined as a qualitative measure of the effect of a number of factors which include speed and travel time, traffic interruptions, freedom to maneuver, safety, driving comfort and convenience, and operating costs. Levels of Service A through F, representing the best through the worst operating conditions respectively, generally vary between peak and non-peak traffic times on the same street segment Each of the levels of service is described as follows: Level of Service A - represents virtually complete free-flow conditions in which the speed of individual vehicles is controlled only by driver desires and prevailing conditions, not by the presence or intetference of other vehicles. Ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is unrestricted. Level of Service B, C, and D - represents increasing levels of flow rate with correspondingly more interference between vehicles of the traffic stream. Average running speed of the stream remains relatively constant through a portion of this range, but the ability of individual drivers to A&C\Algoma\89564.01\algomamp\.ib 48 �. freely select their speed becomes increasingly restricted as the level of service worsens. Level of Service C and D (1.0 to 1.25 of capacity) is normally considered an acceptable design for an area such as Algoma Township. Level of Service E - (volumes are 1.25 to 1.50 of the "capacity") is representative of operation at or near capacity conditions. Few gaps are available, the ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is severely limited, and speeds are low. Operations at this level are unstable and a minor disruption may cause rapid deterioration of flow into Level of Service F. Level of Service F - (volumes are double the "capacity") represents forced or breakdown flow. --- . At this level, stop-and-go patterns have already been set up in the traffic stream, and operations at a given point may vary widely from minute to minute, as will operations in short adjacent highway segments as congestion increases through the traffic stream. Operations at this level are highly unstable .and unpredictable. Table 8 shows that several County Primary Roads may experience capacity problems by the year 2000. In particular, Northland Drive south of 12 Mile Road may reach level of service E (over 1.25 of design capacity) and 10 Mile Road east of U.S. 131 may experience more than two times the capacity for which it was designed. Also, 14 Mile Road west of Northland Drive may approach level of service F by the year 2000. These projections indicate that traffic volumes on Algoma Township's County Primary Roads should be monitored closely, especially on Northland Drive and 10 Mile Road. Levels of service on these roads may be prolonged by proper attention to access control measures such as left hand turn lanes, deceleration lanes, and limitations on number and location of curb cuts including future intersecting streets that will serve residential development. Likewise, while current traffic volumes on gravel roads in the Township may be well below the design capacity of the roadway, the type of traffic and condition of the roads should also be considered when determining future improvements to gravel surface roads . . . A&C\Algoma\89564.01\algomamp\sb 49 �~ < TABLE 8 TRAFFIC VOLUME PROJECTIONS (24 Hour Period) ~ Location ,,,..,. Northland Drive-North " of 12 Mile Road V/C Ratio 24 Hour Capacity 1995 14,000 12,934 14,994 1.07 14,000 16,490 19,117 1.36 8,000 15,232 17,659 2.20 8,000 7,571 8,777 1.09 8,000 6,716 7,785 .97 8,000 2,139 2,479 .30 8,000 5,467 6,338 .68 14,990 1.85 2000 (2000) Northland Drive-South of 12 Mile Road - 10 Mile Road-East ofU.S.-131 10 Mile Road-West ofU.S.-131 ,... Algoma Avenue-North - . of 10 Mile Road Pine Island Dr.-North of 13 Mile Road i .-: . " 13 Mile Road-West of Pine Island Drive 14 Mile Road-West of Northland Drive 12,000 12,321 Iii' Projections are based on a 3% annual increase based on 1990 24 Hour vehicle counts . . I' r A&O.Algoma\89564.01\algomamp\sb 50 �CHAPTER 7 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN ..,· - • This chapter contains descriptions, recommendations, and justification for future land use in Algoma Township. These recommendations will provide an overall framework for the management and regulation of future development and also serve as the basis for evaluating zoning requests. The Township Planning Act, Public Act 168 of 1959, as amended, specifically gives Township Planning Commissions the authority to prepare and officially adopt a Plan. When prepared, officially adopted, and maintained, this Plan should provide an advisory guide for the physical conservation of certain areas and for the development of other areas into the best possible living environment for present and future township residents. Because of the constant change in our social and economic structure and activities, the Plan must be maintained through periodic review and revision so that it reflects contemporary trends while maintaining long-range goals. The Future Land Use Plan is general in scope. It is not intended to establish precise boundaries of land use or exact locations of future uses. It is also important to note that there is no schedule to implement the recommendations contained here. The timing of a particular land use is dependent upon a number of factors such as availability of public utilities, provisions for adequate roadways, effect on public services, and the demand for a particular land use versus the available land zoned for this use. Those, plus other factors, must be considered when reviewing a request for rezoning a particular parcel of land. Overlay or conservation zones may be employed when adequate regulations and distinct boundaries are established. • ... As background information to the planning process, the following narrative provides an explanation of the relationship of land use planning to zoning. • THE RELATIONSHIP OF Pl,.,ANNING TO ZONING ... r The relationship between land use planning and zoning is an important one. Planning is basically the act of planning the uses of land within a community for the future while zoning is the act of regulating the use of these lands by ordinance. The laws of the State of Michigan require that a community engage in land use planning activities, including the preparation of a comprehensive plan, prior to the initiation of a zoning ordinance in a community. The following narrative provides a better understanding of the terms "planning" and "zoning". r . A&C\AJ.goma\89564.01\algomamp~b 51 �Land Use Planning - ... -- The process of guiding the future growth and development of a community. Generally, a document is prepared known as the Comprehensive Plan which addresses the various factors relating to the growth of a community. Through the processes of land use planning, it is intended that a community can preserve, prompte, protect, and improve public health, safety, and general welfare. Additional considerations include: comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire protection, preventing the overcrowding of land to avoid undue concentration of population, facilitating the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water, sewage requirements ami services, and conservation, development, utilization and protection of natural resources within the community. Zoning Zoning is one of the instruments, along with capital improvements programing and the administration of local subdivision regulations, which implements the goals and policies of a comprehensive plan. The enactment and administration of the zoning ordinance are legislative and administrative processes conducted by local units of government relating to the implementation of the goals and policies of the Master Plan. PLAN CONCEPTS - The Future Land Use Map illustrates the concepts for the general development of Algoma Township. These concepts are based on the goals and objectives stated in Chapter Two and are intended to guide the future growth of Algoma Township. These major land use concepts include the following: Recognition and protection of the environmentally sensitive areas of the Township-primarily the lakes, streams, rivers, wetlands and groundwater. Preserva~on and enhancement of the rural character of the Township and the unique and scenic vistas which contribute to the country atmosphere. Areas of the Township adjacent to the City of Rockford will likely have public water and sanitary sewer within this planning period, and land uses should be planned accordingly. It is also likely that areas adjacent to the Camp Lake Sewer System will be served by sanitary sewer. = Establishment of a Township Center which would centralize a number of functions around the Township offices such as governmental services, library, and recreation. The intent of such a Center would be to create a gathering place and sense of community for Algoma Township residents. Rural clustering will be an option for residential uses in certain areas in conjunction with open space or conservation easements. A&C\Algoma\89564.01\algomamp\sb 52 �Commercial uses will concentrate along Northland Drive and those portions of Ten and Fourteen Mile Roads near the interchange with U.S. 131. These roadways will continue to be the major corridors through the Township and the non-commercial areas will develop primarily with differing residential densities. Access control measures will be required to enhance traffic safety. The Township will cooperate with adjacent municipalities to mutually plan for the development of Northland Drive. Natural or man-made buffer/transition zones should be utilized between different land uses to ensure compatibility. - Larger active farming areas will transition into non-farm uses or "hobby farms". Emphasis on preserving prime farmland will diminish. LAND USE CATEGORIES The Future Land Use Map recommends a number of different land use classifications. The following descriptions of these future land use classifications explain the intended uses and location characteristics for each classification. Natural River District This land use classification recognizes the importance of protecting the Rogue River and its tributaries. This district encompasses a strip of land 300 feet wide on each side of and parallel to the banks of the Rogue River and Cedar, Stegman and Shaw Creeks. Uses envisioned for this district are limited to single-family dwellings, camping, non-motorized boating, agricultural uses and other similar uses which would not cause degradation to the river or creeks or their banks. - The Natural River District as it exists in Algoma Township is a result of the State of Michigan naming the Rogue River as a Natural River under the 1970 Natural River Act. The Algoma Township Zoning Ordinance contains strict regulations for this district which are designed to protect these waters from potentially disruptive development practices and land uses. Conservation .., This land use classification identifies those areas in the Township which should be preserved and protected due to their sensitive environmental condition and their potential to serve as water retention basins, groundwater recharge areas, and wildlife sanctuaries. Uses within these areas should be limited to those uses which would have little or no impact upon the natural characteristics of the site or which would serve to enhance or blend in with the existing conditions of the site. The natural features found in these areas may indicate consideration for possible inclusion in the Township,'s park and recreation system. A&C\Algoma\89564.01\algomarnp\sb 53 �All uses in this zone would be subject to special standards and require a minimum lot size of four acres and a minimum lot width of 300 feet. These standards would examine the use in light of affect on surface and ground water pollution, alteration of the natural flow of water or retention capacity of the floodplain, grading of natural land contours, removal of trees or other vegetation, and effect on wildlife habitat. Two conservation zones currently are identified by the Algoma Township Zoning Map. The largest of these zones is _found in the southwest comer of the Township and encompasses a broad, expansive portion of the Rogue River floodplain that includes both woodlands and wetlands. The second existing conservation zone is located east of and contiguous to the two bodies of water known as Indian Lakes, and is also composed of both wetlands and woodlands. Both of these conservation zones are retained on the Future Land Use Map. · Three additional conservation areas have been recommended for inclusion in the Future Land Use Plan for Algoma Township. The first of these areas is contiguous to the existing Conservation Zone in the southwest comer of the Township, and includes Meek Lake, Nelson Lake, Low Lake, and the drainage system that connects these three lakes with each other, with Dutch Drain to the south, and consequently with the Rogue River. Rugged terrain, wetlands, woodlands, and little current development qualify this area for conservation. An Open Space Preservation category (discussed in a following section) is also recommended as an option for this area. A second conservation area is recommended for the land surrounding Hoskins Lake in the north central portion of the Township (Section 10). Hoskins Lake is a fairly secluded body of water contiguous to Little Cedar Creek. Wetlands dominate the area east, west, and south of the lake; woodlands surround Jhe lake on all sides. These factors, as well as a minimum of development in the area, qualify the Hoskins area for conservation. The last additional conservation area is located in Section 14 and encompasses 73 acres of woodland owned by Rockford Public Schools as well as additional acreage to the west. These parcels together include two distinct wetlands and several smaller ones. The 1968 Master Plan recommended that this area, as well as additional contiguous acreage, be set aside as a regional park. The natural features of this site, combined with a low level of development (a result of forest land that is held by the Rockford Public Schools) indicate that this area is suitable for conservation purposes. Rural Agricultural Principal uses within this land use classification are general and specialized farming activities along with farm and non-farm single family dwelling units. Rural Agricultural areas would require a minimum lot size of almost one acre (42,000 sq. ft.) with a minimum of 200 feet of lot width, to ensure that dwellings are located a sufficient distance apart to provide adequate room for private on-site well and septic systems. Although large scale farming activities are expected to diminish over time, the RA category recognizes the active farms in the Township and provides for their on-going operation. These farms contribute to the rural character and diversity of the Township. A&.C\Algoma\89564.01\t.lgomamp\.ib 54 �..... Criteria used to detennine areas for future agricultural land use are: 1. The presence of prime fannland soils as identified by the 1986 Soil Survey of Kent County. 2. The presence of parcels enrolled in P.A. 116, the State of Michigan Farmland and Open Space Preservation Act. 3. The presence of parcels of land 40 acres or more in size (the minimum amount of land traditionally viewed as generating a positive economical return in crops). ,. I I J Two of these three criteria were necessary to qualify an area for designation as Rural Agricultural. The largest area of RA is located in the northwest quadrant of the Township, encompassing large portions of Sections 8, 9, 16 and 17. Other large areas are found in the following locations: the north-central portion of the Township; north of Russell Street between the former Michigan Northern Railroad bed and Northland Drive; in the central portion of the Township on both sides of the Rogue River, an area also designated for Open Space Preservation (discussed in a following section); two other areas located on the western side of the Township, one north of the Camp Lake area and another south of High Lake. Rural Residential Rural Residential areas are intended to provide for residential development in a rural setting close to Rural Agricultural areas. General farming activities will be pennitted but are envisioned to be of a smaller scale than those pennitted in Rural Agricultural areas. Rural Residential Zones are intended to satisfy a demand for a rural life style without necessarily removing active prime farmland from production. The minimum lot size and lot width in the RR areas would be 42,000 square feet and 150 feet respectively. Certain non-residential uses would be pennitted as special land uses such as a golf course, private recreation areas and extractive uses. The most significant difference between the 1968 Algoma Township Master Plan and The 1991 Plan is the increase in lands recommended for rural homes and the decrease in lands recommended for agricultural use. Large portions of the Township in the northeast, northwest, and southwest quadrants have been designated as Rural Residential. A lesser amount of land has been designated as RR in the southeast quadrant, since more dense residential uses as well as mixed uses are planned for the area surrounding the City of Rockford. Several RR areas are also designated as Watershed or Vista Protection Overlay Zones, or as Open Space Preservation areas (discussed in following sections). Criteria used when detennining Rural Residential areas are as follows: 1. While fanning practices are present in areas designated for Rural Residential, large scale fanning is expected to decline within the scope of the planning period. Parcels within the RR areas in general do not exhibit the criteria used when detennining areas to be designated as Rural Agricultural (presence of prime farmland soils, enrolled in P.A. 16, and parcels of 40 or more acres in size). A&0.Algoma\J!9564.01\algomamp~b 55 �2. Public water and sewer are not planned for these areas within the scope of the twenty year planning period. The minimum lot size of 42,000 square feet is designed to accommodate the placement of on-site well and septic systems. 3. Lot-split activity has been high in the areas designated for RR, establishing a pattern of Rural Residential land use. Many parcels of five to ten acres already exist and are likely to be further sub-divided within the planning period under the terms of the State of Michigan Plat Act. 4. The proposed RR density of one dwelling unit per 42,000 square feet will help preserve the emerging rural-suburban character of the Township. 5. The uses envisioned for the RR areas are compatible with a wide range of uses recommended in the Master Plan such as farming, watershed and scenic vista protection, conservation of natural resources, and open space preservation. .... T I T Open Space Preservation This land use classification is proposed in order to encourage the preservation of open space, and to maintain scenic and rural vistas by permitting the clustering of houses in certain areas rather than requiring them to be developed in strip fashion along public roads. This technique encourages new residential developments to cluster in a few selected areas on a parcel rather than locate across the entire site. This allows the undeveloped area to be kept in its natural state, either as open space or as active farmland. The developed area of the parcel becomes a rural subdivision which encourages a sense of place and identity among residents. The open space which remains must be protected by legal mechanisms such as conservation easements or a homeowners association. Typical cluster developments will be screened from roadway views, will not be in sensitive environmental areas, and are readily accessible by public services such as emergency vehicles. This concept could be permitted as a planned unit development, using an overlay zone or a separate zoning district in the Rural Agricultural, Rural Residential or Low Density Residential zones. Guidelines for establishing an open space preservation district should be carefully designed and should be based upon the concepts of the publications "Dealing with Change in the Connecticut River Valley - A Design Manual for Conservation and Development" and "Rural Cluster Zoning: Survey and Guidelines, Land Use Law and Zoning Digest." Some of the concepts taken from Rural Cluster Zoning noted above are: • "Rural cluster zoning is most suitable in rural suburban transition areas. • Ouster projects should be carefully sited to minimize impacts on neighbors, infrastructure systems and the environment A&C\Algoma\89564.0 l\algomamp\sb 56 �• Procedures for review and approval should be less difficult than for subdivisions and should have incentives to encourage their use. • The number of home sites per cluster should be limited with a minimum and maximum project size. • Lot dimensions, building heights and setbacks should be compatible with the rural character." ,-- ,..... r Open Space Preservation areas have been recommended as overlays within other land use categories on the Future Land Use Map. Specific locations and the criteria used in each case are as follows: 1. The area designated as Low Density Residential west of the City of Rockford - This area will be the predominant rural suburban transition zone within the Township. It is likely that this area will be served by public water and sewer within the planning period, increasing the probability of development at a greater density than currently exists . Presently, fairly large tracts of undeveloped land still exist. Cluster options in this area will enhance preservation of scenic and rural landscapes, and will offer residents the opportunity for a creative environment that incorporates the best elements of neighborhood design with the amenities of unspoiled views and usable open space. 2. The areas designated as Mixed Use and Rural Residential, northeast of the Ten Mile Road and U.S. 131 Expressway intersection - This area has been identified as a scenic vista by Township residents and officials. The area shown as Mixed Use (see Map 9 for details of the site) will incorporate both Low Density and Medium Density Residential uses with cluster design in order to minimize both the costs of infrastructure and impacts upon natural features present on these sites such as open fields, stands of trees, and wetlands. In addition, the area designated as RR on the Land Use Map abuts Elstner Avenue, a Natural Beauty Road. Cluster design options will help to preserve the rural character and views afforded by this road. The Mixed Use area is discussed in further detail in a later section. • . 3. The areas designated as Rural Agricultural in the central portion on the Township, on both sides of the Rogue River - This area has been identified both as valuable agricultural land and as providing unique scenic vistas that include both fields and woodlands associated with the Rogue River. While it is likely that much of this area will stay either in productive farming or in open space preservation via P.A. 116, residential development will continue to increase within the twenty year planning period. Cluster zoning options in this area will provide an opportunity to preserve open views and to allow farming practices to continue through lease arrangements while lesser amounts of acreage are consumed by residential development. 4. The area in the far northeast comer of the Township, southwest of the intersection of 16 Mile Road and Northland Drive - This area was identified as worthy of Open Space Preservation due to the presence of woodlands, Little Cedar Creek, and other A&C\Algoma\89564.01\algomamp\sb 57 �smaller wetlands on the site, as well as the probability that development will increase in the area as growth from the City of Cedar Springs continues southward, with possible extension of public water and sewer to this area. Cluster zoning options will afford the opportunity for optimum site design while allowing the preservation of natural features. Low Density Residential This district is intended primarily for single-family houses in a traditional subdivision setting, and is intended to be served by public water and sanitary sewer. Lot sizes wiH vary depending upon the type of utility service provided. If no utilities are provided, a lot width of 120 feet with just under an acre of land will be required. If water or sanitary sewer is provided, approximately one half acre of land will be necessary. If both water and sanitary sewer is provided, lot sizes can be reduced to 13,000 square feet (3.35 units per acre). These requirements are already contained within the Algoma Township Zoning Ordinance in the R-S, Suburban Residential zoning district. . LDR areas are intended to be located where they can be easily served by the extension of public utilities from the City of Rockford or the Village of Sparta. Two family dwellings (duplexes) would also be a permitted use in this district if located along a county primary or local road but not on a subdivision street. Specific locations for LDR on the Future Land Use Map include much of the land contiguous to the western city limits of Rockford where public utilities could be extended within the planning period. Adequate county primary and county local roads serve this area. This LDR designation is also compatible with Low Density Residential uses planned in contiguous areas in both the City of Rockford and Plainfield Township. Low Density Residential uses are included within the area planned for Mixed Use at 10 Mile Road and the U.S. 131 Expressway. This area may develop in a variety of ways including traditional subdivisions depending upon the extension of public utilities, and is discussed in more detail in a later section. The final area recommended for LDR is located along Division Avenue just south of Broman Street, near the Camp Lake Area. Public sewer from the Village of Sparta enters the Township along Broman Street to serve residents in this area. In addition, a low density residential land use pattern is already well established in the area around Camp Lake. Medium Density Residential This classification is designed to accommodate multi-family dwelling units and mobile home parks with a maximum density of just under nine units per acre. Multi-family buildings would contain no more than 12 units each. Other permitted uses would be institutional uses such as hospitals and schools, funeral homes and two family-dwelling units. A&C\Algoma\89564.0l~gomamp\sb 58 �-- ...I• Medium density residential areas should be located on paved streets to facilitate access by fire and police service. The types of dwelling units envisioned in this category can serve as a transition zone between non-residential uses and low density residential areas. Because public sewer is necessary to assure long range public health, MOR areas should not be zoned or developed until sewer service and roadways can be provided to serve this type of use . In general, MDR areas should be located where public utilities can be easily and economically provided. Algoma Township currently has no attached multi-family dwellings. The Algoma Estates Mobile Home Park is located in Section 24, south of 13 Mile Road. This area is designated as MDR, as well as contiguous parcels to the west and south which would likely be utilized for park expansion. .. Other MOR designations include the area between 12 Mile Road and Shaw Creek about 500 feet off Northland Drive. This location, designated for industrial land use in the 1968 Plan, was recommended for MOR land use based upon the following criteria: 1. Public water and sewer could possibly be extended to this site from the City of Rockford, located about one quarter mile south . 2. Residents of a multi-family development would be located near shopping and service conveniences in the City of Rockford. 3. A multi-family use would be compatible with commercial uses planned for those properties that front on Northland drive as well as with a planned Office/Light Industrial Park recommended north of the site. 4. Northland Drive would provide excellent access to the site, as would 12 Mile Road to the north. 5. The presence of Stegman Creek affords the possibility of a quality living environment within a natural setting. .... Medium Density Residential uses are also included in the area recommended for Mixed Use, which will be discussed in more detail in a later section. Lake Residential This classification recognizes the existing development and zoning surrounding the lakes in Algoma Township. The single-family house is the primary permitted use within this category. Specific regulations to encourage the proper development of water front properties and avoid pollution of township lakes should be continued. Current Township Zoning Ordinance regulations set forth development rules to prevent overcrowding and pollution of the Township's lakes. The boundaries of this classification could encompass the watershed of Township lakes so that lake pollution prevention measures can apply to a wider geographic area to better protect A&o.Algoma\89564.01\algomamp\<ib 59 �... r. - these lakes. In all cases, Lake Residential areas are recommended to include a Watershed Protection Overlay Zone, which is further discussed in a later section. - The Lake Residential areas are focused in three locations: Camp Lake, Indian Lakes, and High Lake. The Camp Lake LR area remains much the same as was recommended in the 1968 Master Plan, and has long been established as a residential neighborhood. While Indian Lakes and High Lake were not designated as LR in the 1968 Plan, current zoning includes these two areas in the L-R zoning district. Indian Lakes has experienced residential development on the northern side of the western-most lake, and High Lake has experienced similar development. on both the north and south sides of the lake. ' ,.. J 1 Office Office development is similar in many ways to medium and high density residential in terms of characteristics (traffic, appearance, height, etc.) and compatibility with other uses. This makes offices a suitable transition or buffer use in many locations. Office uses at major intersections are often desirable as such uses can generate less traffic than commercial uses depending upon the size of the building and serve as a buffer for less intensive uses located away from the intersection. Office uses should be located along major roadways for easy access and to serve as a transition between land uses of different intensity. Office uses in the Township are recommended in tandem with light industrial uses located along ~orthland Drive and for those properties west of Northland Drive to the former Michigan Northern Railroad, north of 12 Mile Road. While many residences still exist in this area, it is envisioned that residential structures in this area may convert to office uses, which would be compatible with the residential and limited commercial development in neighboring Courtland Township. Office uses are also envisioned at the northeast corner of 10 Mile Road and U.S. 131 within the Mixed Use PUD. Commercial The Plan proposes two types of commercial land use categories, neighborhood commercial and general commercial. The Future Land Use Map does not distinguish between these two types of commercial. Decisions on types of commercial development desired in specific locations may be made at the time of requests for rezoning. Neighborhood Commercial The Plan proposes commercial development within this category to serve the convenience shopping needs of Township residents and to a lesser extent the needs of through vehicular traffic. Such convenience retail uses would include a pharmacy, convenience store, ice cream shop, service station, banks, etc. Commercial uses which generate higher traffic volumes and attract people from beyond the Township should not be located within this category. However, as the Township population grows, additional retail uses may be necessary to provide for the convenience shopping needs of Township residents. These commercial uses should be A&C\Algoma\89564.01\algomamp\sb 60 �permitted in areas where the population warrants such use, but only if specific standards can be met and approved as a special use. Specific site criteria should be developed to insure that such commercial areas do not proliferate and are allowed only as needed. These site criteria could include minimum and maximum lot size, soil suitability, type of retail use, paved roads, population within certain radius of the site, adjacent land uses, and buffering. General Commercial r r r r This land use category recognizes those areas containing existing general commercial uses along 10 Mile Road, 14 Mile Road and Northland Drive. Uses within this district consist of office, general retail and service uses which cater to Township residents and the motoring public. These uses should be subject to site development criteria and performance standards simil_ar to those suggested for neighborhood commercial, designed to minimize negative impacts on adjoining property. Commercial land uses in general have been recommended in the following locations based upon the criteria given: 1. Northland Drive to 14 Mile Road; 14 Mile Road to just west of Edgerton Avenue This area reflects the current zoning map of Algoma Township, and commercial uses are already firmly established in this area. Both Northland Drive and 14 Mile Road (M-57) will accommodate the high traffic volumes that are both needed to support and generated by the existing businesses. In neighboring Courtland Township, several commercial uses exist fronting on both Northland Drive and 14 Mile Road. 2. Northland Drive south of Porter Hollow to Rockford City limits - Commercial uses other than offices are recommended only for those areas already established as commercial. Zoning currently allows for commercial uses, as does similar zoning along portions of Northland Drive in neighboring Courtland Township. The City of Rockford has planned for commercial uses just south of 12 Mile Road, directly opposite an area in Algoma Township planned for commercial uses. The balance of lands fronting on Northland Drive in Algoma Township that were previously planned for Business have been recommended for Office and Industrial uses, discussed in a later section. 3. The area designated for Mixed Uses at the northeast corner of the U.S. 131 Expre~ay and 10 Mile Road - This area is recommended to include commercial uses and will be discussed in detail in a following section. 4. 10 Mile Road at the U.S. 131 Expressway Interchange - Neighborhood commercial, service businesses and light industry are currently established in this area, and current zoning accommodates these uses. Plainfield Township directly to the south across 10 Mile Road has also planned for general commercial uses in this area. The presence of the expressway interchange, proximity to a County primary road (10 Mile), and the · possibility of extension of public water and sewer to this area make it a prime candidate for commercial uses. A&O.Algoma\89564.0 l\algomamp\sb 61 �r ,I 5. Division Avenue west of Camp Lake - A neighborhood convenience store exists in this area, and will likely continue to support the day to· day needs of Camp Lake area residents. The site is ideally located along a County primary road with public sewer available from the Village of Sparta. r ' Industrial r This classification is intended to accommodate uses such as manufacturing, processing or warehousing, and may allow as special uses such operations as contractor equipment yards and body shops or salvage yards. Uses allowed will be evaluated on the basis of compatibility with adjacent land uses and the potential for danger or offense to nearby residents. While industrial uses may be allowed where served by private sewage disposal systems and wells as approved by the Kent County Health Department, the Plan recommends that the industrial development occur in those areas where utilities exist or are planned for, with access to major arterials. In order to promote orderly and efficient industrial areas, industrial parks should be encouraged. 1 r I The intensity of industrial development in the Township will be dependent upon the extension of both water and sewer services. Of primary concern should be adequate site development standards plus requirements for sufficient buffering between industrial uses and other uses. Uses which require the transformation of natural resources with a finished or semi-finished product or engage in intensive use of chemicals or produce noise, smell or smoke shall not be permitted as such uses are not compatible with the rural character of the Township and could also threaten the environmental quality of the area. The amount of land recommended for industrial uses, particularly in the northeast portion of the Township, has been significantly reduced since The 1968 Master Plan was adopted. The following describes the recommended industrial areas and rationale for selecting these sites: •. 1. North of the City of Rockford Industrial Park, between the former Michigan Northern Railroad and Northland Drive - This particular area was planned for industrial uses in The 1968 Plan, and is zoned as such. The likelihood of this area being served by public water and sewer is strong due to the existence of public utilities in the adjacent Rockford Industrial Park. Across Northland Drive, the City of Rockford has planned both Industrial and Planned Enterprise (a blend of light manufacturing and heavy commercial). Access to the site would be provided by Northland Drive, a County primary road. 2. North of 12 Mile Road, between the former Michigan Northern Railroad and Northland Drive - This area has also been planned for industrial uses since the 1968 Plan and is zoned presently for D-1 Industrial, D-2 Light Industrial, and B-2 General Business. The current plan recommends a blend of office and light industrial or high technology uses for the southern-most portion of the area closest to 12 Mile Road and for those properties fronting on Northland Drive. This area is currently primarily vacant land and residential structures. Commercial uses exist in neighboring Courtland Township along Northland Drive. It is envisioned that residential structures in this area may, over time, convert to office uses. The area north of here is designated only as Industrial, A&O.AJ.goma\89564.01\algomamp~b 62 �primarily to reflect the already established industrial character of the area. Both areas may be served by sewer and water extended from the City of Rockford, and would acquire access from both 12 Mile Road and Northland Drive. r-- ' 3. Northeast of the U.S. 131 Expr~way Interchange at 14 Mile Road (M-57) - This area, planned for Industrial in The 1968 Plan, is the site of a maintenance facility for the Kent County Road Commission. D-1 Industrial Zoning exists on the site, and recently additional land was rezoned to Industrial. The established industrial character of the area as well as excellent access provided by both M-57 and the U.S. 131 Expressway result in a favorable site for industrial uses. r ' Mixed Use PUD An area consisting of approximately 180 acres northeast of the U.S. 131 Expressway Interchange and 10 Mile Road has been designated on the Future Land Use Plan as Mixed Use; an enlarged detail of that area is illustrated by Map 9. This area was designated as ·Mixed Use for a number of reasons: -. 1. The highly visible area is ideally located at the expressway interchange, at the central southern limits of the Township. 2. Access to the site is afforded not only by the expressway but by 10 Mile Road which is a County primary road. 3. The site offers a variety of natural features such as wetlands, wooded hillsides, open fields, and variable terrain. 4. Large, undivided parcels exist on the site, facilitating land assemblage for large scale developments. 5. The site is likely to receive public sewer and water from the City of Rockford in the scope of the 20 year planning period, facilitating a higher density of development than is currently possible. -. Uses envisioned for this site include office and service businesses closest to the expressway, and commercial uses along that portion of 10 Mile Road where several commercial uses already exist The remainder of this site could accommodate either traditional residential subdivisions and/or multi-family attached dwelling units. The plan recommends the use of Open Space A&C\Algoma\89564.01\algomamp\sb 63 �I r I r r Preservation techniques such as Cluster Zoning or Planned Unit Development (PUD) that will allow a developer to carefully integrate residential buildings with the natural characteristics of the sit~, to ensure preservation of the wetlands, open views, and wooded hillsides and other adjacent uses on the site. Building design within the Mixed Use area should be of a unified, attractive nature with complementary, understated signs. Pedestrian uses should have high priority, including walking paths and bicycle paths. Outdoor enhancements such as decks, bridges, trails, and gazebos that take advantage of the natural features of the site should ~ encouraged. r Existing single family residences in the area could be favorably incorporated into the site design, since any proposed development would be subject to design standards including substantial setbacks and landscaping, as well as acceptable access and traffic circulation patterns. The Mixed Use designation is compatible with the Rural Residential/Open Space Preservation area planned directly to the north, and with the Low Density Residential/Open Space Preservation planned directly to the east. It will also be compatible with Plainfield Township's plans for general commercial and open space conservancy directly south of the site along 10 Mile Road. r Other options for this site may exist, for example, a blend of recreational uses such as a golf course along with a hotel/motel establishment could be incorporated into the site, using the same design standards and care to preserve and incorporate natural features as discussed above. ~ I Public/Semi-Public This category includes those areas and facilities such as schools, government buildings, parks and golf courses which are available for use by the general public. Semi-public uses are those used by a limited number of people with specific interests which are generally non-profit in nature such as churches, non-public schools, private golf courses and medical or institutional facilities. The Plan recognizes that it is necessary to provide for the establishment of certain non-residential land uses within residential areas subject to the implementation of measures which are designed to insure compatibility. Such non-residential uses commonly include religious and educational institutions; recreational uses such as parks; golf courses and play fields and public utility facilities. Traffic generation, noise, lighting and trespassing should be carefully controlled in order to mitigate the negative impacts on residential uses. Expansion or location of these uses should depend upon compatibility with adjacent land uses and the extent to which neighborhood character will be maintained. The Future Land Use Map illustrates the major public/semi-public uses in the Township which are the Township Hall, Township parkland and proposed parkland, as well as existing fire fighting facilities. Overlay Zone An Overlay Zone is a zoning technique which consists of a separate zone placed over an existing zoning district. The Overlay Zone carries a specific set of regulations which apply to ("overlay") A&C\Algoma\1!9564.01\algomamp\sb 64 �-;t"· I r r properties in the underlying zoning district. The Overlay Zone is useful for protecting areas with special characteristics such as floodplains, wetlands, historic districts or unique neighborhoods, but they can also apply to other areas where a special set of regulations are needed to achieve the objectives of a community. The boundaries of an Overlay Zone do not need to follow property lines but can be drawn to fit the area; i.e., floodplain or wetland identified by a municipality. Vista Protection Overlay Zone This classification recognizes and recommends protection for the scenic views which make up much of the Rogue River Valley in Algoma Township and which contribute significantly to the rural character and beauty of the Township. The Vista Protection Overlay Zone (VPOZ) would seek, by way of zoning ordinance regulations, to preserve certain existing vistas by carefully guiding development so that the design of a site including buildings, structures, roads, plantings, signs, etc., which can be seen by the public are implemented to develop a satisfactory visual appearance and not detract from or block the view of vistas as they exist today. The following general design elements need to be observed in preserving the Township's scenic vistas. r. 1. Landscape shall be preserved in its natural state, insofar as practicable, by minimizing tree and soil removal. Any grade changes shall be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas. The orientation of individual building sites shall be such as to maintain maximum natural topography and cover. Topography, tree cover, and natural drainageways shall be treated as fixed determinants of road and lot configuration rather than as malleable elements that can be changed to follow a preferred development scheme. 2. Streets shall be designed and located in such a manner as to maintain and preserve natural topography, cover, significant landmarks and trees; to minimize cut and fill; and to preserve and enhance views and vistas.on or off the subject parcel. 3. Proposed development shall be related harmoniously to the terrain and to the use, scale, and architecture of existing buildings in the vicinity that have functional or visual relationship to the proposed buildings. 4. All open space (landscaped and usable) shall be designed to add to the visual amenities of the area by maximizing its visibility for persons passing the site or overlooking it from nearby properties. 5. The color, size, height, lighting and landscaping_of appurtenant signs shall be evaluated for compatibility with local architectural motif and the maintenance of views and vistas of natural landscapes, recognized historic landmarks, parks or landscaping. •, A&OAlgoma\89564.01\algomamp\sb 65 �liiil I 6. The removal or disruption of historic, traditional or significant uses, structures, or architectural elements shall be minimized insofar as practicable, whether these exist on the site or on adjacent properties. 7. Each unit of development, as well as the total development, shall create an environment of desirability and stability. Every structure, when completed and in place, shall have a finished appearance. 8. The design of buildings, fences, and other structures shall be evaluated on the basis of harmony with site characteristics and nearby buildings, including historic structures. !' I It is not the intent of this Plan to recognize or regulate all scenic views or vistas within the Township. Only those vistas which truly offer a broad panoramic view of the Township encompassing both field and forest over a wide area and which are generally recognized by both Township officials and the general populace should be considered as scenic vistas for preservation purposes. These vistas have been illustrated on the Future Land Use Map, but others may also be designated by the Planning Commission. r Watershed Protection Overlay Zone I This classification is intended to recognize that the Township's lakes, wetlands and streams need special regulatory measures to ensure their long term quality and viability. A Watershed Protection Overlay Zone (WPOZ) is recommended by the Plan for those areas in the Township where land uses may especially impact the quality of wetlands, lakes, drains or streams. The exact delineation of a WPOZ would involve a technical analysis of topography, soils, land use impacts and carrying capacity of bodies of water. Within a WPOZ, management practices need to be adopted to ensure that a high level of environmental quality is achieved. These practices, known as Best Management Practices, pertain to such activities as limiting the amount of impervious surface on a site, maximizing the setback of drainfields from ·a lake, requiring on-site detention/retention of storm water, and limiting the time and area of soil exposure. The Future Land Use Map illustrates general areas where further analysis of the watershed is recommended. Preparation of Best Management Practices should be undertaken with the cooperation of residents, farmers, builders and others who would be affected by such regulations. This way allows for education regarding the issues and provides an opportunity to build understanding and support for eventual regulations. FUTURE ROADS The Plan recommends the construction of two future streets. One of these is an extension of Hoskins Avenue between 13 and 14 Mile Roads. This is an area of increasing residential development primarily along private roads which provide the only means of interior access to the A&C\Algoma\89564.01\algomamp\sb 66 �..., .,iii I ...ii I ~ I. area. A road through this area would help ensure adequate emergency vehicle access to future homes in this area, and may reduce the need for lengthy private drives. An additional street is proposed south off 11 Mile Road about one half mile west of Summit Road. This road, proposed by the City of Rockford, extends to 10 Mile Road and will provide access to and from 10 Mile Road for future residential development in this area in both Rockford and Algoma Township, and will help remove potential traffic burden from Wolven Avenue. I· "( ~ [ I A&C\Algoma\89564.01\algomamp~b 67 �- --- - ~ • • 0 ~ f . • D • • •• • _____ .! • ------• • •• • ......._ \ • • • • D • ~ a:: 0 z ,,,,:, ,, • ~ ,,,,,, ,,,, • • • - • • • 0 • • • • • • -----------• 2-4 UNIT ATTACHED • • • MDR/OSP • • • • - - 11 MIL£ ROAD • • -- - ~ RR/OSP - -- ct: • \.... I'""- • • ~ "' • • • === • • 0 C D D • LDR • • '' ''- --- J • • - i..-__. IC,llLll>ll'I T ALGOMA TOWNSHIP MAP 9 MIXED USE I PUD • •• • • • LEGEND: • • • • LDR/OSP 10 MIL£ ROAD • • • • • -- - MIXED USE AREA RR - RURAL RESIDENTIAL CSP - OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION LDR - LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MDR - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 0 - OFFICE C - COMMERCIAL FUTURE LAHP USE EXISIJNG USE$ Cliil) r:zn - WETLAND • - SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE C - COMMERCIAL / - INDUSTRIAL - PRIVATE ROAD • ==-==- omcE WW Engineering & Science, Inc •.--------------------------------------------------------== �7 l, CHAPTERS l rnPLEMENTATION 1 In order for the Master Plan to serve as an effective guide to the continued development of Algoma Township it must be implemented. Primary responsibility for implementing the Plan rests with the Algoma Township Board,, the Planning Commission, and the Township staff. This is done through a number of methods. These include ordinances, programs, and administrative procedures which are described in this chapter. 1 l It is important to note that the Master Plan itself has no legal authority to regulate development l in order to implement the recommendations of the Plan. This implementation must come from the decisions of the Township Board and Planning Commission to provide needed public improvements and to administer and establish regulatory measures relative to the use of the land. 1 The private sector, including individual home and land owners, is also involved in fulfilling the recommendations of the Master Plan by the actual physical development of land uses and through the rezoning of land. The authority for this, however, comes from the Township. Cooperation between the public and private sectors is therefore important in successful implementation of the Master Plan. · 1 l ·,. 1 1. 1 Chapter 1 of the Plan sets forth goals and objectives which serve to guide the future development of Algoma Township. Many of the specific implementation recommendations of this chapter are taken from these objectives. The following sections are a list of the major activities which the Algoma Township Planning Commission should pursue in order to be pro-active in the implementation of this Master Plan. ZONING .I ' I I Zoning represents a legal means for the Township to regulate private property to achieve orderly land use relationships. It is the process most commonly used to implement community Master Plans. The zoning process consists of an official zoning map and zoning ordinance text. The official zoning map divides the community into different zones or districts within which certain uses are permitted and others are not. The zoning ordinance text notes the uses which are permitted and establishes regulations to control densities, height, bulk, setbacks, lot sizes, and accessory uses. A&C\Algoma~9564.0 l\algomarnp\,b 69 �., .) --r The zoning ordinance also sets forth procedures for special approval regulations and sign controls. These measures permit the Township to control the quality as well as the type of development Subsequent to the adoption of this Plan, the Township Planning Commission and Township Board should review and make any necessary revisions to the zoning regulations to ensure that the recommendations of the Plan as outlined in this section are instituted. The Plan recommends the following specific changes to the Township Zo11ing Ordinance: ;;,,-: f. 1. Develop specific regulations to permit and encourage the development of land under the Open Space· Preservation concept as recommended in Chapter 7. 2. Adopt regulations for Planned Unit Developments as a method to implement the mixed uses recommended for the 10 Mile Road/U.S. 131 intersection and the Open Space Preservation concept recommended by the Plan. 3. Prepare and adopt a separate chapter_for Office zoning. 4. Revise the site plan review provisions of the Ordinance to better specify required contents of site plans and to provide for better protection of the natural features of the land per Objectives 5 and 6 of the Natural Resource Goal section. 5. Adopt access control measures to regulate the commercial development recommended for Northland Drive, 10 Mile Road and 14 Mile Road as recommended by Objective 2 for the Commercial Development Goal. Such measures should address the number, size and spacing of driveways, service drives or frontage roads, building setbacks, deceleration lanes, and driveway alignment The Commission should work with the Kent County Road Commission to enlist their cooperation in enforcing such measures . 6. Develop specific landscaping regulations for buffering between uses, and improving the appearance of buildings and parking lots per the overall goal of the Township and Objective 3 of the Commercial Goal section. j 7. Develop zoning ordinance provisions to regulate site condominiums. --1 8. Prepare overlay zone regulations to implement the Watershed Protection Zone and Vista Protection Zone recommendations of Chapter 7. As part of preparing these regulations additional study should be done to identify scenic vistas and watershed areas. - t -I I .,,. i ... I ='"' - ' ~ I - For watersheds in particular, a plan should precede the development of regulations to better determine the location of the watershed and the type of best management practices needed to protect water quality. A&O.Algorna\89564.0 l\al.gomamp\sb 70 �pa •- The Vista Protection Zone is specifically recommended by Objective 12 of the Natural Resource Goal section while Objective 8 pertains to the development of watershed protection regulations. jg I ~ I 9. Delete the D-1 provisions of the Zoning Ordinance ("Heavy Industry") as such uses may not be compatible with the overall environmental goals and rural character of the Township. Specifically Industrial Goal, Objective 6 recommends the deletion of this category. 10. Create a separate mobile home park zoning chapter within the Zoning Ordinance which should be approved by the Michigan Mobile Home Commission. 11. Amend the Ordinance to permit two-family dwelling units in the R-S, Rural Suburban zoning district along county primary or local roads but not on subdivision streets and to also allow them in the R-D, Low Density Multi-Family zoning district. This amendment should also delete the existing regulations regarding duplexes. 12. Revise the Ordinance so there is consistency in the intent and in the regulations for the Conservation Zone and Natural River Zone. Currently the NR Zone is less restrictive in its minimum lot size than the Conservation Zone yet much of the environmentally sensitive land is within the NR zone. This discrepancy needs to be discussed and appropriate changes made to achieve the objectives of the Township. 13. Prepare and adopt regulations to permit neighborhood commercial uses within or close to populated areas by Special Use as recommended in Chapter 7. 14. Revise the Zoning Ordinance to better delineate uses permitted by right and by special use to better provide the Planning Commission with criteria to determine the location of certain uses. Also, general standards for all special uses should be added to the Ordinance. 15. Upon completion of Item 12, the Planning Commission should sponsor amendments to the Zoning Map to rezone areas designated as Conservation on the Future Land Use Plan. 16. Develop an Historical Preservation Ordinance that is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Master Plan. I ~ I I i i -j I ADDITIONAL PLANNING STUDIES =- 1. I Develop a Township-wide street plan based on Objective 1 of the Infrastructure Goal Section. I A&C\Algoma\89564.0l'algomamp\sb 71 �l 2. Conduct a Corridor Study along major Township arterial roads such as 10 Mile Road, Northland Drive and 13 and 14 Mile Roads to address issues of traffic safety, flow and the need for additional lanes. This is recommended by Objective 2 of the Infrastructure Goal Section. 3. Conduct a study to detennine the most feasible and logical areas which could be served by public water and sanitary sewer. The Plan assumes that certain land uses will require water and sanitary sewer. Such areas do not necessarily need to become part of a neighboring municipality but could be provided utilities on a contract basis. I -,.. j -. • ' ·• 'I I I I i ADOPT TOWNSHIP SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE Currently, the Township does not have its own subdivision ordinance. Thus, any requests to plat property or create a subdivision would be done so according to the provisions of the Subdivision Control Act, Act 288 of 1967. While this provides authority for the Township to regulate platting, Township officials should adopt their own subdivision control ordinance. This will allow greater control over expected future residential developments. PREPARE AND ADOPT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM Capital Improvements Programming is the first step in a comprehensive management system designed to regulate priorities and programs to community goals and objectives. It is a means of planning ahead for the funding and implementation of major construction and land acquisition activities. The typical CIP is six years in length and updated yearly. The first year in each CIP contains the capital improvement budget. The program generally includes a survey of the longrange needs of the entire governmental unit covering major planned projects along with their expected cost and priority. The Township Board then analyzes the projects, financing options, and the interrelationship between projects. Finally, a project schedule is developed. Priority projects are included in the Capital Improvements Program. Low priority projects may be retained in a Capital Improvements Schedule which may cover as long as 20 years. The CIP is useful to the Township, private utilities, citizens, and investors, since it allows coordination in activities and provides the general public with a view of future expectations. i l , - PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM The Plan recommends that the Planning Commission prepare a work program in January of each year. This work program would set forth the tasks or goals which the Planning Commission detennines to accomplish for the upcoming year. This will allow the Commission to stay focused on important tasks and help to implement the goals and objectives identified within this Plan. A&C\Algoma\89564.0 l\algomamp\,b 72 �i f i i I I 'l ' 1 PLANNING EDUCATION Planning Commissions should attend planning seminars to keep themselves informed of planning issues and learn how to better carry out their duties and responsibilities as Planning Commissioners. These seminars are regularly sponsored by the Michigan Society of Planning Officials (MSPO) and the Michigan Township Association (MTA) and are a valuable resource for Planning Commissions. There are also several planning publications which are a useful information tool for Planning Commissioners. The main publications are Planning and Zoning linff and Michigan Planner Magazine. REVISIONS TO THE MASTER PLAN The Master Plan should be updated periodically (minor review every one to two years, major review every five to ten years) in order to be responsive to new growth trends and current Township attitudes. As growth occurs over the years, the Master Plan goals, land use information, population projections, and other pertinent data should be reviewed and revised as necessary so the Plan can continue to serve as a valid guide to the growth of the Township. 1 l 1 1 l A&C\Algoma\89564.01\algomamp\sb 73 �. ,., "' a:: 0 w g. . 0 z :5 (/J II ~ ~ROUND \I RR V 11 / . I~ w > . • 'P'l .. 111!1 ~[fl"•·-- - • J b(j(cJ ) - =-l= -=-i:a: ,I =- - - -M V' - - .... .... • • ••••• • · ·· · ·· I DA 2.9~~-~- ~ _J;gt_J~fJERS JP . I 0 w ( 0 ~ w 7?&I1rI . ~ I RA 1h _ ,A.:g: RR - . (. ~ l -.,.c SPARTA HUl'ITING ANO // ~•.. AFlSHING CLUB ' \ ~ (SOLON TWP.) . ) 6 WI ~ ~1 / y·~ ~:5 .Igl I Jl RR 1-oc -- -, .... 16 ""' . , • ~ RA • 5 ' " A -• • 4 • • • • • • • ') •• INDIAN LAKES RD . ESSES . ,----. RA ;;_:; 1 • (/J 'f RA RR • • RA MILE RD ii F1c;'~I HULL ST. JgNSUMERS WER COMPANY , ~ . ., ~ ___, C . ~' \ . .L 1-U... \ 1..,1"\MI ~ L 1ff'I RA '' 8 _,.,._ \ I --- ·11 ) -, IV-:1 ~ L.•~ o ·• ~ RR 12. , R . j ...... • 1_. I RUSSELL ST ., . • I I I • I I ., • . . . . .,. BROMAN ST.f MQO~t. r · ·1;... • •• • • • LAKE DR )Ju n ., -~ / I j. RA ., • • ~ 7 • RR • 15 , .-----~I\ LDR • • .• o Q__ > > 1-- • • • • ~ m • ··· 1............... ,. I LR I \ . :;,; J /1H H • .f \ r,u /Abn KE • . (/) ~ · RR I II w ~/ ALGOMA EW>TIST CHURCH 20 ~ . •1"-1.-1'1..,,,1 • • • • • I • I• t • • • • A na/l)IJAR 1 3 MILE RD . RR : ~ '$ · ONR • . . .. > I-~I • •• Q z ~~1.. /'..... 21 - ·. \ ~~ I --~- +;.~~~--.~-......y ~ _ , , ./ _:---~~--- --~J / /./U• 1-0:::: ~~:::::,,( o/I ~ . . . . .. .,. • I ~'-~~~ q :5 ........._ L/--,.,---LJ.. _=:~~~~~ i,a_._-__.iiiiiiiie • • •11.1• > • j: .R~~~1- ALU\.AU.IW~/-- Q__ <( _....,.._, COMA YO\ITH ENTER .,,.-.... ..,.__.!ll"'iiliil • EMETERY • 1' ~ I © ·:=. RR FONGER ST~\- • :. COMA RR ~ : . RR I ''i._ t I I /t' /SP v : .,,,,-1 \ / ,.... • I ' , • • ·/. • • • • l •·I . I I• I ........_ • 0:::: CV O <( f--- ;.i~ ( 14 ,~. ______,.,_.. j • ' ~ I I • ,,--.._ ... --- ~_.,, ! - - .----- • • ~ - - . . . , .... I I I ......, _ , .,, ...... _ • I 0 oc LDR / I ... . . . .. . ...... . ..... -----i-1- I L 11 ::::P OSP I~ ::; • !J (/J 11 MILE RD w > <( oc w z f-- V) __J 0 33 RR . .. l ... ., .. ., H I w ~ ,-• •• • I/ 0 vi ~ z 0 - ·~ LDR~ 1 I.. o-d: I ! \ .t? r•-...... I I II I I OOUlmMC> :L • • • 10 MILE RD. w ~ ~ (PLAINFIELD TWP .) 0 .. ..--=~-- I • 35 "-- w " w er0> z RR 1 l.J z w > __J __J w ~ ...., __J 0 ~ :5 (/J w z a: ALGOMA TOWNSHIP KENT COUNTY, MICHIGAN i': & 7 MAP 8 FUTURE LAND USE LEGEND: ~ "nn ~00 SCAI..( EXISTING LAND USE (1991} • CV - CONSERVATION RA - RURAL AGRICULTURAL RR - RURAL RESIDENTIAL OSP - OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION LOR - LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LR LAKE RESIDENTIAL ~ MOBILE HOME PARK 0 OFFICE C COMMERCIAL I INDUSTRIAL 1' COMMERCIAL / OFFICE ADOPTED BY THE ALQOMA INDUSTRIAL PUBLIC / SEMI-PUBLIC USE CHURCH n ====== EXTRACTIVE RESOURCE 00000000 COUNTY DRAINS PRIVATE ROAD TOWNSHIP PLANNl~G COMMISSION ON NOVEMBER· 19, 1991 (JOO' F110W MOR GROUPS OF SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES •... --.... NATURAL RIVER DISTRICT [!] • IW"l"lCIOHI SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE I-,--;i - .----• = or £.<CH P/SP PUBUC/SEMI-PUBUC WPOZ WATERSHED PROTECTION OVERLAY ZONE ""'°' - - MOT ro ™ ) VISTA PROTECTION OVERLAY ZONE PROPOSED STREETS \~I! WW ~ngineerln; • 8clenc.""'~~, G,o.,,ern~6nta· Ser"1c•• OMs,on ~ g - - , HIia ,tn...,. •. c,.,.. , ..... WI - - • (t1t; ..l-'NOO � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Wyckoff Planning and Zoning Collection Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Planning & Zoning Center (Lansing, Mich.) (Organization) Wyckoff, Mark A. Description An account of the resource Municipal master plans and zoning ordinances from across the state of Michigan, spanning from the 1960s to the early 2020s. The bulk of the collection was compiled by urban planner Mark Wyckoff over the course of his career as the founder and principal planner of the Planning and Zoning Center in Lansing, Michigan. Some additions have been made to the collection by municipalities since it was transferred to Grand Valley State University. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Michigan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1960/2023 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Subject The topic of the resource Michigan Comprehensive plan publications Master plan reports Zoning--Michigan Zoning--Maps Maps Land use--planning Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-240 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Algoma-Twp_Master-Plan_1991 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Algoma Township Board, Township Planning Commission, Master Plan Task Force, Algoma Township, Kent County, Michigan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1991-11-19 Title A name given to the resource Algoma Township Master Plan Description An account of the resource Master Plan for Algoma Township prepared by the Township Board, Township Planning Commission, and Master Plan Task Force with the assistance of WW Engineering & Science November 19, 1991. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource WW Engineering & Science (consultant) Subject The topic of the resource Master plan reports Algoma Township (Kent County, Mich.) Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/559409fbdcae572b091f850aa40e8023.pdf f720762bd525c69c12378aa1a762bf50 PDF Text Text FROM THE LIBRARY O.FJ · Pl ann\ng & 7..onin:s Center, In~. ALPENA TOWNSHIP COMPREHENSIVE PLAN \ a pla nned working community �A L P E N A T OWNS H I P C OMP RE HE N S I V E P L A N January 1979 This project is a joint effort of the Alpena Township Planning and Zoning Commission and the Northeast Michigan Council of Governments with financial assistance provided through a grant from the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-583) administered by the Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Department of Connnerce (USDOC) via the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Land Resource Programs Division and, in part, from the Northeast Michigan Council of Governments and the Township of Alpena, Alpena County. �I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ALPENA TOWNSHIP Alpena Township Board D.H. Riley, Supervisor Christine Dubey, Clerk Gerald Nowak, Trustee Stan Mischley, Trustee Genie Diemond, Treasurer Gerald Fussey, Trustee Bill Desormeau, Trustee Alpena Twp. Zoning Bd. Alpena Twp. Plan. Comm. Clarence Carr Jack Wilkenson Charles Reagle, Jr. Maurice VanAcker Pierce Moore Walter Wolf Don Cross D.H. Riley Pierce Moore Tom Hendricks Herman Saretsky Richard Burgeson Alpena Twp. Zoning Bd. of Appeals Clarence Carr Donald Bartosh Patricia Pettenger Gerald Now".k Jack Wilkenson Alpena Twp. Planning & Zoning Commission Effective September 19, 1977 Clarence Carr, Chairman Walter Wolf, Vice-Chairman Don Cross, Sec. D.H. Riley Tom Hendricks Herman Saretsky Maurice VanAcker Charles Reagle, Jr. Zephere Dault - Zoni ng Administrator Technical assistance for plan development Northeast Michigan Council of Governments 131 Shipp St. Gaylord, Michigan 49735 �I I I I I I I I I I I A RESOLUTION 1t.e.ga.1tding THE FORMAL ADOPTION OF THE ALPENA TOWNSHIP COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY THE ALPENA TOWNSHIP PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WHEREAS, The Alpena Township Planning and Zoning Commission is a duly organized board of Alpena Township, and; WHEREAS, The Alpena Township Planning and Zoning Commission is charged with the responsibility of developing a community comprehensive plan, and; WHEREAS, This document represents those efforts toward the development of such a plan, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, The Alpena Township Planning and Zoning Commission does hereby adopt this document as the Alpena Township Comprehensive Plan. Move.d btj Don Cross , 6uppoM:e.d by Roger Linseman to adopt the. above. 1t.v.ioluilon a;t_ the. January 8th, 1979 meeting 06 the. Alpena. ToWrtf.ihip Pla.nn,i,ng a.nd Zon,i,ng CommiMion by a. vote. 06= 6 Na.yv.i Abf.ie.nt 0 1 ----- Cha.,i.Juna.n, Alpena. TowMhip Pla.nn,i,ng a.nd Zon,i,ng Comm,<.f.,f.iion Se.CJte:ta.Jt.tj, Alpena. TowMhip Pla.nn,i,ng and Zon,i,ng CommiMion �I I I I I I A P.ESOLUTION regarding THE FORMAL AOOPrION OF THE ALPENA TOWNSHIP COHPREHENS IVE PIAN BY THE ALPENA TOWNSHIP IDARD OF TRUSTEES WHEREAS, The Alpena Tovmship Board is a duly oreanized board of Alpena Township, and; WHEREAS, The Alpena Township Planning and Zoning Commission is charged with the responsibility of developing a community comprehensive plan by authority of the Township Board and; WHEREAS, This document represents tho::;e efforts toward the development of such a plan, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, The Alpena Township Board does hereby endorse this document as the Alpena Township Co~prehensive Plan. Moved by ____ M_is_c_hl_e_y.__ _ _ _ , supported by _ _r_To_\_ -,ak _______ to adopt the above resooution at a Special Meeting held on Tuesday _J_a_n_u_a_ry_2_.3.._ 1 _1_9_7_9____ by the Alpena Township Board of Trustees by a vote of: AJes _ _5"------ -----Absent ------Abstained: Dubey Nayes 0 0 Dia.nond attested by CU- M/2.b( Christine M. Dubey, C l e N �I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION •••••••••••.•••.••••••••••.•••••••••••••••..•....••• 1 PEOPLE ......••.•••.•....•.•.•.•.•••••.........•................. Population Characteristics •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Population Projections •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Education ••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••.••.••••••..••• Socio-Economic Characteristics ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.. 10 ACTIVITIES ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• .••••• Residential •••••••••••••• ·••.••.••••••••••••.••••••••.••.••.. Commercial ••••••••••••••.••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Industrial ................................................. . Agriculture ••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••.••••••..••• Recreation ................................................. . SERVICES •••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••• CoID.munica t ions . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . • • . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Energy ..................................................... . Water Supply ••••••••••••••...••••••••.•••••.•••••••.•••••••• Sewage Disposal •••••••••••..••.•••••••••••••.••••••••••••••• Solid Waste ••••••••••••••••••••.••• • •••••••••••••..•••••.•.• Fire Protection •••••••••••.••••..•••.••••••••••••••••••..•.. Police Protection ••••••.•••••••••.••.•••.•••••••.••••••••••• Education •••••••••••••••.••.••.•••••.••••••••••••••..••.•••• Transportation •••••••••••••••.•.••••••••..•.•.••••••••.••••. Health & Welfare •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••.•••.••..• Government ................................................. . 10 15 19 20 26 26 29 32 33 35 38 38 39 40 41 41 44 45 45 46 55 56 58 58 60 ENVIRONMENT Climate General Physical Features ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Geology .................................................... . Topography & Surface Water Drainage .••••.•••••.•••••••••.••• Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vegetation ........................... . ..................... . Wildlife ••.•••••••••••.•••••.•••••• ••• •••••.•••••••••••••••. Coastal Management •.••••••••••••••• • •••••••.•••••••••••••••• 84 GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES ••••••••...•..•••••••••.••••••.••• 103 GOALS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • 104 OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES ••••••.•••••••••••••• • •••••.••..••••••••. 105 FUTURE LAND USE • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . • . • • • . • . • • • . • • • 109 IMPLEMENTATION ll5 APPENDIX A 62 64 69 78 80 �I I I I I I LIST OF MAPS MAP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I I I I I I I I I I I 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 TITLE Regional Setting Enumeration Districts Generalized Land Use Patterns Water System Sewer System Road System Average Daily Traffic Volumns Annual Mean Temperature Annual Mean Precipitation General Physical Features Sub-Surface Geology Topography Watersheds Long Lake Watershed Soils Limitations for Development - Forestry Limitations for Development - Agriculture Limitations for Development - Residential Limitations for Development - Recreation Major Forest Species Unique Wildlife Areas Sport Fishing in Lake Huron Coastal Boundary (CZM) Present Coastal Land Uses Coastal APC'S (north portion) Coastal APC'S (southern portion) Coastal APC's (east central portion) High Risk Erosion Areas Special Flood Hazard Areas Future Land Use Plan Partridge Point Recreation Area PAGE 6 30 37 42 43 48 50 59 59 61 63 68 70 71 73 75 75 77 77 79 81 83 87 89 94 95 96 98 101 110 114 �r- I I I I I I I I I I I I I LIST OF CHARTS CHARTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 TITLE Population Trends - 1900-1970 Relative Densities - 1970 Age Group Comparisons - 1970 Age/Sex Pyramid - 1970 Family Size - 1970 Persons By 1965 Residence Population Projections - 1975-2000 Persons 25+ By Years of School Completed Family Income Persons By Poverty Status And Age - 1970 Poverty Levels In 1969 By Size Of Family And Sex Of Head Economic Comparison Employed Persons 14+ Years By Occupation Employed Persons 14+ Years By Industry Employment And Unemployment Statistics Subdivision Platting Sequence Residential Development (permits issued) Housing Units By Year Built Enumeration Districts - Housing And Population Commercial Activity By Area Industries in Alpena Township Agriculture Geology PAGE 8 11 12 13 14 14 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 24 25 27 28 28 29 31 32 34 65 �I NT R OD UCT I ON �• • • INTRODUCTION Purpose of the Plan Every individual or group plans their future to some extent, some more extensively than others. Individuals plan their budgets, their insurance program, their educational goals, their retirement program, and their daily activities. Families plan their vacations, or whether to add a room to the house. Businesses plan inventory levels, advertizing, campaigns, and capital investment. Municipalities must plan their futures, too. Planning is necessary to determine the wisest use of the connnunities' resources, both physical and human, in order to reach established goals and objectives. Comprehensive planning is a process which considers a broad range of community characteristics in establishing a strategy for future development. One of the basic objectives of this Plan is the attainment of a desirable, efficient, and satisfying living environment for the residents of Alpena Township. To be efficient and effective, the Township needs a guide for growth and development. development. It will provide the framework for a guide for growth and It will provide the framework for numerous daily decisions on zoning, public services and human needs. This master land use, or development plan is designed to promote the public health, safety, morals and general welfare in Alpena Township. Its further purposes are: - To encourage the use of lands in accordance with their characteristics and adaptability, to limit the improper use of land, and to avoid the overcrowding of population; - To provide adequate light and air; - To lessen congestion on the public roads and streets; - To reduce hazards to life and property; I 1 I �- To facilitate adequate provisions for a system of transportation, sewage disposal, safe and adequate water water supply, education, recreation, and other public requirements; - To conserve the expenditure of funds for public improvements and services to conform with the most advantageous uses of land, resources and properties; - To conserve property values and natural resources; - To insure a desirable trend and character of land, building, and population development. Planning - In General All communities change over time. They grow and decline. people who make their homes in a community change, The type of The services they desire change. Many times these changes occur all at once. The population increases, home are built, and suddenly, the school system is overcrowded with too many students for the available classrooms. are strained. Primary services such as fire and police protectio Water supplies may become contaminated by an increasing number of septic tanks. The community's government is suddenly faced with huge bills, over-extended taxes and possibly unable to cope with the demands. A comprehensive plan can help a community cope with the changes. First of all, a plan can point out trends that often precede a growth spurt so a community can be aware of its potentials for growth. that growth. It can prepare financially for The plan can help the township avoid inefficiency and waste. The plan can also help the community government control growth and promote order and thus insure a continued high quality physical and social environment. The goals, objectives and policies can help guide everyday governmental decision1 thus insuring a desirable living environment. portant function. Herein lies the plans most im- A comprehensive plan can be the basis of a rational and on- going decision making process. With an accurate and complete information basis, 2 �the community can guide itself into its own most desirable growth pattern. Herein lies also the major problem with a comprehensive plan. It is often difficult to realize that this document is but the beginning of a never ending development process. The plan cannot be an end unto itself. Its worth lies not in its phrases, maps, and predictions, but rather how successfully its information and suggestions can be translated into the living community. A plan is worth no more than the paper it's printed on unless it is used. However, no plan will forever continue to accurately present the facts without continuous review and updating. information is accurate. A plan can only be as useful as its As a community changes, so must its plan change, to reflect the evolving social and physical patterns. Planning In Alpena Township Actual planning is relatively new to the Alpena Township area. methods used in the past often proved ineffectual. Indirect Zoning has been in effect since 1970, but has not until recently, had the benefit of working in association with documented planning proposals. I In September of 1977, the Alpena Township Board took steps to officially establish a Township Planning/Zoning Connnission. The vehicle of Public Act 168 of 1959 was used and as authorized by Section 11 of the Act, the authority to I l zone was transferred from the existing Township Zoning Board to the newly formed Commission. Initial meetings that were held convinced the newly formed Planning Commission that if their prime objective "to Plan" was to be met, outside professional help would be necessary. In the later part of 1977, the North- east Michigan Council of Governments was contacted and contractual arrangements were secured. Additional financial assistance was provided to NEMCOG under the Coastal Management Program, administered by the Land Resource Programs Division of 3 �the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. The report that is herein con- tained is the end product of the cooperative efforts of the State, Region and Alpena Township. Although outside assistance was provided for the Plan's development, the Plan itself is a product of the Alpena Township Planning Commission. The key to the Plan is the Goals, Objectives and Policies that evolved from insight into the assets and liabilities of the township. The "key" is a direct pro- duct of the Commission itself. The Planning Approach The Alpena Township Comprehensive Plan, if it is to be used effectively, must be as accurate and as thorough as possible. comprehensive organization. It must have a logical and To this end, the Planning Commission has used the PASE planning approach, developed by the Northeast Michigan Council of Governments. The PASE system catagorizes inventoried materials, basic to the plan, into four main areas; R_eople, _Activities, fervices, and ~nvironment. Each facet of Alpena Township was thus classified for study purposes. People Services History Population Characteristics Population Projections Economy Communitications Energy Water Supply Solid Waste Education Transportation Police and Fire Protection Health and Welfare Activities Environment Residential Commercial Industry Agriculture Recreation Surface and Sub-Surface Geology Soils Surface Water Vegetation and Wildlife Physical Development Potential As these various facets were evaluated, their inter-relationships were explored and explained. These interrelationships pinpointed the issues and 4 �potentials that are a part of the Goals and Objectives that the township has set for the future of the area. The future land use plan for Alpena Township is a graphic portrayal of the goals and obje~tives that have been established. It ts a concept map that depicts the Township as it may appear twenty years from now. Again, it is important to remember that while the future land use pattern is a goal for the township to str~ve for, it is very general. The actual land use pattern that evolves will be the result of the decisions every township resident makes every day, both privately and in public meetings and elections. flan is meant as a guide for those everyday decisions. 5 The Alpena Township �LAKE HU MAPLE RIDGP. TOWNSHIP ALPENA TOWNSHIP ALPENA TOWNSHIP THUNDER DA'f Q.$.~ INEKE ]"_0\'I!:!~ Tu•c• • ••• A •GIMl.1111 ...... 0. • Lll,.I • l f'""1:ST .&\.I.I Q c•• • • • • _L __ j i ....:.. ·=·:-1· _ ... ~S£CO CO. 1 0M•l1•,.·;·· 0••··· ........ "' •1l•u l 11 M 0 1'TMORC:--.CY CO. COlll'W I TM MOHT .. OIICNCY ,.,,11. ' --r-,::'..'.~-,--;.....-______ ___...,·•"'-· ... r-....,... "......... • TO• .. : ,o .. ••••" I - ..• , MILLMAN •, e LO'W'CU.a I - --'--4tlll:A1'LtNO cu,111, 0 I g ! .·=. , ...... I I J_ f 1•&AV(II C•a1,c1 •••HcH ------IOUlH f I oaa1NC11CI LCON CO. CALaCONlA CL I NTON ALCO,.A I ~ COMIN• o oa c.... NORTHEAST MICHIGAN REGIONAL SETTING -:-r--- •;. ••r -+,s;:::: ~ \.All~ MAP 1 .1111.C.N u 1...... _,-------~--L---f : ; 0 CIU\UORO CO ..:• . • zz z ,,.,. C z • I IIITCMILL ,--'----r':.::'•:.:•::••:.:·J---l MILLIN I "••••• ! I cu • T1e IIIKADO 1 _____ ..J_, _ _ 10 IS 20 MILES ~-..,.NA44- ..... SC ALE 6 �Regional Setting and Historical Perspective Alpena Township is the largest township in Alpena County, Michigan. The township is approximately 118 square miles in area, with a 1977 population estimate of 9,510 personij. The town$hip is bounded on the north of Presque Isle County, the west by the Townships of Maple Ridge and Wilson, the south by Sanborn Township and on the east by Lake Huron. centrally located in the township on Lake Huron. The City of Alpena is Alpena Township is one of eight townships and ten political units (counting the county) that make up Alpena County, Michigan. townships. The Township encompasses in area, 3.28 geographic Major transportation routes bisect the township - north-south by US-23 and east-west by M-32. Alpena Township's past, like that of all Northeast Michigan, intertwines with that of the white pine lumber industry that flourished from about 1850 to 1910. At the turn of the century, the Townships had a population of 1173 persons. As the lumbering industry declined, people left the area to find jobs elsewh~re. of 40.2%. By 1920, the population had decreased to 701 persons, or a decrease By 1930, the Townships started to again attract people and a slight gain was achieved. After 1930 to the present, steady increases were achieved and during most periods increases were higher than the county, region, or state. Refer to Popu.R..a,;,U,on T~en.d.6 chart on next page. Alpena Township's growth has always been firmly intertwined with the City of Alpena. The City provided the necessary commercial and industrial activities, while the Township, until recently, served as a "bedroom" community for persons employed in the city. Current trends indicate that Alpena Township is becoming more and more indepen4ent of the City as commercial and industrial growth increases. 7 �CHART 1 POPULATION TRENDS 1900 - 1970 1900 %Chg. 1910 % Chg. 1920 %Chg. 1930 %Chg. 1940 %Chg. N.E. Michigan Region 62102 +14 .4% 71057 ·7.3% 65867 . .,,,, 59588 +14.3"' 68098 • Alpena County 18254 +9.4% 19965 ·10.5% 17869 +3.9,r. 18574 +11.1%. 20766 40 .9'1(, 928 •24.5% 701 +16.0" 813 +106.0'MI +ll.111fi, 758 +9 .0% 826 47.611, 598 +33.1 .. 796 -6.9 .. 749 +l.l'tt 811 1950 %Chg. 1960 % Chg. 1970 S.2'Wt 71617 +is.a, 82962 +lJA,r. 94106 +6.9'1(, 22189 +21.7'1(, 28556 +7.5% 30708 To wnships: Alpena 1173 Green 670 1675 +75 .0'1(, 2932 +125.6 .. 6616 •31.0" +6.4,I, ...,,, 9001 863 Lo:ig Rapids • 1243 +5 .6% • 1312 -31.2% 903 -12.a-. 787 +ll.2'tt 875 •7.3% 811 +9.21'> 886 M_a ple Ridge 783 4.8 .. 761 •15,4'1(, 644 • .3% 646 +16.3"' 7S1 -41.0 .. 706 +21.5'1(, 907 +20.3"Mt 1091 Os<ineke 587 +70.4% 1000 +9.2% 1092 +2 .1"' 1122 1232 ... 5 .. 111S 1188 +13.91', 1353 Sanborn 542 +56.3% 847 -u.a-. 1413 +14 .9'A 1424 Wellington 730 .,.... 376 ·2 .7% +9.IYt 772 +10.4 .. 8S2 +l.1,r. 878 • 366 +14.2 .. 418 -11.2-. 371 .7.3 .. 1454 +13.7"' 1653 -t.s-. 11802 +7.7"- • Includes Wtllington Township Source: U.S. Census Bureau 12706 •12.6.. 344 -12 .1'1(, 1304 +4.2,. 13S9 ...... 1492 +14.S'Wt 1709 11101 .,.,. 12166 +5.3.. 12808 •z.,,,, 1313S +11.IYt 14682 Cities: Alpena City 60.9 .. 1496 (X) Wilson ~6.5 .. 41.a-. .,.,. -41.0.. 878 269 1824 13805 �History has indicated the desirability of Alpena Township as a place to live. This comprehensive plan will help to insure that it will remain desirable in the future. With careful attention to the factors that make Alpena Township attractive and a strong effort to preserve them, Alpena Township will continue to be a place where people will want to live, work and play. 9 �I NVE NT O RY �P E OP L E �l l ~ l l PEOPLE Population Alpena Township was created to serve the people that live within its boundaries. it must first of all, attempt to better understand the general character of the people that make up the Township. This section of the plan should pro- vide the insight and the understanding that is necessary. ~ l l l l l l If the township is to meet the needs and desires of its people The following information is primarily based on data provided by the 1970 "Fifth Count" census. The "Fifth Count" census was taken in conjunction with the 1970 U.S. Census and was based on a sampling technique. It was not a 100 percent count, but was rather a 20 percent sample of responses, weighted mathematically to approximate a 100 percent count. It is important to remember that these are only approximate and as such can only serve as a general description. Despite this inaccuracy, the statistics are valuable as a means to describe the unique character of the people of the Township. census was taken during 1976-77. A mid-decennial Data is available and was used as a check, and in some cases, as an update on pertinent data used in this study. The Fifth Count for Alpena Township indicates that the 1970 population of the Township was 9001 persons. With an area of 118 square miles, the average density of the Township is76.3 persons per square mile. The average density of Alpena City is 1866 persons per square mile and is 52.0 for Alpena County. indicated in Chart 2, the Township is the second most densely populated area of the county. It is also the largest, population wise, of all 83 Townships in the eight county Northeast Michigan Region. In addition, the Township's population is greater than four of the Region's eight counties, larger than six of the Region's seven cities and larger than any of the Region's seven villages. 10 As �CHART 2 Relative Densities - 1970 Rank Political Unit 1 City of Alpena 2 Land Area (Sg,. Miles2 1970 PoEulation Densiti 8.2 13,805 1683.5 Alpena Township 118.0 9,001 76.3 3 Sanborn Township 43.5 1,624 37.3 4. Wilson Township 77.3 1,824 23.6 5 Maple Ridge Township 53.0 1,091 20.6 6 Long Rapids Township 54.2 878 16.2 7 Ossineke Township 104.9 1,353 12.9 8 Green Township 77 .8 863 11.1 9 Wellington Township 53.1 269 5.1 County of Alpena 590.0 30,708 52.0 County of Alpena (Excluding City of Alpena) 581.8 16,903 29 .1 TOTAL Source: 5th Count Ce.n6£L6 11 �Chart 3 , Age. Gll..oup Compa!U60n-6, compares the number of people in the various life stages for the Township, County, and the Northeast Michigan Region. CHART 3 Age Group Comparisons 1970 Life Stage Alpena Twp. Retirement 65+ Mature Family 45-64 Family Forming 20-44 Secondary School 15-19 Elementary School 5-14 Pre-School 0-4 477 1352 2835 864 2552 921 % 5.3 15.0 31.5 9.6 28.4 10.2 Alpena Co. 2608 5773 8599 3379 7729 2610 . % 8.5 18.8 28.0 11.0 25.2 8.5 Northeast Region 10,352 19,763 19,763 14,116 21,644 8,469 % 11.0 21.0 21.0 15.0 23.0 9.0 5th Count Ce.n-6U6 Source: Alpena Township has a relatively high percentage of people in the Family Forming group (20-44). This is a healthy situation as this group, along with the Mature Family group (45-64) represent the groups that are gainfully employed, pay the most taxes, and in general, support the other age groups. When these two age groups constitute a majority of the population, the community will generally be stable, both economically and socially. Alpena Township has a similar percentage of children under 19 years of age (38%), when compared (32%). to Alpena County (34%) or the Northeast Michigan Region This is further substantiated by the relatively small family size in Alpena Township, with 2.94 persons per family, as compared to the City of Alpena, with 3.07 per family and the Region with 3.32. 12 �CHART 4 ALPENA TOWNSHIP AGE/SEX PYRAMID 1970 AGE MALE FEMALE 65+ 234 45-64 ,..... w 0-4 5.3 639 15.0 1368 1467 I 15-19 5-14 243 713 20-44 I % of Total 461 403 J 1320 456 4552 MALES I 465 4449 FEMALES The Age/Sex Pyramid for Alpena Township breaks the population (1970) into age groups by sex for comparison. The percentages for each age group at right combine male and female totals. Source: 31.5 9.6 1232 I I U.S. Census (.interpreted and designed by Northeast Michigan Council of Governments) 28.4 10.2 �I I I I I I I I I I I CHART 5 Family Size Alpena Township (1970) Unrelated Individuals (14+) 2 Person families 3 Person Families 4 Person Families 5 Person Families 6+ Person Families Total Source: Alpena Township has 955 or 37.6% families that have two or less members . Over 51% (1316 families) have three or less members. The average family size, as pointed out earlier, is 2.94 persons (does not include Unrelated Individuals). The birth rate in Alpena Township is slightly lower than the County as a whole; 3.43 as opposed to 3.56. This fact points out that growth in Alpena Township is due to a greater extent, to people moving into the township rathe r than by births. Chart 6 gives some indication as to where the people are moving from. CHART 6 Persons by 1965 Residence I I 2535 5th Count Ce.nJ.iM l I I I I 369 586 361 449 363 407 Same House Different House, Same County Different House, Same State Different State Abroad 1965 Address Not Given Source: Number Percentage 4456 1886 926 534 102 173 55.2 23.3 11. 5 6.6 1. 3 2.1 5th Count Ce.nJ.iU-6 As shown above, almost one quarter of the households or families had moved to Alpena Towns hip from somewhere within Alpena County itself. Almost as many more moved to the Township from another county in Michigan, a dif ferent state or from abroad. 14 �Population Projections Population projections are always dangerous to make. No area ever grows at a constant rate and many factors can effect the actual numbers. However, it is necessary to try to predict future population so that facilities and services can be planned to meet the needs of the future. In an attempt to be as acct·,rate as possible, a staff report entitled Regional. Population P4ojemon1.>, prepared by the Northeast Michigan Council of Governments was utilized to determine the future population for Alpena Township. Due to the broader base utilized in the report, a greater degree of accuracy evolved. The following information is taken directly from the report and describes how the projections were arrived at. The resultant projections for Alpena Township as well as the other political units in Alpena County are found in Chart 7 on page 17. Method The Federal OBERS Series E population projections were felt to be unrealistic and were not used since they do not adequately take into account local information. The population projections prepared by the Planning and Policy Analysis Division, Department of Management and Budget, State of Michigan, were utilized as a base projection. a township level. The State's projections are on a county level and not Qn The State model used to project the county populations is in the broad category referred to as Cohort/Survival technique, or Cohort Component method. This model starts with age cohorts as of the base year, 1970, and then alters the beginning population by adding births, subtracting deaths, and adjusting for migration during the projection period. As would be expected, the resulting projections are dependent on the assumptions made about fertility and death rates, and the component hardest to predict, migration. 15 The State office �I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I of Management and Budget works with the U.S. Bureau of the Census in the Federal-State Cooperative Program. A straight-line trend projection was also calculated for the region as a whole and for the individual counties. In analyzing the two forecasts, it was felt that generally the State projections were rather high and conversely, the straight-line forecasts were too low. Therefore a third forecast was calculated representing a combination and resolution of the data derived from these other two sources and taking into account localized information such as growth trends and future growth potentials. These final projections also included adjustments and modifications reflecting the perceived future developments and constraints which will affect population change. Assumptions for the three calculations are as follows: - Unrestrained growth Increased in-migration of retired persons Lessening out-migration of young people In-migration of major new industry/firms Substantial improvement of system transportation and community infrastructure Medium - Continued in-migration of retired persons - Medium increase of economic development and industry - Slow to medium improvement of transportation system and community infrastructure Low - Stagnent or declining growth General economic stagnation/no major economic development - Increasing high energy cost (i.e. gas, etc.) - Continuing out-migration of young people - No significant improvements to the system transportation The "medium" projections are felt to be most accurate and are presented for Alpena County in Chart 7. 16 �CHART 7 Northeast Michigan Council of Governments Population Projections 1975 - 2000 Alpena County POLITICAL UNIT 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 2000 CITIES Alpena WWFP* 13,805 13,936 14,640 15,045 15,654 18,096 14,300* 15,400* 16,200* 17,100* 19,400* TWPS. Alpena Wv!FP* 9,001 10,203 12,462 9,400* 10, 100* 13,611 15,400 17,803 10,600* 11,400* 12,600* Green 863 896 952 982 1,015 1,174 Long Rapids 878 862 878 903 888 1,027 Maple Ridge 1,091 1,161 1,280 1,395 1,480 1,712 Ossineke 1,353 1,493 1,793 1,925 2,030 2,348 Sanborn 1,624 1,759 2,159 2,789 3,089 3,570 269 248 274 275 296 342 1,824 1,958 2,159 2,357 2,453 2,837 30,703 32,516 36,597 39,282 42,305 48,909 Wellington Wilson COUNTY Total WWFP* * 32,000* 34,200* 36,100* 38,200* 43,129* Wastewater Facilities Plan, Alpena Township, 1976, Scott Engineering 17 �• I I I I I All demographic projections are based, at least in part, on past trends with respect to migration, fertility and survival. Consequently, there is always room for a wide margin of error, especially when the data is disaggregated to smaller areas. In light of this, the base projections, particularly at the county and township levels, were adjusted to reflect past, current and future plans and developments. This process was undertaken by reviewing past development accomplishments and planning documents, seeking input from the individual county planning connnissions, and taking into account other localized information. In undertaking the described adjustment process, even though it is a somewhat subjective procedure, it allows the projections to reflect the •· past and future developments which complements the strictly objective methodology. I that will alter and effect the demographic projections. It is understood that changes and new development's will take place in the future To reflect any changes, a process of refinement and updating will be accomplished on a periodic basis by the Northeast Michigan Council of Governments. I I 18 �Education The educational attainment in Alpena Township will affect the services and facilities demanded by the residents. In general, the more education a connn~- nity has, the more cultural opportunities its people will desire. This is particularly true when large numbers of residents have attended some college. These people have in general, lived in a more urban atmosphere and may desire the amenities they found in larger, more urban communities. Chart 8, below, illustrates the education levels of those persons 25 years or older in Alpena Township. Those persons younger than 25 were not included s many of them had not completed their education. In Alpena County, 49% of the population has at least a high school diploms Alpena Township is slightly higher than the County with 56.7%, with the highest percentage occurring in the 25 to 44 .age group. CHART 8 Persons 25+ By Years of School Completed 25-44 Age Group No School Elementary 1-7 Yrs. 50 8 Yrs. 221 High School 1-3 Yrs. 432 4 Yrs. 1236 College 1-3 Yrs. 253 4+ Yrs. 233 Percent with High School Diploma or more 71% 45-54 Age Group No School Elementary 1-7 Yrs. 55 8 Yrs. 211 High School 126 1-3 Yrs. 4 Yrs. 265 College 1-3 Yrs. 94 4+ Yrs. 85 Percent with High School Diploma or more 55+ Age Group No School Elementary 1-7 Yrs. 8 Yrs. High School 1-3 Yrs. 4 Yrs. College 1-3 Yrs. 4+ Yrs. Percent with High School Diploma or more Source: 5t .h Cou.n.:t Ce.n..w ~ 19 53% 206 338 197 166 32 45 25% �• • Socio-Economic Characteristics A study of the socio-economic characteristics and changes is an essential - step in evaluating any community. When local governments assume the task of planning for the future, they are automatically dealing with the needs of a changing population. Failure to look closely at the social and economic trends can and has resulted in economic and social loss to many Michigan communities. This section of the inventory will describe some of the essential social and economically related aspects of Alpena Township. By knowing how the resi- dents make their living and how the Township, as a whole, compares to its neighbors, certain needs and desires can be recognized. Family Income - Chart 9, shows how many families have incomes in each $2,000.00 income bracket. Unrelated individuals are not included. CHART 9 Family Income Alpena Township - 1970 Number of Families Income • Under $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,Q00 $15,000 $25,000 Source: $2,000 - $3,999 - $5,999 - $7,999 - $9,999 - $14,999 - $24,999 and over 94 142 192 310 487 649 272 20 5~h Cou.n:t Cen-6(.L.,6 The median family income in the Township is $8,420.00; half of the families make more than , $8,420.00, half make less. A median is a type of average that is not affected by extremely high or low incomes, and is therefore more meaningful than the mean average. Alpena Township's median income is above that of the Region ($7,470.00) and below that of the County ($8,765.00). • • This is expected as Alpena County is the most economically stable county in the region, while the region itself ranks low in the State. 20 �Another socio-economic factor worthy of evaluation is the poverty status of its people. Chart 10, which follows, tabulates the number of persons abo and below the poverty level by their ages. CHART 10 Persons by Poverty Status and Age Alpena Township - 1970 Number Percentage 270 3% 89% Above Poverty Level 65 and over Under 65 80ll Belo~ Poverty Level 65 and over Under 65 Source: 180 540 2% 6% 5th Count Cen.6ll6 The dividing line of 65 years of age was chosen as this is the age most people retire and must rely on Social. Security and pensions for their income. Eight percent of the Township's total population have incomes below the designated poverty level. poverty level. Of the persons 65 years or older, 40% are below the It is important to remember that no precise dollar amount can be given as a "poverty line". Poverty levels are determined according to family size, income, head of family, and whether the family lives on a farm. This "line", therefore, varies from family to family. Chart 11, Poverty Levels in 1969, illustrates only how the poverty levels given in Chart 10 were determined. 21 �CHART '11 I II Poverty Levels in 1969 by Size of Family and Sex of Head Size of Family All Unrelated Individuals I I -- FARM Female Head Total Male Female Head Head $1834 $1840 $1923 $1792 $1569 1607 1512 Under 65 years 1888 1893 1974 1826 1641 1678 1552 65 years and over 1749 1757 1773 1751 1498 1508 1487 All Families 3388 3410 3451 3082 2954 2965 2757 2 persons 2364 2383 2394 2320 2012 2017 1931 Head under 65 yrs. 2441 2458 2473 ,2373 2093 2100 1984 Head 65 & over 2194 2215 2217 2202 1882 1883 1861 3 persons 2905 2924 2937 2830 2480 2485 2395 4 persons 3721 3743 3745 3725 3195 3197 3159 5 persons 4386 4415 4418 4377 3769 3770 3i61 6 persons 4921 4958 4962 4917 4244 4245 4205 7 or more persons 6034 6101 6116 5952 5182 5185 5129 Source: I I I I I I Total NONFARM Male Total Head Ve.pall.tment 06 Comme,r.c.e., BWLeau. 06 the. Ce.n6u.6, Urr.lte.d Sta.te..6 faU.S.c.hlga.n, Popui.ation: 1910, Ge.ne/Lal Soc.la..l a.nd Ec.onom.lc. ChaJta.c;te.,r.,UUc.6, PC I 1) - C24, IAppe.ndZx. B, pp. 29-31). CWUh 22 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Wyckoff Planning and Zoning Collection Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Planning & Zoning Center (Lansing, Mich.) (Organization) Wyckoff, Mark A. Description An account of the resource Municipal master plans and zoning ordinances from across the state of Michigan, spanning from the 1960s to the early 2020s. The bulk of the collection was compiled by urban planner Mark Wyckoff over the course of his career as the founder and principal planner of the Planning and Zoning Center in Lansing, Michigan. Some additions have been made to the collection by municipalities since it was transferred to Grand Valley State University. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Michigan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1960/2023 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Subject The topic of the resource Michigan Comprehensive plan publications Master plan reports Zoning--Michigan Zoning--Maps Maps Land use--planning Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-240 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Alpena-Twp_Comprehensive-Plan_1979 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Alpena Township Planning and Zoning Commission, Alpena Township, Alpena County, Michigan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1979-01-08 Title A name given to the resource Alpena Township Comprehensive Plan Description An account of the resource Comprehensive Plan for Alpena Township developed by the Alpena Township Planning and Zoning Commission with the assistance of the Northeast Michigan Council of Governments January 8, 1979. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Northeast Michigan Council of Governments (consultant) Subject The topic of the resource Comprehensive plan publications Alpena Township (Mich.) Alpena County (Mich.) Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/14d05e069de126da788d41497b67bbda.pdf 48f0d0e08f72a664da6b1ce01b73cc09 PDF Text Text AMENDED MASTER PLAN TOWNSHIP OF RICHMOND Township of Richmond, Macomb County Michigan �AMENDED MASTER PLAN TOWNSHIP OF RICHMOND PREPARED FOR: Richmond Township Planning Commission 75701 Memphis Ridge Road Richmond, MI 48062 PREPARED BY: Vilican-Leman & Associates Inc. Community Planning Consultants, Landscape Architects 28316 Franklin Road Southfield, MI 48034 November 12, 1991 �TOWNSHIP BOARD Mr. James McKiernan, Supervisor Mr. Gordon Fuerstenau, Clerk Ms. Claudia O'Conner, Treasurer Ms. Grace Leach, Trustee Mr. Keith Rengert, Trustee TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION Ms. Nancy Kulman, Chair Mr. Thomas Montgomery Mr. Keith Rengert Ms. Alane Rowley Mr. Paul Stewart Mr. Leland Storey Mr. Russell Williams CONSULTANT Vilican Leman & Associates, Inc. �CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................. 1 EXISTING LAND USE THE STUDY AREA ........................................... 2 EXISTING LAND USE ........................................ 2 THE PRESENT MASTER PLAN ...................................... 4 THE AMENDED MASTER PLAN ...................................... 6 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ...... . ................ . ......... . .... . ... 9 TABLES TABLE 15 (Revised from 1978 Document) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 GRAPHICS EXISTING LAND USE MAP (Study Area) . . . . EXISTING ZONING MAP (Study Area) . . . . . . 1978 MASTER PLAN MAP (Study Area) . . . . . AMENDED MASTER PLAN MAP (Study Area) AMENDED TOWNSHIP MASTER PLAN MAP . ........ ............. ..................... ............. ........ ..................... ............. ..... ... 2-A 3-A 5-A 7-A 7-B EXHIBITS f f f r r ~ MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING ............................... E-1 ADOPTING RESOLUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-2 �INTRODUCTION In 1989 the Richmond Township Planning Commission received a request to rezone vacant land located near the northwest corner of Lowe Plank Road and Armada Ridge Road, from single family residential to multiple family residential. Ultimately, before the request could be formally heard before the planning commission at a public hearing, the applicant withdrew the request. The request was withdrawn because the applicant discovered that the soil content of much of the site would not support a septic system for a multiple family residential development. There are no public utilities serving this area and none are expected within the foreseeable future. The request did generate concern for the area around the intersection, in that the request was in contrast with the recommendations of the Township Master Plan, which proposes the land for single family residential use. Concern was also expressed that existing land use in the area and current zoning in the area is not in concert with the recommendations of the master plan and perhaps it was time to reevaluate this area relative to its future land use development potential. For these reasons as well as others which are noted in this document, it was decided that the area should be studied to see if there was justification to amend the Township's adopted Master Plan for the area. The findings of the study and the conclusions drawn by the Township Planning Commission after discussing various land use alternatives with the residents of the area, are revealed in this report and on the master plan maps contained herein. r r f r r ~ 1 �r ~ EXISTING LAND USE fi THE STUDY AREA ~ The area of Richmond Township involved in this study is the area around the intersection of Lowe Plank Road and Armada Ridge Road, extending east to the City of Richmond, south to 32 Mile Road, west 1/2 mile and north 3/4 mile from the intersection. ~ The Township's current master plan contains a section which maps and describes in general terms, land use in the Township as it existed in 1973. A comparison of the information contained in the 1973 map with the current land use information contained in the MAP of EXISTING LAND USE on an accompanying page, reveals the following information. ~ ~ 1. ~ ~ Land use within the study area has not changed that much between 1973 when the original land use map was prepared and 1990, when the map of current land use, contained in this report, was prepared. 2. The area now as then, contains what is probably the most diverse and intense land use development in Richmond Township. 3. It is a mix of residential and non-residential land use that unfortunately, does not enjoy the type of land use relationships that can permit such uses to exist next to one another without one potentially impacting the other. ~ ~ ri r r f f r r' r I The type of land use relationships desired between residential and non-residential land use are at best rear lot relationships, or at the least, side lot relationships. With respect to the latter relationship, a residential use which side lots a non-residential use should do so only along one lot line. the other side of the residential lot should be next to a residential use and the use fronting it across the street should also be a residential use. The uses extending down the street from the first residential use, adjacent to a nonresidential use, should also be residential. This is not necessarily the case in this particular area. Some residential uses are sandwiched between non-residential uses and in other instances, residential uses front into a non-residential use across a street. The MAP of EXISTING LAND USE on an accompanying page, indicates that most of the land within the immediate study area consists of single family detached homes on individual lots. This is particularly true of the area east of Lowe Plank Road, along both sides of Armada Ridge Road. From the intersection of these two roads, eastward to the City of Richmond's corporate limits, the frontage is exclusively single family. This particular frontage should remain unchanged in that it is nearly all developed and is zoned for single family use. 2 �r _J f ~ ·• ~ ~ • ~ I.! I I o ~ ~---,--..-----t r----------....a. a: II. 0 ~ >- 1(.) ~ ~ r r If f ~ r f r r r 32 MILE RD. I LENOX TOIWNSHIP ~~I VACANT AND Ir AGRICULTURAL '----'-----'I ,.______,I COMMERCIAL - QUASI-PUBLIC SINGLE I I FAMILY RESIDENTIAL .______,] INDUSTRIAL r f Existing Land Use LOWE PLANK/ ARMADA RIDGE AREA RIC HMOND TOW N S H I P, MICHIGAN �~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r r r r r f r r r r It is the area west of Lowe Plank Road along Armada Ridge Road and along 32 Mile Road, and to a lesser extent, along Lowe Plank Road near the rail corridor, that contains the greatest mix of land use. Of these areas, it is the frontage along Armada Ridge Road, and 32 Mile Road, west of Lowe Plank Road, that presents the greatest potential concern. Along Armada Ridge Road, commercial and industrial land use exists between single family uses and along 32 Mile Road, single family homes exist between industrial land use. These land use relationships could be further compromised by the fact that land at the southwest corner of Armada Ridge Road and Lowe Plank Road is vacant and is presently zoned for industrial use. The map of EXISTING ZONING and the EXISTING MASTER PLAN MAP, which follow the EXISTING LAND USE MAP, reveals one of the areas of greatest potential concern for this area of the township and one of the primary reasons that the mix of land use that exists in this area, has taken place. Existing zoning in the area is in contrast with the recommendations of the present master plan for the area. The Township Master Plan proposes land within the study area between the rail corridor and 32 Mile Road for single family residential use. However, within the confines of this area there presently exists three separate areas of non-residential zoning. These areas include; • The area lying south of the rail corridor, north of Armada Ridge Road and along both sides of Lowe Plank Road. This area is presently zoned for industrial use and is occupied by two industrial uses. • An area along the east side of Lowe Plank Road, between the rail corridor and Armada Ridge Road. this site is presently zoned for office use and is vacant land. • The area between Armada Ridge Road and 32 Mile Road, extending west from Lowe Plank Road. This area is presently zoned for industrial use and contains a mix of residential, commercial and industrial uses. It should be noted that the frontage along Lowe Plank Road north of the rail corridor presently consists of a mix of residential and non-residential land use as well. The principal difference here however, is that the physical relationship between the single nonresidential use, which is located on the west side of the Road near the rail corridor, and the developing single family homes to the north, is an acceptable relationship, at the present time. The potential concern with this particular area is that the Township Master Plan proposes the frontage along both sides of Lowe Plank Road, from the rail corridor north to 33 Mile Road, for industrial use. This includes the area that is currently developing with single family homes. Only the area containing the existing industrial use is presently zoned for industrial use. The balance of the land in this area that is presently master planned for industrial use, is zoned for agricultural use, a district which also permits non farm oriented single family residential homes. It was recognition of the development of single family housing within this area of the Township, proposed for industrial use, that also prompted the Planning Commission to undertake this study. 3 �A A • I I o I! I ~ ~ ~ - - . - -.... i-------.J-➔ ...~ 0 >- 10 r r r r r r A AGRICULTURAL R-1 S I NG LE FAM I LY 0-1 0 F F IC E P R O F E S S IO NA L M-1 LI G HT R ES I D ENT I AL I N DU ST R I AL a Existing Zoning Districts LOWE PLANK/ ARMADA RIDGE AREA RICHMOND TO W N S H I P, MICHIGAN �THE PRESENT MASTER PLAN On June 13, 1978, the Richmond Township Planning Commission formally adopted its current master plan. The plan is entitled the Master Plan for Richmond Township. The master plan document is composed of nine sections, or chapters. These chapters are listed as follows; Chapter 1 - Regional Setting Chapter 2 - Existing Land Use Chapter 3 - Natural Resources Chapter 4 - Population Chapter 5 - Economic Base Chapter 6 - Goals and Objectives Chapter 7 - Land Use Plan Chapter 8 - Thorofare Plan Chapter 9 - Community Facilities Plan In addition to the above chapters the master plan document contains an appendix, tables which portray statistical data pertinent to the community, the area around it, and maps. Among the various maps contained in the document is the Master Plan Map. This map portrays future land use patterns through out the township and is intended to serve as a guideline for the orderly and functional development and preservation of the Township's most critical asset, is rich farm lands. r Preparatory to developing the master plan map, the Township Planning Commission undertook a number of background studies. Each of the chapters above noted represents one of those studies. The intent of these studies was to familiarize the planning commission with land use as it existed in the community at the time, to what extent the township consisted of natural resources and areas of environmental significance, how many people lived in the township at the time and how many people could be expected to live in the township in the future, and what the future needs of the community likely would be. With this information in hand, the planning commission could develop a master plan for the Richmond Township of the future in which the effective management of growth and development would protect and preserve its single most important asset, its fertile farm lands. 4 �Among the most important elements of the master plan is that part which established goals and objectives. These elements are contained in Chapter 6, which commences on page 55 of the 1978 master plan report. Within this section of the master plan are set forth goals and objectives developed for the purpose of carrying out the recommendations of the master plan. There are three general goals (referred to in the master plan text as general character), for which a number of objectives were developed to achieve these goals. The three general goals of the master plan are noted below. 1. Place the general welfare -of the community ahead of the purely economic interest of development. 2. Encourage development that is attractive and aesthetically pleasing. 3. Preserve the historic and natural resource features of the Township. To achieve these goals within the guidelines of the master plan, objectives were developed under a series of headings, each of which was intended to help realize the above noted generals. The individual headings included, • Preserving the natural resources of the Township, including its agricultural heritage. • Preserving and protecting open space and recreation in the Township. • Encouraging qualitative residential and non-residential development. • Promoting development of an efficient and effective infrastructure in the community, including transportation systems, and public services. Throughout this section of the master plan the theme that ran universally through the various objectives was the desire to see quality in the community and to preserve the community's natural resources and its agricultural heritage. r f r It is the intent of the Township Planning Commission to maintain the goals and objectives of the 1978 master plan while developing the amended plan map. In fact, it was the desire of the planning commission to maintain the goals of its 1978 master plan through the implementation of its objectives, that led to their undertaking this study. 5 �32 MIL RD . I 11 LENOX TO,WNSHIP [ :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:] M E D I U M +• I I Ir 9 DENSITY RESIDENT IAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL• PARK LIGHT INDUSTRIAL r r I r r Existing Master Plan • LOWE PLANK/ ARMADA RIDGE AREA RICHMOND T O W N S H I P, MICHIGAN �THE AMENDED MASTER PLAN Actually, the amended master plan deals more with changing the land use proposals of the master plan map then changing the text of the master plan document. Again, the area of concern to the planning commission and the area of the Township which received its concentration is the area extending out from the intersection of Armada Ridge Road with Lowe Plank Road, east to the City of Richmond, south to the south corporate limits of the Township ( 32 Mile Road ), west one half mile and north to a point one quarter mile south of 33 Mile Road. Once the Planning Commission had become more thoroughly familiar with the details of this area, through review of current land use and zoning within the study area, they were ready to consider new planning policy(s) for the area. Over a period of months, five separate but similar land use planning alternatives were developed and discussed. Commencing with Land Use Plan Alternative No.1, which emphasized preservation of the existing single family area by maximizing much of the rest of the land area for single family use and minimizing future non-residential use of the area, the Planning Commission developed four other land use plan alternatives, each with greater land area devoted to non-residential use and less to residential use. Upon completion of Land Use Plan Alternative No.5, which depicted nearly all the land area west of Lowe Plank Road, From north of the rail corridor to 32 Mile Road, for industrial use, the residents of the area were invited to attend a meeting to review and discuss the five plan map alternatives. The result of the meeting was a clear consensus from the residents and from the Planning Commission members, that; 1. The present master plan for the area should be revised and, 2. The amended master plan should show a strong emphasis towards preserving and enhancing the existing residential housing stock in the area by continuing to emphasize the area for new residential development as envisioned by the present master plan and, 3. Any further encroachment of non-residential development in the area, particularly industrial uses should be discouraged by removing some land areas now proposed for industrial use on the present master plan map and diminishing the area of other lands proposed for industrial use in the study area. 4. Certain non-residential land use in the area must be considered as land use "fixes" and though these uses should be minimized, they should be buffered to the extent possible, to protect them as well as the residential uses around them. 6 �With these planning policy statements in mind, the planning commission concentrated its further review of the area on the recommendations of Land Use Plan Alternative No.1. It is the land use proposals of that alternative which appear on the two master land use plans which accompany this section. The first master plan map is a larger scale map involving only the study area. The second map is the amended Township Master Plan Map. This second map is the original master plan map, adopted by the Township in June, 1978 and which has been revised to reflect only the changes illustrated on the plan map of the study area. The amended Master Plan Map has been changed to reflect the following land use planning policies. • The area from just north of the rail corridor to 33 Mile Road, from Lowe Plank Road to Welding Road, has been reoriented from industrial to agricultural and residential use. Approximately 266 acres of land is involved in this change. • The area from the rail corridor north to 33 Mile Road, between Lowe Plank Road and the City of Richmond, has been reoriented from industrial to agricultural and residential use. Approximately 105 acres of land is involved in this change. • Areas along the south side of the rail corridor on both sides of Lowe Plank Road, have been reoriented from residential to industrial use. Approximately 14 acres of land is involved in this change. • The area along the west side of Lowe Plank Road, between Armada Ridge Road and 32 Mile Road, has been reoriented from residential to restricted office non-residential use. Approximately 5 acres of land is involved in this change. • An area between Armada Ridge Road and 32 Mile Road, west of and adjacent to the restricted office area, has been reoriented from residential to industrial use. Approximately 6 acres of land is involved in this change. 7 �... 0 ► !:: u 32 II MILE RD. _ _ _ LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AGRICULTURE .___. . I. LOW DENSITY RES . - - - MAJOR THOROFARE !:::::::::::(:)::::{~ 1110111111 ..__ f MEDIUM DENSITY RES. SECONDARY THOROFARE _. OFFICE Amended Master Plan LOWE PLANK/ ARMADA RIDGE AREA RICHMOND TOWNSHIP, MICHIGAN �• • 36 __ ____ .,. _ _! a: w ...J ...J 31 32 ~ a: __,,.,._ BORO MA N § 3: .,'1 33 "',; w "' 36 I ' ALPINE (/) g; ...J ST. 0 r- - AGRICULTURE ~ NATURAL CARROLL WEB ER I C). LOW 0 0 MEDIUM IN 13 . OA'v TON ==~==tr¥:r¥~+:iF~~~~-~-;;;;;;;;;;;;;~---_jjL_ _.. _____~~~-T-~~-=== ~ ,,.,_,.'41;_;_.;;_;_;_;Ji"!'llll'•t::::"::':±--=i2~0_---+_-~l.--=------J, ---~ ; DENSITY DENSITY ~ LIGHT ~ HEAVY RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL HIGHWAY INDUSTRY MANUFACTURING OFFICE SCHOOL - ELEMENTARY PARK CENTER - TOWNSHIP CIVIC PARK THOROFARE --■■ MAJOR ~ 1---+--'u o<-ll---.-J RESIDENTIAL CONVENIENCE • I DENSITY HIGH •• •+• 9 RESOURCE THOROFARE -••• SECONDARY 19 ---- COLLECTOR VJ VJ :::, a: UNDER ••• CORRIDOR STUDY 30 25 \ PLAN MASTER 36 31 RICHMOND MACOMB TOWNSHIP COUNTY , MICHIGAN RICHMOND TOWNSHIP PLANNING -,.,:;:. Adop ti on 6 Oa{• . NC)vatBER 12 1tl1 •• •• . In •:: VT an-Leman & Associates, c. ■: . . .. . .: ~"-'",oltlO(UIJULT.fJffl•~.-.aounctS .. . . . t4 t, "" . uo 111• (Ollfft'T .,. u 1111,11t COtltl tlllOII COMMISSION �In the Township's adopted Master Plan Document of 1978, on page 64 of that report, exists a table which provides a generalized breakdown of acreage allocations for the various land use categories illustrated on the 1978 Master Plan Map. That same table is reproduced below and updated to reflect acreage allocation by land use category for the amended Master Plan Map. TABLE 15 MASTER PLAN: ACREAGE ALLOCATIONS Richmond Township - 1991 LAND USE PERCENT ACRES Agriculture Natural Resources Residential Low Density Medium Density High Density Sub Total 4,605 383 225 Commercial Convenience Highway Sub Total 26 1 .1Q Industrial Light Industrial Heavy Industrial Sub Total 23 190 69.8 1,765 7.4 19.2 1.6 0.9 5,213 21.7 0.1 * 36 24,000 Less then 1/10 of one percent. 6.0 Acres of which are proposed for office use. 8 0.2 0.1 0.8 213 TOTAL * 16,773 0.9 100.0 �PLAN IMPLEMENTATION It is important to understand that the preceding changes to the amended master plan, if implemented in a prudent manner, will substantially reduce the inventory of industrial oriented land in the study area. One might not get that impression from reading the individual areas of change outlined in the preceding section. Three of the five areas of change noted in the preceding section, actually re,Jriented land previously planned for residential use on the 1978 Master Plan Map,to non-residential use. One must refer back to the existing land use section of this document and compare the land use proposals of the amended plan to the existing zoning map, to realize the substantial reduction in acres previously proposed and presently zoned for non-residential use, within the study area. From these comparisons it becomes obvious that the two principal objectives that must be reached if the Planning Commission is to realize the recommendations of the amended Master Plan Map, are; 1. To adopted the amended Master Plan Map as the Township's new Master Land Use Plan. 2. To thereafter reorient the present land use districts in the area to bring them into conformity with the proposals of the amended Master Plan Map. These objectives can be reached by the Planning Commission holding a public hearing in accordance with the guidelines setforth in the Township Planning Act-168 of 1960, as amended and thereafter initiating the rezoning of those lands that are contrary to the recommendations of the amended Master Plan, to zoning districts that are compatible with the plan. The one additional objective is to endeavor to implement the land use proposals of the amended Master Plan Map, by discouraging land use development any where in Richmond Township, that would be contrary to the intent and purpose of the Richmond Township Master Plan and the goals and objectives setforth therein. 9 �EXHIBITS �SUPERVISOR TRUSTEES JAMES McKIERNAN 31680 fuer11enau Riclvnond, Ml 48062 727-7282 GRACE LEACH 71~ Welding Rd. Richmond, Ml 48062 727 -7041 Richmond Township 75701 Memphis Ridge Richmond, Michigan 48062 727-7134 CLERK GORDON FUERSTENAU 73727 Lo- Plank Riclvnond, Ml 48062 727 -71 ◄ 5 KEITH RENGERT 34080 Annada Ridge Ri clvnond, Ml 48062 727-7682 CONSTABLE DEAN BRUYNEEL TREASURER 30640 School Section Richmond, Ml 48062 784-8278 CLAUDIA O'CONNER 2620 Prinz Road Armada, Ml "41005 784-93118 RICHMOND TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of the Richmond Township Planning Commission Regular Meeting and Public Hearing November 12, 1991 at 7:00 pm Richmond Township Hall. Members Presenl: Nancy Kulman, Tom Monlgomery , Keith Rengert, Paul Slewart , Russ Williams, Peggy Spencer Members Absent: Leland Storey Others Present: Jim McKiernan, Gordon Fuerstenau, Charles Cairns, Grace Leach, Nelson Leach, Mr. Cherry New Planning Commission Member Peggy Spencer was sworn in as a newly appointed Planning Commission Member by Gordon Fuestenau, Township Clerk. Peggy Spencer will replace Alane Rowley's seat which she resigned from in November 1991. Nancy Kulman will fill in as Secretary for Alane Rowley until the end of her .I term as Secretary. Public Hearing of Proposed Amendment of Master Plan Gordon Fuerstenau noted that proper notice has been given for the Public Hearing. Charles Cairns, Township consultant, presented the proposed amendment to the Master Plan. The proposed changes would effect sections 34 and 35, more specifically; The area just north of the rail corridor lo 33 Mile Road, from Lowe Plank to Welding, has been reoriented from industrial to agricultural and residential use . Approximately 266 acres of land is involved in this change. The are from the rail corridor north to 33 Mile Road, between Lowe Plank and the City of Richmond, has been reoriented from industrial to agricultural and residential use . Approximately 105 acres of land is involved in this change. Areas along the south side of the rail corridor on both sides of Lowe Plank, have been reoriented from residential to industrial use. Approximately 14 acres of land is involved in this change. The area along the west side of Lowe Plank, between Armada Ridge Road and 32 Mile Road, has been reoriented f~om residential to rest~'cted office non-residential use. Approximately 5 acres of land are effected 10 the change. · An area between Armada Ridge Road ~d 32 Mile Road, west of and adjacent to the restricted office ares, has been reoriented from residential to industrial use. Approximately 6 acres of land is involved in this change. Public Hearing Open to Public E-1 �I I I Page 2 Gordon Fuerstenau suggested that the "landfill" site on Fuerstenau Road , of 80 acres be looked being changed to a Township Park on the Master Plan. It was noted that the current location of the Township park is not centrally located and there is lack of available land. The 80 acre "landfill"site is centrally located and is a fuU 80 acres with a wooded area and a wetland area. Mr. Cairns stated this was a possibility but would need to be justified by statistics etc. Mr. Cairns said he would check into and let us know how to investigate and proceed if we want. Keith Rengert /ad.)motion to adopt the proposed amendment to the Master Plan and send to the Township BoarMr final approval. Motion was seconded by Russ Williams. Roll call vote of member present was unanimous. A copy of the amendment will be sent to the Macomb County Planning Commission to accept, they have 45 days . Richmond Auto Salvage I ( A letter was sent by the Macomb County Road Commission to Richmond Salvage on September 30, 1991 in reference to the right-of-way having people dropping off salvage goods on the roadside in front of the Salvage yard. Since the letter there appears to be no improvements in the roadside litter. Keith Rengert noted there is still a pile of tires in the yard , fence and boundary lines have not been maintained and various types of litter on roadside. Mr. Cherry, owner of Richmond Salvage, responded that he does not want people to drop off these salvage items on the roadside but, he is not able to monitor the site day and night. Keith Rengert made a motion to request the Township Board to petition the County to post a sign for No littering, violators would be ticketed in front of Richmond Salvage. Motion was seconded by Russ Williams. I There being no othe'r business a motion was made by Nancy Kulman to adjourn, motion wa:\econded by Russ Williams. , I Respectfully submitted by, r r r r r r r ~~ Secretary E-la �- I ADOPTING RESOLUTION I At the conclusion of a public hearing at which a quorum of the Planning Commission of the Township of Richmond, Macomb County, Michigan was present, the following resolution was offered and adopted. Moved by member Keith Rengert Seconded by member Russell Williams THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION BE ADOPTED: - WHEREAS: The Richmond Township Planning Commission has diligently pursued the development of an amendment to its Master Plan Map for the Township of Richmond, and: - WHEREAS: Said Master Plan Map amendment has been reviewed in Planning Commission sessions with members of the Richmond Township Board of Trustees in attendance as well as the general public, and: - WHEREAS: On November 12, 1991 a public hearing duly advertised in accordance with the guidelines of the Michigan Township Rural Planning Act 168, as amended, was held, at which time a quorum of the Richmond Township Planning commission was present and at which hearing public comment pertaining to the proposed master plan map amendment was heard, now: 'I I - I I I I THEREFORE IT IS RESOLVED: That the contents of this document togather with all maps attached thereto and contained herein, are hereby adopted by the Richmond Township Planning Commission, superseding the former Master Plan Map of June 13, 1978, and that this plan document shall be called the AMENDED MASTER PLAN MAP, TOWNSHIP of RICHMOND. ROLL CALL: Yes 6 Absent l No 0 Abstain 0 RESOLUTION ADOPTED I, Nancy Kulman , Secretary of the Richmond Township Planning Commission, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Richmond Township Planning Commission at a meeting held November 12, 1991. E-2 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Wyckoff Planning and Zoning Collection Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Planning & Zoning Center (Lansing, Mich.) (Organization) Wyckoff, Mark A. Description An account of the resource Municipal master plans and zoning ordinances from across the state of Michigan, spanning from the 1960s to the early 2020s. The bulk of the collection was compiled by urban planner Mark Wyckoff over the course of his career as the founder and principal planner of the Planning and Zoning Center in Lansing, Michigan. Some additions have been made to the collection by municipalities since it was transferred to Grand Valley State University. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Michigan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1960/2023 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Subject The topic of the resource Michigan Comprehensive plan publications Master plan reports Zoning--Michigan Zoning--Maps Maps Land use--planning Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-240 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Richmond-Twp_Amended-Master-Plan_1991 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Vilican-Leman & Associates, Inc. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1991-11-12 Title A name given to the resource Amended Master Plan Description An account of the resource The Amended Master Plan for Richmond Township was prepared by Vilican-Leman & Associates, Inc. with assistance from the Richmond Township Planning Commission and was adopted on November 12, 1991. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Richmond Township Planning Commission, Richmond Township, Macomb County, Michigan (consultant) Subject The topic of the resource Master plan reports Richmond Township (Mich.) Macomb County (Mich.) Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/bf9d56a16aa099dd750aa91c5114bf19.pdf 38949a786b03de9afa0e30a6359f56e6 PDF Text Text AMENDMENTS TO THE MODEL ZONING ORDINANCE FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS MOBILE HOME PARK DISTRICT SITE PLAN REVIEW PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Prepared for use by the Cities, Villages and Townships of Kalamazoo County, Michigan KALAMAZOO METROPOLITAN COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION September 1974 �FROM THE LIBRARY OF .E.lanning & Zoning Center, lnc. Af.1Errnr-1EiHS TO THE f10DEL ZO[HiW ORDifrn1JCE Prepared for the ~; ~200 Metropolitan County Planning Commission by the Kalamazoo County Planning Department 418 West Kalamazoo Avenue Kalamazoo, Michigan 49006 September, 1974 The preparation of this report was financially aided through a Federal grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, under the Urban Planning Assistance Program, authorized by Section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954, as amended. �cornErns INTRODUCTION . • . • . 1 FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS 2 MOBILE HOME PARK DISTRICT (R-6) 6 SITE PLAN REVIEW 9 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT APPENDIX - DEFINITIONS 13 �, , HHRODUCTIOfJ Since its adoption in 1962, the Model Zoning Ordinance has been adopted in its entirety or in part by a number of units of government in Kalamazoo County. The Model was intended, at that particular time, to provide guidelines to all local municipalities for the establishment of zoning regulations and to provide a basis for achieving uniformity of zoning decisions throughout the County. In recent years, Kalamazoo County communities have experienced a need to update their ordinances to meet unique and diversified development trends. The rapid growth of a variety of new housing types, commercial and industrial activities and the concern for the environmental effects of increased urban growth have encouraged the development of more comprehensive regulations. The four amendments to the Model Zoning Ordinance contained in this document are in response to this need and seek to provide a basic outline for reference and use by the various municipal planning commissions and zoning boards in Kalamazoo County. The procedural and administrative framework incorporated into the amendments is intended primarily for adaptation to the Model Zoning Ordinance, however, they can be easily modified by local units of government to provide reasonable and workable zoning regulations for their respective communities. �FLOODPLAii~ REGULATIOfJS �FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS 8.161 - PURPOSE It is the purpose of this ordinance to promote the public health, safety and welfare by provisions to: (1) restrict or prohibit uses which are dangerous to health, safety or property in times of flood or cause excessive increases in flood heights or velocities, (2) require that uses vulnerable to floods, including public facilities, shall be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction and (3) protect individuals from buying lands which are unsuited for intended purposes because of flood hazard. 8.162 - GENERAL PROVISIONS (a) Lands to Which Ordinance Applies: This ordinance shall apply to all lands within the jurisdiction of the (City, Village or Township) shown on the official zoning map as being located within the designated floodplain. The regulatory flood protection elevations and corresponding boundaries of the floodway and flood fringe will be determined by the Planning Commission (or Zoning Board) using the most accurate and up-to-date information. The regulations in this ordinance will be construed as being supplementary to and do not change any regulations imposed on the same lands or uses permitted by virtue of the land being part of another Zoning District. (b) Technical Data Required: Where topographic data, engineering studies or other information is needed by the Planning Commission (or Zoning Board) to determine the effects of flooding on a proposed site and/or the effect of a structure on the flow of water, the applicant shall submit such data or studies. All such required data or studies shall be prepared by a registered professional engineer. (c) Interpretation of District Boundaries: The boundaries of the Zoning districts shall be determined by scaling distances on the official zoning map. Where interpretation is needed as to the exact location of the boundaries of the district, the Zoning Board of Appeals shall make the necessary interpretation. , -2- �(d) Abrogation and Greater Restrictions: It is not intended by this ordinance to repeal, abrogate or impair any existing easements, covenants or deed restrictions. However, where this ordinance i~poses greater restrictions, the provisions of this ordinance shall prevail. 8.163 - ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONING DISTRICTS The floodplain areas within the jurisdiction of this ordinance have been divided into two districts: Floodway District (FW) and Floodfringe District (~F). The boundaries of these districts shall be shown on the official zoning map. 8.164 - FLOODWAY DISTRICT (FW) The Floodway District permits only those open space uses having a low flood damage potential and not obstructing flood flows. The requirements of this district are in addition to those contained in the specific use district. (a) Permitted Uses 1. Agricultural uses such as general farming, pasture, grazing, forestry and sod farming. 2. Industrial and Commercial uses such as loading areas, parking areas and airport landing strips. 3. Private and public recreational uses such as golf courses, driving ranges, picnic grounds, boat launching ramps, swimming areas, parks, nature and shooting preserves and biking and bike trails. 4. Residential uses such as lawns, gardens, parking areas and play areas. (b) Special Exception Uses 1. Uses or structures accessory to open space uses. 2. Drive-in Theaters, new and used car lots, roadside stands, and signs. 3. Extraction of sand, gravel and other materials. 4. Railroads, streets, bridges, utility transmission lines and pipelines. 5. Storage yards for equipment, machinery or materials. 6. Kennels and stables. -3- �(c) Standards for Floodway Special Exception Uses 1. No structure, fill, deposit, obstruction, storage of materials or equipment or other use , may be allowed as a special exception use which unduly affects the capacity of the floodway or unduly increases flood heights. 2. Structures accessary to permitted uses must have a low flood damage potential and must be constructed and placed on the building site so as to minimize obstruction to the flow of floodwaters. 3. Structures shall not be designed and used for human habitation. 4. Storage or processing of materials that are in time of flooding buoyant, flammable, explosive or could be injurious to human life and property are prohibited. 8.166 - FLOODFRINGE DISTRICT (FF) The Floodfringe District permits all urban type uses provided they are elevated above the regulatory flood protection elevation or floodproofed. The requirements of this district are in addition to those contained in the specific use district. (a) Permitted Uses 1. Any use permitted in the Floodway District (FW). 2. Residential and non-residential uses - structures, buildings and additions constructed, altered or moved shall be located on fill so that the lowest floor, including the basement floor, is elevated at least two (2) feet above the regulatory flood protection elevation for the particular area. The fill shall extend at least twenty-five (25) feet beyond the limits of the building or structure erected. Such buildings, structures or additions shall have a means of ingress and egress to land outside the floodplain which is at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation. This means of access shall be constructed of materials which will withstand the pressures associated with the discharge of a regional flood. 3. Accessory uses or buildings when they are in accordance with the provisions of Section 8.165, subsection (a)-2. -4- �(b) Special Exception Uses 1. Structures other than residences may, in special circumstances, be elevated or protected through ' floodproofing measures. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall require that the applicant submit a plan or document certified by a registered professional engineer indicating that the proposed floodproofing measures will provide adequate protection against flood damage. 2. The Zoning Board of Appeals may authorize the location of uses listed in Section 8.165 - (a) of this ordinance at an elevation below the regulatory flood protection elevation if such uses will not be subject to substantial flood damage and will not cause flood damage to other lands. -5- �MOBILE HOME PARK DISTRICT �MOBILE HOME PARK DISTRICT CR-6) 8.81 - PURPOSE This district is designed solely for the development of mobile home parks and such accessory structures and uses normally associated thereto, in accordance with those regulations specified by the State of Michigan Mob i le Horne Park Act 243, public acts of 1959, as amended, and in accordance with the following minimum requirements. 8.82 - PERMITTED USES Mobile home parks and those uses customarily incidental to the principal use. 8.83 - REGULATIONS REQUIRED OF MOBILE HOME PARKS (a) General Requirements 1. Mobile homes used for habitation shall be confined to Mobile Horne Parks which are hereafter limited to the R-6 Mobile Horne Park District. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of a mobile home park, a site plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission (or Zoning Board of Appeals) for review and approval as provided under Section 9.10 of this Zoning Ordinance. 3. Every mobile home park established within the (City, Village or Township) shall be inspected periodically by an official designated by the municipal governing body. The frequency of said inspections, and any fees associated thereto, shall be determined by the municipal governing body. (b) Park Development Standards 1. Each mobile home park shall have a minimum gross site area of five (5) acres. 2. A mobile home park shall have frontage on, and at least two paved accesses to, a primary or arterial street, or a similar adequate thoroughfare or state trunkline. -6- �3. Every mobile home park shall be served by public sanitary sewer and water systems, if such systems are immediately available, or an officially approved private on-site sewer and water system. 4. The owner of every mobile home park which lies immediately adjacent to an established residential district shall provide a screening area separating said park from the adjoining residential district. The screen shall be in the form of either a solid type fence, evergreen planting or landscape d berm which is compact and maintained in good condition at all times. The height of the screen shall not be less than five (5) feet, except where the screen would interfere with traffic safety, in which case it may be reduced in height to, but not less than, three (3) feet in height. Adequate landscaping shall also be provided by the owner of the mobile home park between each mobile home site and any public or private street so as to provide an attractive frontage upon said street. 5. Interior drives and walkways shall be lighted at intervals of not more than one hundred (100) feet. 6. Each mobile home park must contain an area for recreational activity equivalent to eight (8) percent of the gross site area of the park which may be used in common by the occupants of the park. 7. A mobile home or accessory structure within a park shall not be located closer than fifteen (15) feet from a park property line nor closer than thirtyfive (35) feet from a public right-of-way line. 8. All interior drives within a mobile home park shall be paved with asphalt or a similar hard surface material to a minimum width of twenty (20) feet. 9. Improved walkways of not less than thirty-six (36) inches wide shall be provided from each mobile home site to all park service buildings and structures. 10. A building or structure within a mobile home park shall not exceed the height of two and one-half (2½) stories or twenty-five (25) feet. Special exceptions may be permitted for stacking of mobile home units. 11. The park management shall be responsible for garbage and trash collection, street cleaning, snow removal and sidewalk and street maintenance. -7- �(c) Site Development Standards 1. Each mobile home site shall contain an area of not less than four thousand fifty (4,050) square f eet and have a width of not less than forty-five (45) feet. 2. The minimum distance between mobile home units shall be twenty-five (25) feet on side lines and twenty (20) feet on end to end placement. The minimum setback shall be measured from the outer wall of the mobile home, any expandable room or other structural appurtances, whichever is closer to the lot line. 3. Each mobile home unit shall be located not less than ten (10) feet from any private street within the park. 4. Each mobile home site shall not be located closer than thirty (30) feet to any park service building or other structure. 5. Each mobile home site shall be well drained and be provided with a mobile home stand consisting of a solid reinforced pad or ribbon at least four inches in depth. / 6. Tie down facilities shall be incorporated into each mobile home stand so that guy lines can be installed under the mobile home at sufficient intervals to prevent upheaval of mobile homes during severe winds and storms. 7. Uniform skirting of each mobile home base shall be required within thirty days (30) after initial placement. 8. A minimum of two (2) improved off-street parking spaces shall be provided for each mobile home site within the mobile home park. -8- �SITE PLA~ REVIEW �SI TE PLAf J REVIEW 9.101 - PURPOSE The intent of this ordinance is to provide for consultation and cooperation between the land developer and the Planning Commission (or Zoning Board of Appeals) in order that the developer may accomplish his objectives in the utilization of his land in accordance with the regulations of this zoning ordinance and with minimum adverse effect on the use of adjacent streets and on existing and future land uses in the immediate area and vicinity. 9.102 - DEVELOPMENTS REQUIRING SITE PLAN REVIEW The Building Inspector shall not issue a building permit for the construction of the following buildings, structures or uses until a site plan has been reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission (or Zoning Board of Appeals) : (a) Multiple-family buildings containing six (6) or more dwelling units (b) Mobile Home Parks (c) Office, commercial or industrial buildings with a total floor area greater than three thousand (3,000) square feet. 9.103 - APPLICATION PROCEDURE A request for site plan review shall be made by filing with the (City, Village or Township) Clerk the following: (a) Fee: A review fee, the schedule of which shall be determined by the governing body, will be paid by the applicant to cover the cost of processing the site plan. (b) Application: Three (3) copies of the application for site plan review shall be filled out completely and returned to the Clerk's office. (c) Site Plan: Three (3) prints of the site plan shall be submitted to the Clerk's office. Each print shall contain the following data: -9- �1. It shall be of a scale not greater than one (1) inch equals twenty (20) feet nor smaller than one (1) inch equals two hundred (200) feet and of such accuracy that the Planning Commission ' (or Zoning Board of Appeals) can readily interpret the plan. 2. It shall show an appropriate descriptive legend, north arrow, scale, etc. 3. A vicinity map shall be submitted showing ~1e location of the site in relation to the surrounding street system. 4. It shall identify subject property by lot lines and location, including dimensions, angles and size, correlated with the legal description of said property. 5. It shall show the topography (at least two (2) foot contour intervals) natural features such as woodlots, streams,rivers, lakes, drains and similar features. 6. It shall show existing manmade features on, and within one hundred (100) feet of, the site, such as buildings, structures, high tension towers, pipe lines, existing utilities such as water and sewer lines, etc., excavations, bridges, culverts, drains and easements and shall identify the existing uses and zoning of adjacent properties. 7. It shall show the location, proposed finished floor and grade line elevations, size of proposed main and accessory buildings, their relation to one another and to any existing structures on the site, the height of all buildings and square footage of floor space. Site plans for multiplefamily residential development shall include a density schedule showing the number of dwelling units per net acre, including a dwelling schedule showing the unit type and number of each unit type. 8. It shall show the proposed streets, driveways, sidewalks and other vehicular and pedestrian circulation features within the adjacent to the site; also the location, size and number of parking spaces in the off-street parking areas and the identification of service lanes, and service parking and loading and unloading areas. -10- �9. It shall show the proposed location, use, and size of open spaces and the location of any landscaping, screening, fences or walls on the site. Any proposed alterations to the topo•graphy and other natural features shall be indicated. 10. Any other information deemed necessary by the Planning Commission (or Zoning Board of Appeals). 9.104 - ACTION ON SITE PLAN The disposition of all site plans shall be the responsibility of the Planning Commission (or Zoning Board of Appeals). The review procedure established by (City, Village or Township) is as follows: (a) The (City, Village or Township) Clerk shall transmit the completed application to the chairman of the Planning Commission (or Zoning Board of Appeals) who shall place it on the agenda of the Commission (or Board). (b) The applicant will receive a written notice stating the date, time and place that his application will be reviewed. (c) Approval or disapproval of the site plan shall be issued within sixty (60) days of receipt of the application. All provisions of applicable ordinances must be met and also any special conditions or requirements imposed by the Planning Commission (or Zoning Board of Appeals) must be incorporated into the plan before the issuance of a building permit. (d) Site plan approval shall be valid for one (1) year from and after the date of approval. 9.105 - CRITERIA OF SITE PLAN REVIEW The site plan shall be approved by the Planning Commission (or Zoning Board of Appeals) upon finding that: (a) The proposed use will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood development. The provision for fencing, walls, and/or landscaping may be required as a screening device to minimize adverse effects upon surrounding development. -11- �(b) There is a proper relationship between major thoroughfares and proposed service drives, driveways and parking areas so as to insure the safety and convenience of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. (c) Any possible adverse effects resulting from the locations of buildings and accessory structures will be minimized to the occupants of that use and the occupants of adjacent properties. (d) The proper development of roads, easements and public utilities has been provided to protect the general health, safety and welfare of the community. 9.106 - CONFORMITY TO APPROVED SITE PLAN When an applicant receives site plan approval, he must develop the subject property in complete conformity with the approved plan except as may be modified by the Planning Commission (or Zoning Board of Appeals). Approval of the site plan shall be valid for a period of one (1) year. No time extension to site plan approval will be granted. If a building permit has not been obtained and the on-site development actually begun within one (1) year of the date of approval, the site plan approval shall become void and the developer shall make a new application for approval before proceeding. 9.107 - AMENDMENT TO SITE PLAN A proposed amendment or modification to a previously approved site plan shall be submitted for review in accordance with the procedures of this section and may be approved by the Planning Commission (or Zoning Board of Appeals) subject to its conformance with all applicable requirements of this ordinance. -12- �PLANNED RESIDEf~TIAL DEVELOPMEf~T �PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 9.9 - PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (PRD) Planned residential developments shall be recognized as a special exception use. The disposition of such developments shall be the responsibility of the Planning Commission or where a Planning Commission does not exist, then the Zoning Board of Appeals. 9.91 - PURPOSE The purpose of these regulations is to permit greater flexibility and, consequently, more creative and imaginative design in the development of residential areas than is generally possible under conventional zoning regulations. It is further intended to promote more economical and efficient use of the land while providing a harmonious variety of housing choices, the integration of necessary commercial and community facilities and the preservation of open space for park and recreational use. A permit may be issued for construction and occupancy of a planned residential development subject to compliance with the requirements, standards and procedures set forth in this ordinance. 9.92 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS Any application for a special exception permit must meet the following conditions to qualify for consideration as a planned residential development: (a) Minimum Area: The minimum area required to qualify for a planned residential development special exception permit shall not be less than ten (10) contiguous acres of land. (b) Ownership: The tract of land for a project must be either in one ownership or the subject of an application filed jointly by the owners of all properties included (the holder of a written option to purchase land or the holder of an executory land contract shall, for purposes of such application, be deemed to be an owner of such land). (c) Location: Planned residential developments shall be allowed only within the R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 Residential Districts and providing the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed character of development will meet the objectives of planned residential developments. -13- �(d) Utilities: Public water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage facilities shall be provided as part of the site development. All electric and telephone transmission wires shall be placed underground. (e) Approval: Approval by the Planning Commission (or Zoning Board of Appeals) of a sketch plan and detailed site plan of all planned residential developments is required. 9.93 - PERMITTED USES No structure or part thereof, shall be erected, altered, or used, and no land shall be used except for one or more of the following: (a) Residential Uses: The following housing types, excepting mobile homes, shall be deemed desirable in keeping with the objectives of this concept. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Single family detached dwellings Two family dwellings Apartments Townhouses Condominiums Other multi-family dwellings (b) Commercial Uses: The following commercial uses shall be designed and intended to serve the convenience needs of the people residing in the planned residential development. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Food stores Bakeries (retail only) Barber or beauty shops Banks and financial institutions Shoe sales and repair stores Florist and garden shops Hardware stores Variety stores Book and stationary stores Dry cleaning (pickup or coin operated only) Wearing apparel shops Medical or professional offices Drug stores Post office (c) Accessory and Associated Uses: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Private garages Storage sheds Recreational play areas Churches Elementary and Secondary Schools -14- �9.94 - DESIGN REQUIREMENTS Within any planned residential development approved under this section, the requirements set forth below shall appLy in lieu of regulations set forth in the district in which the development is located: (a) Number of Dwelling Units Permitted: The maximum number of dwelling units permitted within the project shall be determined by dividing the net residential development area by the minimum residential lot area per dwelling unit required by the district in which the project is located. In the event the project lies in more than one zoning district, the number of dwelling units shall be computed for each district separately. (b) Lot Area Requirements: The minimum lot area for single-family dwellings shall not be reduced more than twenty (20) percent below that required in the district in which the project is located. The lot area requirement for multiple family dwellings shall not be reduced by more than (10) percent of that permitted in the district in which the project is located. (c) Setback and Yards: 1. Front Yards - The minimum steback from a street line for a building or structure may be reduced fifteen (15) feet for any cul-de-sac street and ten (10) feet for any other street below that required in the district regulation in which the planned residential development is located. 2. Rear Yards - The minimum rear yard requirements may be reduced to twenty-five (25) feet in planned residential developments. 3. Side Yards - The minimum side yard requirements may be reduced to five (5) feet in planned residential developments. (d) Minimum Lot Frontage and Width: The minimum lot frontage and width for any lot designated for single family dwelling may be reduced twenty (20) percent below the requirements of the district in which the planned residential development is located. (e) Screening: A screening area shall be provided along the perimeter of property on which multiple-family dwellings and/or commercial buildings are erected. -15- �(f) Amount of Open Space Required: Within every planned residential development there shall be planned and set aside permanently as part of the total development an amount of open space equal to not less than the aggreg~te accumulation of lot size reduction below the minimum lot area for the development as a whole. Before accepting the open space as meeting the requirements of this provision, the Planning Commission (or Zoning Board of Appeals) must find the land thus designated to be: (1) sufficient in size, suitably located, with adequate access, and (2) that eviden1:e is given that satisfactory arrangements will be made for the maintenance of such designated land to relieve the municipality of the future maintenance. (g) Arrangement of Open Space: All required open space within a planned residential development shall be arranged so as to provide access and benefit to the maximum number of lots and/or dwelling units. Separate tracts of open space shall have adequate access from at least one point along a public street. 9.95 - APPLICATION PROCEDURE AND APPROVAL PROCESS (a) General: Whenever any planned residential development is proposed, before any building permit is granted, the developer shall apply for and secure approval of the Special Exception Use in accordance with the following procedures and obtain approval of a Detailed Site Plan from the Planning Commission (or Zoning Board of Appeals). (b) Application for Sketch Plan Approval: 1. In order to allow the Planning Commission (or Zoning Board of Appeals) and the developer to reach an understanding of basic design requirements prior to detailed site design investment, the developer shall submit a sketch plan of his proposal to the Planning Commission (or Zoning Board of Appeals). The sketch plan shall be drawn to approximate scale and clearly show the following information: a. - Boundaries of the property b. - Location and height of all buildings c. - Interior roadway system, parking facilities and all existing rights-of-way and easements, whether public or private d. - Delineation of the various residential areas indicating for each such area its size and composition in terms of total number of dwelling units, approximate percentage allocation by dwelling unit type, plus a calculation of the net residential density -16 �e. - The interior open space system f. - The overall stormwater drainage system g. - If grades exceed thirty percent (30%), or portions of the site have a moderate to high , susceptibility to erosion, or a moderate to high susceptibility to flooding and/or ponding, an overlay outlining the above susceptible soil shall be provided. h. - Principal ties to the neighborhood and community with respect to transportation, water supply and sewage disposal i. - General description of the provision of oth:r community facilities, such as schools, recreational facilities, fire protection services, and cultural facilities, if any, and some indication of how these needs are proposed to be accommodated j. - A location map showing uses and ownership of abutting lands 2. In addition, the following documentation shall accompany the Sketch Plan. a. - Evidence that the proposal is compatible with the objectives of the community's Comprehensive Plan b. - General statement as to how common open space is to be owned and maintained. c. - The Sketch Plan shall show the intended total project. If the development is to be constructed in phases, a general indication of how the sequence of phases is to proceed shall be identified. 3. The Planning Commission (or Zoning Board of Appeals) shall hold a public hearing or hearings on the application for planned residential development in accordance with the provision of (Statutory Authority) . 4. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission (or Zoning Board of Appeals) shall, within sixty (60) days, approve or disapprove the Sketch Plan and so notify the applicant of its decision. 5. Approval of Sketch Plan shall not constitute approval of the detailed site plan, rather it shall be deemed an expression of approval of the layout as a guide to the preparation of the detailed plan. 6. Request for changes in Sketch Plan - If it becomes apparent that certain elements of the Sketch Plan, as it has been approved by the Planning Commission -17- �(or Zoning Board of Appeals), become unfeasible and in need of modification, the applicant shall then resubmit his entire Sketch Plan, as amended, to the Planning Commission (or Zoning Board of Appeals) pursuant to the above procedures. t (c) Application for Detailed Site Plan Approval: 1. After receiving approval from the Planning Commission (or Zoning Board of Appeals) on a Sketch Plan, the applicant may prepare his Detailed Site Plan and submit it to the Planning Commission (or Zoning Board of Appeals) for approval. However, if more than six (6) months has elapsed between the time of Sketch Plan approval the Planning Commission (or Zoning Board of Appeals) may require a resubmission of the Sketch Plan for further review and possible revision. 2. The detailed Site Plan shall conform to the Sketch Plan that has received approval. It should incorporate any revisions or other features that may have been recommended by the Planning Commission (or Zoning Board of Appeals) at the preliminary review. All such compliances shall be clearly indicated by the applicant on the appropriate submission. 3. The Detailed Site Plan shall include the following information: a. - An area map showing the applicant's enti~e holding, that portion of the applicant's property under consideration, and all properties, subdivisions, streets, utilities, and easements within three hundred (300) feet of applicant's property. b. - A topographic map showing contour intervals of not more than four (4) feet of elevation shall be provided. c. - A site plan showing location, proposed use, and height of all buildings, location of all parking areas, with access and egress drives thereto; location of outdoor storage, if any; location of all existing or proposed site improvements, including drains, culverts, retaining walls and fences, description of method of water supply and sewage disposal and location of su~h facilities; location and size of all signs; location and proposed development of screened areas; location and design of lighting facilities; and the amount of building area proposed for non-residential uses, if any. -18 �d. - A tracing overlay showing all soil types and their location, and those areas, if any, with moderate to high susceptibility to erosion. For areas with potential erosion problems, the overlay shall also include an outline and description of existing vegetation. 4. Required Standards for Approval - The Planning Commission's (or Zoning Board of Appeals') review of the Detailed Site Plan shall include the following: a. - Adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, channelization, traffic controls, and pedestrian movement b. - Location, arrangement, appearance, and sufficiency of off-street parking c. - Location, arrangement, size and entrances of buildings, walkways and lighting d. - Relationship of the various uses to one another e. - Adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other landscaping constituting a visual and/or a noise deterring screen between adjacent uses and adjoining lands f. - In the case of multiple dwellings, the adequacy of usable open space for playgrounds and recreation. g. - Adequacy of water supply, storm water and sanitary waste disposal facilities h. - Adequacy of structures, roadways, and landscaping in areas with moderate to high susceptibility to flooding, ponding and/or erosion i. - Compliance with all regulations of the (name of municipality) Zoning Ordinance. (d) Action on the Detailed Site Plan: The Planning Commission (or Zoning Board of Appeals) shall render its approval or disapproval and so notify the applicant and the Building Inspector. (e) Revocation: In any case where construction on the planned residential development has not commenced within one year from the date of approval, then the special exception use permit shall be null and void. -19- �APPErmrx - DEFHHTIOfJS �APPENDIX DEFINITIONS Condominium - A housing development (usually of apartments or townhouse units) in which each resident purchases his living unit instead of renting. All "owners" own and manage the common areas of the project jointly. Cul-de-Sac - A street with only one outlet having sufficient space at the closed end to provide vehicular turning area. Density, Residential - Net residential density is a specific number of dwelling units in a specific a~ea of land now used or proposed to be used only for residential purposes. Gross residential density is defined as net residential land area plus traversing streets, alleys and drives, and one-half of bounding streets and one-quarter of bounding street intersections. Flood - A temporary rise in stream level that results in inundations of areas not ordinarily covered with water. Floodfringe - That portion of the regulatory floodplain beyond the floodway. Floodplain - The land areas adjoining any watercourse which is expected to be covered by flood waters as a result of a severe combination of rneterorological and hydrological conditions. Floodproofing - A combination of structural provisions, changes or adjustments to properties and structures subject to flooding primarily for the reduction or elimination of flood damages to properties, water and sanitary facilities, structures and contents of buildings in a flood hazard area. Floodway - The channel of the watercourse and those portions of the adjoining floodplains which are reasbnably required to carry and discharge the regulatory flood. Mobile Horne - A detached residential dwelling unit designed to be transported on streets and highways to the place where it is to be occupied as a dwelling unit complete and ready for yearround and permanent occupancy when connected to required facilities. Mobile Horne Park - A parcel or tract of land not less than 5 acres in size developed with facilities for locating mobile homes, provided each mobile home contains a kitchen, flush toilet and shower or bath. It shall not include a sales lot in which unoccupied mobile homes are parked for the purpose of sale. Mobile home parks shall comply with all requirements of the State of Michigan Mobile Horne Park Act of 1959, as amended. A-1 �I I I Obstruction - Any structure, fill or matter in, along, across or projecting into any channel, watercourse or regulatory floodhazard area which may impede, retard, or change the direction of the flow of water. Open S~ace - Any unoccupied land or water area which is not used for buildings or structures. Regulatory Flood - A flood which is representative of large floods known to have occurred in Kalamazoo County and characteristic of what can be expected to occur once in each 100 year period. Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation - The elevation to which uses regulated by this ordinance are required to be elevated or floodproofed. Screening - A screened area, of not less than twenty (20) feet in width, measured inward from the property line and consisting of either a wall, fence or tree and shrub planting which is compact and maintained in good condition at all times. The height of the screen shall not be less than five (5) feet, except where the screen would interfere with traffic safety, in which case it may be reduced in height to, but not less than, three (3) feet. Townhouse - A multiple-family building, or group of buildings, each of which contains three (3) or more attached one family dwelling units. Each living unit is usually two stories and has its own private entrance and yard. Travel Trailer - A movable or portable unit, to be towed on its own chassis and designed and constructed to provide temporary living quarters for recreational, camping or travel use. A-2 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Wyckoff Planning and Zoning Collection Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Planning & Zoning Center (Lansing, Mich.) (Organization) Wyckoff, Mark A. Description An account of the resource Municipal master plans and zoning ordinances from across the state of Michigan, spanning from the 1960s to the early 2020s. The bulk of the collection was compiled by urban planner Mark Wyckoff over the course of his career as the founder and principal planner of the Planning and Zoning Center in Lansing, Michigan. Some additions have been made to the collection by municipalities since it was transferred to Grand Valley State University. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Michigan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1960/2023 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Subject The topic of the resource Michigan Comprehensive plan publications Master plan reports Zoning--Michigan Zoning--Maps Maps Land use--planning Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-240 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Kalamazoo-County_Amendments-to-the-Model-Zoning-Ordinance_1974 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Kalamazoo County Planning Department, Kalamazoo County, Michigan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1974-09 Title A name given to the resource Amendments to the Model Zoning Ordinance Description An account of the resource The Amendments to the Model Zoning Ordinance for Kalamazoo County includes floodplain regulations, mobile home park district site plan review, and planned residential development and was prepared by the Kalamazoo County Planning Department in September 1974. Subject The topic of the resource Zoning--Michigan floodplains mobile home parks planned unit developments Kalamazoo County (Mich.) Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/89bfad584198ca7b473cf32ff6949fbe.pdf 898ab6ab4f38fe8d3531a31148b1dff0 PDF Text Text FROM THE LIBRARY OF Planning & Zoning Center, Inc. AMENDMENTS TO THE MODEL ~ONING ORDINANCE OFFICE DISTRICTS Prepared for use by the Cities, Villages and Townships of Kalamazoo County, Michigan KALAMAZOO METROPOLITAN COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION August, 1978 �8.18 "O-1" OFFICE DISTRICT, RESTRICTED 8.181 DESCRIPTION OF DISTRICT The "O-1" Office District is intended to permit the integr~tion of offices and/or personal service type uses in certain residential settings along major thoroughfares where existing residential development is experiencing redevelopment pressures. The District may further serve as a transition or buffer between such thoroughfares, other non-residential uses and interior residential areas. In order to minimize incompatibility with adjacent residential development, all buildings in the "O-1" Office District shall possess an appearance of a residential facade. 8.182 • .8.183 PERMITTED USES a. Existing single and two family dwellings b. Home occupations c. Business offices such as: insurance, real estate, accounting, travel agencies and other similar business office uses, excluding any direct sale or exchange of goods or merchandise on the premises. d. Professional offices such as: doctors, dentists, lawyers, architects, engineers, and other similar professional office uses. e. Professional studios such as: fine arts, photography, music, drama and dance. f. Publicly owned and operated buildings . g. Signs, when in accordance with the provisions of Section 9.2. (NOTE: To be modified) h. Accessory uses or buildings, when in accordance with the provisions of Section 9.4. i. Any use similar to the above SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES a. Personal service establishments such as: barber and beauty shops b. Multiple family dwellings �8.183 · 8.184 8.185 SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES Ccont'd) c. Convalescent and nursing homes d. Nursery schools and child care centers e. Essential services SITE DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 1. Site Plan Review - All uses, except single and two family dwellings, in the "O-1" Office District shall be subject to the Site Plan Review procedures as specified in Section 9.10. 2. Off-Street Parking - Off-street parking and loading shall be provided as specified in Section 9.1. As a further condition in the "O-1" District, off-street parking shall be prohibited in the front yard, excepting within private driveways, not exceeding 20' in width. 3. Screening - Screening shall be provided as specified in Section 9.6. (NOTE: To be modified) 4. Residential Facade - All buildings and structures shall be compatible in external appearance to adjoining residential buildings in the area. LOT, YARD AND AREA REQUIREMENTS Except as elsewhere specified, herein, the lot, yard and area requirements shall be as specified in Section 13. Lot, Yard and Area Requirements Minimum Lot Size - Section 13 7,500 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Frontage 50 ft. Maximum Building Height 25 ft. Maximum Building Coverage 30% Minimum Front Yard Setback 25 ft. Minimum Rear Yard Setback 25 ft. Minimum Side Yara · setback 25 ft. �Sign Requirements - Section 9.2 In the "0-1" Restricted Office District, not more than one sign shall be placed on any building or lot. NG sign shall exceed twelve (12) square feet in area or five (5) feet in length. �8.19 "0-2" OFFICE DISTRICT, GENERAL 8.191 DESCRIPTION OF DISTRICT The "0-2" Office District is intended to provide • areas for development of business and professional offices, including other similar personal service uses. Such areas are intended to be situated adjacent to major thoroughfares and more intense use districts in order to separate them from, and to provide a transition or buffer for adjoining residential uses. 8.192 8.193 PERMITTED USES a. Any uses permitted in the "0-1" Restricted Office District b. Medical clinics c. Funeral homes d. Financial Institutions including banks, credit unions, savings and loan institutions and similar uses e. Barber and beauty shops f. Religious, cultural and private educational institutions g. Clubs and lodges, private (not including recreational facilities h. Signs, when in accordance with the provisions of Section 9.2 i. Accessory uses or buildings, when in accordance with the provisions of Section 9.4 SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES a. Nursing and convalescent homes b. Veterinary clinics c. Indoor noncommercial recreational facilities d. Nursery school and child care centers e. Essential services �. ,. 8.194 SITE DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 1. Site Plan Review - All uses except two family dwellings, in the "0-2" Office District shall be subject to the Site Plan Review procedures as specified in Section 9.10 • • 8.195 2. Off-Street Parking - Off-street parking and loading shall be provided as specified in Section 9.1. 3. Screening - Screening shall be provided as specified in Section 9.6. LOT, YARD AND AREA REQUIREMENTS Except as elsewhere specified, herein, the lot, yard and area requirements shall be as specified in Section 13. Lot, Yard and Area Reg:uirements Minimum Lot Size Minimum Lot Frontage - Section 13 10,000 sq. ft. 100 ft. Maximum Building Height 25 ft. Maximum Building Coverage 60% Minimum Front Yard Setback 10 ft. Minimum Rear Yard Setback 20 ft. Minimum Side Yard Setback 5 ft. Sign Requirements - Section 9.2 In the "0-2" General Office District, not more than two signs shall be placed on any building or lot. The total area of the two signs may not exceed 36 square feet in area, while any one sign may not exceed eighteen (18) square feet in area or six (6) feet in length. �AMENDMENT TO THE MODEL LONING ORDINANCE RECREATION DISTRICT I Prepared for use by the Cities, Villages and Townships of Kalamazoo County, Michigan KALAMAZOO METROPOLITAN COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION September 1978 �8.20 "RE" RECREATION DISTRICT 8.201 DESCRIPTION OF DISTRICT This diptrict is designed and intended to make the best possible use of open space and natural amenities, such as lakes, streams and the shorelines thereof, pronounced topography, woodlands, wetlands, floodplains, and other natural features; to allow and regulate public and private use of such areas for certain outdoor recreational activities and uses, and to regulate the use, imprcvement and development of such lands so as to preserve the natural environment. 8.202 PERMITTED USES a. Agricultural pursuits, including horse farms and shows; excluding piggeries, food processing, animal slaughtering or packing, other than that intended for consumption on premises. b. Horseback riding stables and bridle paths, hiking trails, skiing, ice skating,tobagganing, golf courses, golf driving ranges, swimming beaches, boat liveries, picnic grounds and similar summer or winter sports facilities. c. Seasonal campgrounds for the accommodation of recreational units, etc.,subject to the administrative rules and regulations as compiled in the State of Michigan Act 171 of P.A. of 1970 and administered by the Michigan Department of Public Health. d. Dwellings used by an owner, operator, watchman or other employees solely as an accessory to a principal recreational use. e. Publicly owned and operated parks, playgrounds and other recreational activities, including community buildings. f. Accessory uses or buildings, when in accordance with the provisions of Section 9.4, as amended. g. Signs, in accordance with Section 9.2, as amended. • -1- �8.203 8.204 8.205 SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES a. Any similar or related recreational uses described above as may be determined by the Board of Appeals. b. Clups, lodges, etc. c. Hotels, motels d. Tourist cabins e. Roadside stands LOT, YARD AND AREA REQUIREMENTS a. Except as elsewhere specified herein, the lot, yard and area requirements shall be as specified in Section 8.206. b. Each "RE" Recreation District shall contain at least ten (10) acres. SITE DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 1. Site and development plans of all proposed recreational uses shall be submitted in compliance with Site Plan Review procedures contained in Section 9.10. 2. In order to minimize adverse effects on adjacent residentially zoned or developed properties, all recreational activities and buildings must be setback from all property lines and be screened as prescribed in Section 8.206 for the specific recreational use or as determined by the Zoning Board of Appeals . 3. Each principal recreational use shall have frontage on a thoroughfare having a primary or greater classification and have access thereto by means of a paved entrance. • 8.206 REGULATIONS REQUIRED OF SPECIFIC RECREATIONAL USES a. Seasonal Campgrounds 1. Each campsite shall contain a minimum of 1,600 square feet of area. Sites designed for occupancy by more than one recreational unit shall also maintain a minimum of 1,600 square feet per unit. The overall density of the campground shall not exceed 15 sites per acre. -2- �2. A 75 foot greenbelt or buffer area shall be maintained free of any development except for screening where required as determined by the Zoning Board of Appeals between all campground property lines and the campground proper. Such area may not be utilized to compute campsite areas. 3. A minimum distance of 15 feet shall be provided between all recreational units. 4. Seasonal campgrounds shall only operate during the period between April 1 and December 1, and no recreational units shall remain in the campground from December 1 through March 31. 5. Access roads between the public thoroughfare and the campground proper shall be paved to a minimum of 22 feet. 6. Circulation roads within the campground proper shall be either stabilized gravel or paved. One-way roads shall be at least 12 feet in width and two-way roads shall be at least 22 feet in width. Parking shall not be permitted on any roadway. 7. All permanent type buildings or structures to be occupied by the public shall be set back at least 200 feet from all residentially zoned property or public street right-of-way lines. 8. Dogs and other pets allowed within the campground shall be kept on a leash not longer than 10 feet in length and not allowed freedom upon any campsite other than the one occupied by the owner of said dog or pet. 9. Fires may be built only in picnic stoves or other similar equipment or such areas as designated by the camp manager. It shall be unlawful to start or cause to be started any other fire whatsoever in the campground. 10. No commercial enterprises shall be permitted to operate on the campground, except that a convenience goods shopping building for the use of the occupants is allowed, providing it is clearly incidental to the needs of the occupants while residing in the campground. There shall be no advertising of these services along the public roads. • -3- �.. 11. A common use area shall be provided for each campground at a ratio of not less than 500 square feet of such area per site. This common area shall be developed by seeding, landscaping, picnic tables, barbeque stands ' and recreation equipment (i.e. swings, slides, playground equipment, horseshoe pits, shuffleboard courts and the like) for the general use of the occupants of .the entire campground. The area shall be at least 50 feet from any public road. 12. Any lighting shall be directed away from camping sites and surrounding residential areas - no high-intensity lighting shall be used. All electric lines, telephone lines and gas lines shall be installed underground. 13. The campground shall be kept in a neat and orderly manner. A covered trash and garbage receptacle shall be provided, and the campground shall be kept free of litter, trash and debris. 14. The campground shall post regulations that all radios and other equipment producing a noise shall be turned off or reduced in volume between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. so as not to be audible at other sites or adjoining residential areas. 15. No mobile homes or trailer coaches designed for permanent habitation shall be allowed except for the campground manager . 16. Prior to applying for a building permit to construct a seasonal campground, the developer shall submit the following information to the Zoning Board of Appeals for its approval: • a. A scaled drawing of a site plan of the proposed seasonal campground. b. The drawing shall show the location of the campground entrance, internal road system, parking areas, designated campsites, trails, common use areas, service buildings, sanitary facilities, etc. c. A vicinity sketch showing the location of the campground relative to the local public street system. -4- �- I "' d. A descriptive text of the proposed campground. e. Plans and specification of any buildings to be constructed therein. DEFINITION "RECREATIONAL UNIT" means a tent or vehiculartype structure, primarily designed as temporary liv ing quarters for recreational, camping or travel use, which either has its own motive power or is mounted on or drawn by another vehicle which is self-powered. A tent means a collapsible shelter of canvas or other fabric stretched and sustained by poles and/or other fixtures, used for camping outdoors. Recreational unit shall include, but shall not be limited to the following: a. Travel Trailer b. Folding Trailer c. Motor Home (including van) d. Truck Camper (5th Wheel or Slide-in) TYPICAL SIGN REQUIREMENTS - SECTION 9.2 In the "RE" Recreational District, only one sign may be erected for each separate recreational activity. No sign shall exceed 32 square feet in area or 8 feet in length. -5- � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Wyckoff Planning and Zoning Collection Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Planning & Zoning Center (Lansing, Mich.) (Organization) Wyckoff, Mark A. Description An account of the resource Municipal master plans and zoning ordinances from across the state of Michigan, spanning from the 1960s to the early 2020s. The bulk of the collection was compiled by urban planner Mark Wyckoff over the course of his career as the founder and principal planner of the Planning and Zoning Center in Lansing, Michigan. Some additions have been made to the collection by municipalities since it was transferred to Grand Valley State University. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Michigan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1960/2023 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Subject The topic of the resource Michigan Comprehensive plan publications Master plan reports Zoning--Michigan Zoning--Maps Maps Land use--planning Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-240 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Kalamazoo-County_Amendments-to-the-Model-Zoning-Ordinance_1978 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Kalamazoo County Planning Department, Kalamazoo County, Michigan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1978 Title A name given to the resource Amendments to the Model Zoning Ordinance Description An account of the resource The Amendments to the Model Zoning Ordinance for Kalamazoo County includes office districts (August 1978) and the recreation district (September 1978). The amendments were prepared by the Kalamazoo County Planning Department. Subject The topic of the resource Zoning--Michigan Recreation--planning Kalamazoo County (Mich.) Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives