4 24 26018 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/cc578f463e3b3f363c47d24cc6f7c7dd.pdf 1464225021068926481a8387b866a473 PDF Text Text Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club Nineteenth Annual ' anquet Pantlind Hotel Monday, January Twenty-sixth Nineteen Twenty �11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111~1111111111111111~1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 lllltlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllltllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll OFFICERS COMMITTEE CHAIRMEN Huntley Russell, President H. W. Kissinger, Secretary A. Wm. Honecker, Treasurer DIRECTORS Huntley Russell H. W. Kissinger A. Wm. Honecker Chas. McQuewan Claire L. Fox J. Lucas Hodges W. E. Raiguel E.W. Aument H. C. Schneider Entertainment- Julius J. Petersen, Jr. House- Claire L. Fox. Tennis- Mr. Moore. Canoe- Leo Cook. Rowing- Chas. McQuewan Coach John H. Corbitt Base Ball- Julius Petersen, Jr. Forest and Maps- Samuel H. Ranck Auditing·- H. C. Schneider Hand Ball- Phillip L. Hollway • 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 I I I I II I I I II I II I I II II I I II I I II I II I I I II II I I II I I II I I II II I II 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 �'. 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ..' PROGRAM , Invocation ....................................... Rev. A. W. Wis hart • Toastmaster...........................Rev. Travan H arrison ORDER OF BUSINESS Address ................................................Rev. 0. T. McGinn President's Report Vaudeville .........................................................Special Acts Minutes of Last 1\leeting Singing by Times FourW. Campbell Leon Heyer Henry Geelhoed Orton Moses Treasurer's Report Committee Reports Elections Classic Dancing...... Miss Agnes Helen H armer M usic................................. Foote's Novelty Orchestra Piano-"That's All" ............... Paul H. Estabrook 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 II I I I I I I I I I I 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 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 �• 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ''DOPE'' ' MENU Canoe Coach Leo Cook won the 1919 dry land swimming contest. Radishes Celery Cream of Fresh M.ushrooms, Croutons Lou Hodges has retired from athleticswife's request. Bellevue Toast Kissenger has a 100% average in lost games at tennis. How about the purse? Roast Young· Turkey, Cranberry Sauce Potatoes in Cream Wally Gill may have been ''salty'' when he was in the navy- but he was the first man to ''hit the rail'' on our Chicago boat trip. Hubbard Squash McMillan and McDonald sure wicked hoof when they jazz. Romaine Egg Dressing throw a Chee·se Wafers Kortlander says this is his last seasonsaid the same thing in 1912. Neopolitan Ice Cream , Assorted Cake Demi Tasse George Fitch has added another cylinder to his speedster. Rolls Cayvan says ''for the love of Mike get a spring board with some spring in it.'' • ' IIII IIII IIII IIIII 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 , Pete1~sen could row if he had a fast boat. May-be-so. . t 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 �lllllllllllilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllJIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ''DOPE'' 1 AMERICA My country, 'tis of thee, Sweet land of liberty, Of thee I sing; Land ,vhere my fathers died, Land of the Pilgrim's pride, From ev'ry mountain side, Let freedom ring. Alex Sweeney is figuring on the mezzanine floor for his clubhouse. President Huntley Russell announces that he will not join Mack Sennett's Bathing Beauties. There's a reason. Our father's God, to thee, Author of liberty, To thee we sing; · Long may ou1~ land be bright, With freedom's holy light, Protect us by thy might, Great God our King. Ex-Oarsman Conlon's 1919 training consisted of billiards and fox trots. Ad.ded equipment- steel bottom shell fo1~ Charles McQuewan. • 2 ,' ON MOONI_JIGHT BAY We were sailing along- (We ·were sailing along) On Moonlight Bay- (on Moonlight Bay) We could hear their voices ringing, They seemed to say-(They seemed to say): You have stolen her heart-(Y ou have stolen her heart) ''Now don't go 'way,''- (Now don't go 'way) As we sang Love's Old Sweet Song, On Moonlight Bay-(on 1\1:oonlight Bay). lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllJIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIU �• 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 3 4 JOHNNY'S IN TOWN Down in our alley each Suzie and Sally Is rolling their eyes, up to the skies, Looking so spooney, I thought they were looney, 'Till one of the girls put me wise, Their little secret is out, here's what the fuss is about. Chorus Johnny's in town! Johnny's in town, And Oh, Dearies! Oh, Dearie! He's been around. He speaks French and everything, You should hear him when he _g oes a -la-la, I'm glad he's home, he's such a dear, And I haven't seen him in a year. Oh, just think of it, Clarice! • The new French maid I just hired, He spent two months in Paris, Will have to be fired. For Oh! Oh! Johnny's in town! NON-ALCOHOLIC BLUES I love my country, 'deed I do! But this war is making me blue, I love fighting, it's my middle name, But fighting is the least about the fightin' game. When Mister Hoove1" said to cut my eating down, I didn't even hesitate, I didn't frown, I cut my sugar, I cut my coal, But now they've dug away down deep in my soul. Cho•r us I've g·ot the blues! I've got the blues! I've got the· alcoholic blues, No more beer my heart to cheer, So long, whisky, you used to make me frisky. So long, high hall! So long, gin, Tell me are you ever coming back again? I got the blues! I got the blues! Since they amputated my booze. Lordy ! Lordy ! war is well? You know I don't have to tell. Oh! I g·ot the alcoholic blues! 5 •.'°: • ALFALFA HAY (No words necessary) ,.' I II II I II I I I II I I I I I I II I I I II 11111111111111111111111111111111111111 i 11111111111 II I 1111 If I I I I I I II I II II I II II I II 11111111111111 . �l~lll l lltlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111rr1111111n11111111111r1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111n1111111 7 6 TELL ME , I've some questions dear, You can make them clear. For your answers, I am yearning Like a schoolboy seeking learning. Ah, though I've sea1~ched in vain With my might and main All the knowledge learned at college, Still that don't explain. Chor11s Tell me! ,vhy nights are lonely, Tell me! why days are blue, Tell me! why .all the sunshine Comes just at one time when I'm with you. Why do I hate to go, dear, And hate to say good-bye, Why is it always so, dear, And if you know dear Please tell me, do! GOOD MORNING, MISTER ZIP Good morning, Mr. Zip, Zip, Zip, With your hair cut just as short as mine; Good morning, Mr. Zip, Zip, Zip, You're surely looking fine. Ashes to Ashes and Dust to Dust, If the Camels don't get you, the Fatimas must. Good morning, Mister Zip, Zip, Zip, With your hair cut just as short as Your hair cut just as sl1ort as Your hair cut just as short as mine. 8 OH, WHAT A PAL WAS MARY Mary o' mine, Mary o' mine, Grew like a rose in a bower, Bloomed for a day, Faded away. I lost a beautiful flower, Sweetheart and friend Right to the end, That's why I miss her so. Chorus Oh, what a gal was Mary, 011, what a pal was she, An angel was born on Easter morn, And God sent he1~ down to me. Heart of my heart was Mary, Soul of my soul divine, Thougl1 she is gone, love lingers on, . For Mary, old pal of mine ...... · I '•. ~. 1111111111 111111111111111 I I If 1111 H I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I II 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 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 111111111111111 • �111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 9 I'M FOREVER BLOWING BUBBLES I'm dreaming dreams, I'm scheming schemes, I'm building castles high, They're born anew, their days are few, Just like a sweet butterfly, And as the daylight is dawning · 'They come again in the morning. Chonls I'm forever blowing bubbles, Pretty bubbles in the air. They fly so high, nearly reach the sky, Then like my dreams, they fade and die. Fortune's always hiding. I've looked everywhere, I'm forever blowing bubbles, Pretty bubbles in the air. • 10 NOBODY KNOWS (A11d Nobody Seems to Care) I'm sad and lonely, There's a good reason why, Nobody cares about me, That1s why I'm sad as can be. I long for some one, Somebody, y~J, indeed, Lo, in' kisses from one Is exactly what I need. Chorus Many's the time I feel so lonesome, But nobody knows And nobody cares. I've grown so tired of being by my ''own some,'' I want somebody to hug, Cuddle and snug as comfy as a bug in a rug. Many's the time I feel like spooning, But nobody knows And nobody cares. I gt1ess I'll make out a little ''ad'' That I want some lovin' so bad 'Cause nobody knows And nobody see1ns to care. 1 11 I'LI.J SAY SHE DOES (No words necessary) 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 � 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 Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club collection Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club Description An account of the resource Scrapbooks of newsclippings, photographs, postcards, and ephemera of the Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club. Photos were taken at regattas on Reeds Lake; the Grand River; Peoria, Illinois; and in Chicago of club members, and events. Historical articles, reports of regatta events, and articles featuring members Charles McQuewan and Jack Corbett are included. Programs include the First Grand Regatta on Great Salt Lake 1888, and Peoria Rowing Festival, and banquet and music programs and the GR Log, a publication of the Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club. Materials from the Central States Amater Rowing Association, and the National Association of Amateur Oarsmen are also included. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource circa 1980s to 1940s Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/481">Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club scrapbooks, (RHC-54)</a> Subject The topic of the resource Grand Rapids (Mich.) Outdoor recreation Boats and boating Racing shells Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-54 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 RHC-54_Ephemera-GRRC_E11 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1920-01-26 Title A name given to the resource 1920 Annual Meeting and Banquet Program and Menu Description An account of the resource Program and menu for the Banquet of the Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club at the Pantlind Hotel. The first couple of pages list the officers, directors, and commiteemen, then the program and menu, two "dope" pages listing notable events of the season, and then seven pages of the songs to be played. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Grand Rapids Rowing Club Subject The topic of the resource Grand Rapids (Mich.) Outdoor recreation Boats and boating Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/481">Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club scrapbooks (RHC-54)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/">No Known Copyright</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/ff32de9aed727c845d433a81d733347f.pdf ea932ac5b817e4072535b6b87c2341f3 PDF Text Text .AND . . . . A· OE · ·. ·.· .. ·. · L- B · .· . · · . . �' ' r 1· • ANNUAL MEETING AT THE .. - .- . .. ; ' • MONDAY EVENING, JAN. 29TH - • I �• MENU PROGRA11 CREAM OF TOMATOES ~ BELLEVUE CRoUTENs SouFFLE MIXED OLIVES Van Ditsens Orchestra Music T oAsT Rev. Charles McKenzie INVOCATION BUSINESS MEETING AND ELECTION OF OFFICERS RADISHES LARDED TENDERLOIN OF BEEF T 0ASTMAS'T ER · Dave W arnner SELECTIONS Victor Quartet .. MusHROOM SAUCE W. Millard Palmer ADDRESS RISSOLE POTATOES GREEN PEAS Miss . .Alberta Shepherd SOLO DANCE FRENCH ROLLS Vernon Foote SAXAPHONE SOLO HEART OF LETTUCE FRENCH DRESSING Victor Quartet SELECTIONS CHEESE \Y/ AFERS ., John Q. Emery ADDRESS NEoPOLITAN lcE CREAM •• REPORT OF ELECTION TELLERS •• AssoRTED CAKE ' COFFEE ADJOURNMENT �THE CALL OF THE COACH 1 By Morris J. White LOVIN' SAM Here we are again, for our yearly fete, A round of stories and lightsome jest; From care and worry a slight rebate, In an hour's comraderie, aptly stressed; It is one of the things that I like the best. Like best but one-to the oarsman true, There's - a haunting call that can never restThe call of the coach: •'Give way! One·-two ! '' There's a charm in golf, with its art au fait, In motoring, fishing, a lure confessed; There's a thrill in hunting to compensate For the· tortuous trail of the wild game quest; You may count me in for the roughest test. Yes, count me in-but a!l seasons through, There's a latent cry of my heart possessedThe call of the coach: ''Give way! One-two!'' In the swirl of trade I participate, With civic duties am often pressed. Then, too, a luncheon, tete-a-tete, (With the only girl in the world, you've guessed) Gives a final touch to a life thrice blest. Not final touch-I'd all el~e eschew For a far flung voice, o'er the wavelet's crestThe call of the coach: ''Give way I One·-two !'' • Though a banquet's fine, with its cheer impressed, Give me a boat and a strong armed crew And the crisp commands that high laurels wrestThe call of the coach: ''Give way! One-two!'' ''After you have been called you must hitched.'' A new song by Bill Devereaux . . be , People call him Lovin' SamHe's the Sheik of Alabam', He's a mean love makin', a heart breakin' man! And when the gals go strollin' by Boy! he rolls a wicked eye! Does he step? Does he strut? That's what ·he doesn't do nothin' else but! Could you love like Lovin' Sam You could have you eggs and hamIn the finest kitchens down in Alabam'. You'd make the high-brown babies cry for ya, Like babies cry for Castoria I . They all love Lovin' SamThe Sheik of Alabam'. Phil. Thorndyke (about to have his picture taken)-Just a minute; I have forgotten my perfume. 2 MY SUNNY TENNESSEE I wanna be in Tennessee, in my Dixie paradise, An angel's voice I hear, I mean my mammy dear. I'd give my soul if I could stroll down among those hills again, F o ·r all the world would not be dreary then. I'd love to go to sleep and know, that tomorrow I'd arise, beneath those southern skies, Where song birds harmonize. Lawdy hear my plea, Make me what I wanna bea rolling stone-just rolling home to my sunny Tennessee.' �' 3 5 THREE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING LI'L LIZA JANE It' s three o• clock in the morning, We• ve danced the whole night throughAnd day-light soon will be dawning, Just one more waltz with you. 'That melody so entrancing, Seems to be made for us two, I could just keep right on dancing forever dear with you. There goes the three o •clock chime, chiming, rhym. 1ng. My heart keeps beating in tuneSounds like an old sweet love tune, Say that there soon will be a honeymoon. It's three o• clock in the morning, We've danced the whole night through , And daylight will be dawning. Just one waltz with youThat melody so entrancing Seems to be made for us two, I could just keep right on dancing forever, dear, with you. Ned R.- Are you smoking a Corona'? Charlie Mc.-No. I'm playing a mouthorgan. I've Li'l I've Li'l -got a gal an• you got none, Liza Jane 1 got a gal an' you got none, Liza Jane. CHORUS Ohe Liza, Li'I Liza Jane. Ohe Liza, Li'l Liza Jane. Come my love and marry me, Li'l Liza Jane, I will take good care of thee,. Li'l Liza Jane, Liz a Jane don e cum t e r me, Li'l Liz a Jane, Bof as happy as can be, Li'l Liza Jane, --·--Chuck A. {Looking at Bill Beukema' s newly painted canoe ) - Understand Bill put most of the paint on himself. Brownie- He did, the n he hired Bill Leece to put the rest on the canoe. 4 - ·- - - - TOMORROW 6 Tomorrow, tomorrow. How happy I will be, ~ .. Tomorrow, tomorrow, Back on my mammy• s knee. Lawdy me! what a great delight, When I get a familiar sight, Of the fuzzy old cat sneakin · from the stable, Lickin · up milk on the kitchen table, I know, tomorrow, A pair of loving arms, Will hold me, enfold me as of yore, Somehow I just can't wait for a choo-choo train, I'll hop right in an aeroplane, And be in my Dixie home again, tomorrow. • LET'S ALL BE GOOD PALS TOGETHER Let's all be good Pals together, That's the spirit that should fill the air; Let's smile in all sorts of weather, Treat ev' ry-body fair and square, Remember, we should be thankful to be here; To err is human, to forgive divine, Let's all be good Pals together, For when you're gone you're gone a long, long time. �7 CALL ME BACK, PAL O' MINE I am thinking today of ,a pal far away, That I left in the days long ago, I am longing to hear just a voice ringing clear Oh! how I miss you so. Refrain: Call me back, Pal O' Mine, Let me roam once again down in old lover· s lane as I did in the days gone by, Let me live in your arms, let me thrill with your charms, Let me kiss those sweet lips, so divineLet me gaze in your eyes and I'll find Paradise. Call me back to your heart, Pal O' Mine. 8 SAILING A'LONG- MOONLIGHT BAY 9 ALFALFA HAY Dinie- 1 suppose you want to be a pirate when you grow up. Quig-No; just a respectable bootlegger. ,. ''H ow to -. tell if a girl loves you," co·m piled by Bachelor If she If she If she If she If she If she M. Ryan, matrimonial statistician: likes your mother and the family canary. knocks you and praises your dog. spurns you. says she doesn't. says she does. says nothing at all. • � 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 Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club collection Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club Description An account of the resource Scrapbooks of newsclippings, photographs, postcards, and ephemera of the Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club. Photos were taken at regattas on Reeds Lake; the Grand River; Peoria, Illinois; and in Chicago of club members, and events. Historical articles, reports of regatta events, and articles featuring members Charles McQuewan and Jack Corbett are included. Programs include the First Grand Regatta on Great Salt Lake 1888, and Peoria Rowing Festival, and banquet and music programs and the GR Log, a publication of the Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club. Materials from the Central States Amater Rowing Association, and the National Association of Amateur Oarsmen are also included. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource circa 1980s to 1940s Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/481">Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club scrapbooks, (RHC-54)</a> Subject The topic of the resource Grand Rapids (Mich.) Outdoor recreation Boats and boating Racing shells Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-54 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 RHC-54_Ephemera-GRRC_E08 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1923-01-23 Title A name given to the resource 1923 Annual Meeting and Banquet Program and Menu Description An account of the resource Program and menu for the Banquet of the Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club at the Pantlind Hotel. On the title page, pencil script listing the names Conlon, Kotlands, Bullock, and Lassen. Five pages at the back liosting the songs and lyrics of the music to be played. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Grand Rapids Rowing Club Subject The topic of the resource Grand Rapids (Mich.) Outdoor recreation Boats and boating Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/481">Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club scrapbooks (RHC-54)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/">No Known Copyright</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/e1e44173aa5bece0c3611d247d42e898.jpg 731bb822d3404134a2e18bf60d9cdfa1 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 Robert H. Merrill photographs Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Merrill, Robert H., 1881-1955 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1909/1950 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Robert H. Merrill papers (RHC-222) Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copyright Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-222 Description An account of the resource Photographs, negatives, and lantern slides digitized from the papers of engineer and archaeologist Robert H. Merrill. A Grand Rapids native, Merrill held an accomplished career as a civil engineer. He founded the company Spooner & Merrill, which held offices in Grand Rapids and Chicago. From 1919-1921, Merrill lived in China, working as Assistant Principal Engineer on a reconstruction of the Grand Canal - the oldest and longest canal system in the world. Merrill became fascinated by archaeology, and among other projects, he traveled to the Uxmal Pyramids in Yucatan, Mexico, with a research expedition from Tulane University. Merrill's photo collection includes images of his travels and projects, friends and family. Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. 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 Merrill_NE_64_1927_001 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1927 Title A name given to the resource 1927 Macatawa Fire Description An account of the resource Black and white photograph of the burnt remains of a house. Burnt wood is seen surrounding a stone chimney. The surrounding woods appear burnt. Subject The topic of the resource Macatawa, Lake (Mich.) Michigan Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Robert H. Merrill papers (RHC-222) Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copyright Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpg Language A language of the resource eng Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Merrill, Robert H., 1881-1955 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/f93e4c6ddab1bfe592d91acab949b52c.jpg e3defb52ec62fe3e09a60a8c52dcf7de 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 Robert H. Merrill photographs Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Merrill, Robert H., 1881-1955 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1909/1950 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Robert H. Merrill papers (RHC-222) Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copyright Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-222 Description An account of the resource Photographs, negatives, and lantern slides digitized from the papers of engineer and archaeologist Robert H. Merrill. A Grand Rapids native, Merrill held an accomplished career as a civil engineer. He founded the company Spooner & Merrill, which held offices in Grand Rapids and Chicago. From 1919-1921, Merrill lived in China, working as Assistant Principal Engineer on a reconstruction of the Grand Canal - the oldest and longest canal system in the world. Merrill became fascinated by archaeology, and among other projects, he traveled to the Uxmal Pyramids in Yucatan, Mexico, with a research expedition from Tulane University. Merrill's photo collection includes images of his travels and projects, friends and family. Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. 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 Merrill_NE_64_1927_002 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1927 Title A name given to the resource 1927 Macatawa Fire Description An account of the resource Black and white photograph of the remains of cottages along the shoreline of Macatawa. Burnt wood and the foundations of cottages are the only remains. Subject The topic of the resource Macatawa, Lake (Mich.) Michigan Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Robert H. Merrill papers (RHC-222) Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copyright Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpg Language A language of the resource eng Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Merrill, Robert H., 1881-1955 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/ed7ce9ea26edd7bfbd86870ceca2a89f.jpg abf016e1b8d51bd6896d393102697086 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 Robert H. Merrill photographs Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Merrill, Robert H., 1881-1955 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1909/1950 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Robert H. Merrill papers (RHC-222) Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copyright Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-222 Description An account of the resource Photographs, negatives, and lantern slides digitized from the papers of engineer and archaeologist Robert H. Merrill. A Grand Rapids native, Merrill held an accomplished career as a civil engineer. He founded the company Spooner & Merrill, which held offices in Grand Rapids and Chicago. From 1919-1921, Merrill lived in China, working as Assistant Principal Engineer on a reconstruction of the Grand Canal - the oldest and longest canal system in the world. Merrill became fascinated by archaeology, and among other projects, he traveled to the Uxmal Pyramids in Yucatan, Mexico, with a research expedition from Tulane University. Merrill's photo collection includes images of his travels and projects, friends and family. Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. 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 Merrill_NE_64_1927_003 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1927 Title A name given to the resource 1927 Macatawa Fire Description An account of the resource Black and white photograph of the remains of two cottages at Macatawa. The photograph is taken from behind the two foundations looking towards the lake. Three people are visible walking on a path between the two cottage foundations. Subject The topic of the resource Macatawa, Lake (Mich.) Michigan Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Robert H. Merrill papers (RHC-222) Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copyright Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpg Language A language of the resource eng Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Merrill, Robert H., 1881-1955 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/02de00577829533ffe1934d99ad86dd0.jpg 8d959b69c95e33594fb867ac442dc35c 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 Robert H. Merrill photographs Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Merrill, Robert H., 1881-1955 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1909/1950 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Robert H. Merrill papers (RHC-222) Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copyright Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-222 Description An account of the resource Photographs, negatives, and lantern slides digitized from the papers of engineer and archaeologist Robert H. Merrill. A Grand Rapids native, Merrill held an accomplished career as a civil engineer. He founded the company Spooner & Merrill, which held offices in Grand Rapids and Chicago. From 1919-1921, Merrill lived in China, working as Assistant Principal Engineer on a reconstruction of the Grand Canal - the oldest and longest canal system in the world. Merrill became fascinated by archaeology, and among other projects, he traveled to the Uxmal Pyramids in Yucatan, Mexico, with a research expedition from Tulane University. Merrill's photo collection includes images of his travels and projects, friends and family. Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. 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 Merrill_NE_64_1927_004 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1927 Title A name given to the resource 1927 Macatawa Fire Description An account of the resource Black and white photograph of the foundations of multiple cottages next to forest areas. People are seen walking among the remains of the cottages. Subject The topic of the resource Macatawa, Lake (Mich.) Michigan Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Robert H. Merrill papers (RHC-222) Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copyright Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpg Language A language of the resource eng Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Merrill, Robert H., 1881-1955 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/f4f451beef031b242464b94ee04522d8.jpg 1dbbccc37ca9b848ef87599ec59b48e4 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 Robert H. Merrill photographs Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Merrill, Robert H., 1881-1955 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1909/1950 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Robert H. Merrill papers (RHC-222) Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copyright Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-222 Description An account of the resource Photographs, negatives, and lantern slides digitized from the papers of engineer and archaeologist Robert H. Merrill. A Grand Rapids native, Merrill held an accomplished career as a civil engineer. He founded the company Spooner & Merrill, which held offices in Grand Rapids and Chicago. From 1919-1921, Merrill lived in China, working as Assistant Principal Engineer on a reconstruction of the Grand Canal - the oldest and longest canal system in the world. Merrill became fascinated by archaeology, and among other projects, he traveled to the Uxmal Pyramids in Yucatan, Mexico, with a research expedition from Tulane University. Merrill's photo collection includes images of his travels and projects, friends and family. Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. 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 Merrill_NE_64_1927_005 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1927 Title A name given to the resource 1927 Macatawa Fire Description An account of the resource Black and white photograph of a boardwalk heading toward the lake that passes between where two cottages stood. Subject The topic of the resource Macatawa, Lake (Mich.) Michigan Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Robert H. Merrill papers (RHC-222) Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copyright Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpg Language A language of the resource eng Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Merrill, Robert H., 1881-1955 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/a1fc6e2fbd7bf43d5bebe0f4ddd181d3.pdf d674c6604bb10fe68cc0724d302da319 PDF Text 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/. Title A name given to the resource Summers in Saugatuck-Douglas Collection Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Kutsche Office of Local History Description An account of the resource Collection contains images and documents digitized and collected through the project "Stories of Summer," supported by a National Endowment for the Humanities Common Heritage Grant. The collection aims to document the twin lakeshore communities of Saugatuck and Douglas, Michigan, as they transformed through the state's bustling tourism industry and acceptance of minorities. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1910s-2010s Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Various Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/">Copyright Undetermined</a> Subject The topic of the resource Michigan Saugatuck (Mich.) Douglas (Mich.) Michigan, Lake Allegan County (Mich.) Beaches Sand dunes Outdoor recreation Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries. Allendale, Michigan Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Saugatuck-Douglas History Center Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Stories of Summer (Common Heritage project) Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Text Language A language of the resource English Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 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 DC-07_SD-Brigham-D_0037 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Brigham, D. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1958-07 Title A name given to the resource 1958 Saugatuck-Douglas telephone directory Description An account of the resource Pages from 1958 telephone directory for Saugatuck-Douglas Subject The topic of the resource Michigan Saugatuck (Mich.) Allegan County (Mich.) Telephone--Directories Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Digital file contributed by D. Brigham as part of the Stories of Summer project. Relation A related resource Stories of Summer (project) Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/">Copyright Undetermined</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/38356bc13dee8de6b992ada9eba1b65a.jpg bb470bf11f28ab1e8d98ab6e3c335cec 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 Honors Institute for Young Scientists (HIFYS) Scrapbook Subject The topic of the resource Science--Study and teaching East Grand Rapids (Mich.) Grand Rapids (Mich.) University of Michigan Description An account of the resource The Honors Institute for Young Scientists provided a competitive scholarship to an advanced summer educational program in science and math for high school juniors and seniors in the Grand Rapids, Michigan area. It expanded to include approximately 12 states by 1962. In 1966, Grand Valley State College took over the program, changing its name to the Honors Institute for Young Scholars. The scrapbook includes articles and photographs of the Honors Institute for Young Scientists (HIFYS) in Grand Rapids. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Honors Institute for Young Scientists Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/465">Honors Institute for Young Scientists (RHC-38)</a> Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2017-03-28 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC-NC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted</a> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpg Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-38 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1958-1966 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Source <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/465">Honors Institute for Young Scientists (HIFYS) scrapbook, RHC-38</a> 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 RHC-38_HIFYS64 Title A name given to the resource 1961 Honors Institute for Young Scientists program wraps up Subject The topic of the resource Honors Institute for Young Scholars Honors Institute for Young Scientists East Grand Rapids (Mich.) Grand Rapids (Mich.) Grand Valley State College Science--Study and teaching University of Michigan Science Description An account of the resource 1961 HIFYS program wraps up, article in the Grand Rapids Press, July 22, 1961. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Honors Institute for Young Scientists Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives Language A language of the resource eng Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC-NC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1966 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Type The nature or genre of the resource Image https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/67e28a0c212cf7cd37a224bbda44b05a.jpg ea7862dcc7288c6105322798f5ab0b46 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 Summers in Saugatuck-Douglas Collection Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Kutsche Office of Local History Description An account of the resource Collection contains images and documents digitized and collected through the project "Stories of Summer," supported by a National Endowment for the Humanities Common Heritage Grant. The collection aims to document the twin lakeshore communities of Saugatuck and Douglas, Michigan, as they transformed through the state's bustling tourism industry and acceptance of minorities. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1910s-2010s Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Various Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/">Copyright Undetermined</a> Subject The topic of the resource Michigan Saugatuck (Mich.) Douglas (Mich.) Michigan, Lake Allegan County (Mich.) Beaches Sand dunes Outdoor recreation Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries. Allendale, Michigan Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Saugatuck-Douglas History Center Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Stories of Summer (Common Heritage project) Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Text Language A language of the resource English Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. 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 DC-07_SD-Red-Misc-44 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1976 Title A name given to the resource 1976 Season Ticket Order Form Description An account of the resource A red and white advertisement for the Red Barn Theatre that includes an order form fot season tickets for the Red Barn Theatre. It also has a map that describes how to get to Saugatuck. 1976 is handwritten in a white box in the lower right. Subject The topic of the resource Michigan Saugatuck (Mich.) Douglas (Mich.) Community theater Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Digital file collected by the Kutsche Office of Local History from the Saugatuck Douglas History Center for the Stories of Summer project. Relation A related resource Stories of Summer (project) Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/">Copyright Undetermined</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg 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/99a2c3704a31af619ad223f200bb23e5.jpg ed08f2336d133715f3285cdfd8dac78d 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 Summers in Saugatuck-Douglas Collection Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Kutsche Office of Local History Description An account of the resource Collection contains images and documents digitized and collected through the project "Stories of Summer," supported by a National Endowment for the Humanities Common Heritage Grant. The collection aims to document the twin lakeshore communities of Saugatuck and Douglas, Michigan, as they transformed through the state's bustling tourism industry and acceptance of minorities. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1910s-2010s Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Various Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/">Copyright Undetermined</a> Subject The topic of the resource Michigan Saugatuck (Mich.) Douglas (Mich.) Michigan, Lake Allegan County (Mich.) Beaches Sand dunes Outdoor recreation Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries. Allendale, Michigan Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Saugatuck-Douglas History Center Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Stories of Summer (Common Heritage project) Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Text Language A language of the resource English Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. 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 DC-07_SD-Red-Misc-64 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1979-06-12 Title A name given to the resource 1979 Schedule of Events Description An account of the resource A three panel pamphlet for the Gilbert & Sulivan Festival of Western Michigan, which occured from June 12 to July 1, 1979 at the Red Barn Theatre in Saugatuck. It includes a schedule of events, a map to locate Saugatuck, and a photo of an actor who is saluting in costume. Subject The topic of the resource Michigan Saugatuck (Mich.) Douglas (Mich.) Community theater Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Digital file collected by the Kutsche Office of Local History from the Saugatuck Douglas History Center for the Stories of Summer project. Relation A related resource Stories of Summer (project) Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/">Copyright Undetermined</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg 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/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/ff9b9dfe64206f4fa991ae2ba59f2b83.jpg f8d7a9eea1150b56415514ded7b4c370 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 Faces of Grand Valley Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource University Communications Description An account of the resource A non-comprehensive collection of photographs of Grand Valley faculty, staff, administrators, board members, friends, and alumni. Photos collected by University Communications for use in promotion and information sharing about Grand Valley with the wider community. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1960s - 1990s Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived GV012-03. University Communications. Vita Files Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copryight Subject The topic of the resource Grand Valley State University College administrators College teachers Colleges and universities -- Faculty Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. Special Collections and University Archives Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GV012-03 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Language A language of the resource eng Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. 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 1984_BoardofControl Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. University Communications Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1984 Title A name given to the resource 1984 Board of Control Description An account of the resource 1984 Board of Control, [Left to Right]: Arend D. Lubbers, Barbara Van't Hof, Robert Kleiner, Arnold Ott, Maxine Swanson, Robert Hooker, Earl Holton, and William Pickard. Subject The topic of the resource Grand Valley State University – History College administrators Michigan Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived University Communications. Vita Files, 1968-2016 (GV012-03) Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. Special Collections and University Archives Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copyright Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Language A language of the resource eng 1984s 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/0d1e7af25c18bbbf00ae1812e9b89c2d.jpg 372aa59e05f9248b40e26a9e1f27e4c5 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 Ronald Oakes collection Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Oakes, Ronald Description An account of the resource Collection of photographs by Ronald Oakes, who served in the U.S. Marine Corps during the Vietnam War, and in the U.S. National Guard in the Iraq War. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1968/2005 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/628">Ronald Oakes Vietnam and Iraq war photographs (RHC-80)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Iraq War, 2003-2011 Vietnam War, 1961-1975 Veterans Photographs Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives Relation A related resource Veterans History Project interviews, RHC-27 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-80 Language A language of the resource eng Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. 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 RHC-80_Oakes-Vietnam-Scan-090618-0019 Title A name given to the resource 1st Marine Division band keeping the men occupied around April 27th just south of Hue Subject The topic of the resource Vietnam War, 1961-1975 United States--History, Military Marine Corps Military life Soldiers Photographs Description An account of the resource 1st Marine Division band keeping the men occupied around April 27th just south of Hue. The men were waiting for a B-52 bombing mission to bomb a village the men had to go through. Two weeks before, the company had traveled through the village and taken a large number of casualties. We lost half of the company. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Oakes, Ronald Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Ronald Oakes Vietnam and Iraq photographs (RHC-80) Veterans History Project interviews, RHC-27 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Vietnam War Language A language of the resource eng Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg 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/134e95cb66ddbebbc069e60da2b0cbfd.jpg 0fdf4b7f6c29a5c9218b6e747b333f2f 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 Robert H. Merrill photographs Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Merrill, Robert H., 1881-1955 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1909/1950 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Robert H. Merrill papers (RHC-222) Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copyright Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-222 Description An account of the resource Photographs, negatives, and lantern slides digitized from the papers of engineer and archaeologist Robert H. Merrill. A Grand Rapids native, Merrill held an accomplished career as a civil engineer. He founded the company Spooner & Merrill, which held offices in Grand Rapids and Chicago. From 1919-1921, Merrill lived in China, working as Assistant Principal Engineer on a reconstruction of the Grand Canal - the oldest and longest canal system in the world. Merrill became fascinated by archaeology, and among other projects, he traveled to the Uxmal Pyramids in Yucatan, Mexico, with a research expedition from Tulane University. Merrill's photo collection includes images of his travels and projects, friends and family. Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. 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 Merrill_Graflex_A_1936_011 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1936-09-20 Title A name given to the resource 20 Lamont mound looking E Description An account of the resource Black and white photograph of two people standing next to a small mound and a wire fence. Trees are visible in the background. Subject The topic of the resource Lamont (Mich.) Mounds Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Robert H. Merrill papers (RHC-222) Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copyright Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpg Language A language of the resource eng Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Merrill, Robert H., 1881-1955 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/2e1ae962c3852d5660fa42fa91122792.pdf f1401863cce4080b30d3c512b0d54d84 PDF Text Text Welcome Anthony Clemons and Mallory Kaysserian "You Can Play"video By Joe Miller and Mark Switzer Ambassador of the Year - Christine High Presented by Lindsay Greyerbiehl Out 'N' About Member of the Year - Carol Nichols Presented by Alex Gillis Entertainment Ally of the Year- Margie Munoz Presented by Carrie Christian Pipeline Recognition Presented by Emily West Entertainment Student Service Award- Anna Rayburn Presented by Colette Seguin Beighley and Carrie Christian FQA Recognition Presented by Lindsay Greyerbiehl Entertainment Milt Ford LGBT Leadership Award - Cynthia Mader Presented by Milt Ford LGBT Resource Center FIERCE Award - Diana Pace Presented by Colette Seguin Beighley Entertainment Reception We would like to thank our entertainers, Sigifredo Pizana and Gabriella Galore. � 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 GVSU Sexuality and Gender Flyers Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource The Rainbow Resource Center Women and Gender Studies Department Women's Commission Gayle R. Davis Center for Women and Gender Equity Description An account of the resource Digitized posters, flyers, event notices, and other materials relating to gender expression and sexuality at Grand Valley State University, with materials spanning from 1974 to 2019. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1974/2019 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Digitized from collections at the Rainbow Resource Center (formerly the Milton E. Ford LGBT Resource Center), Women and Gender Studies Department, Women's Commission, and Gayle R. Davis Center for Women and Gender Equity. Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copyright Subject The topic of the resource Gender identity Gender expression Sexual orientation Women's studies Queer theory Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections and University Archives. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context DC-09 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 DC-09_SGF_LGBTQ_2013_Pride-Awards_Flyer.pdf Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2013-03-27 Title A name given to the resource 2013 Pride Awards Flyer Description An account of the resource The flyer outlining the order of events for the reception. Subject The topic of the resource Sexual minorities Community centers Gay pride celebrations Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/">In Copyright</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 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived The Rainbow Resource Center Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource The Rainbow Resource Center https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/5503279015d50a4c3a407fde8b09a025.pdf 5fc4f0761fdbb6a69f7a67277c2382ae PDF Text Text people who have positively impacted the LGBT community at GVSU. Wednesday, March 27th at 5pm 2204 Kirkhof Center For more information email: lgbtcenter@gvsu.edu @ G ¥ALLEY STATE UNIVERSITY LGBT RESOURCE CENTER � 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 GVSU Sexuality and Gender Flyers Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource The Rainbow Resource Center Women and Gender Studies Department Women's Commission Gayle R. Davis Center for Women and Gender Equity Description An account of the resource Digitized posters, flyers, event notices, and other materials relating to gender expression and sexuality at Grand Valley State University, with materials spanning from 1974 to 2019. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1974/2019 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Digitized from collections at the Rainbow Resource Center (formerly the Milton E. Ford LGBT Resource Center), Women and Gender Studies Department, Women's Commission, and Gayle R. Davis Center for Women and Gender Equity. Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copyright Subject The topic of the resource Gender identity Gender expression Sexual orientation Women's studies Queer theory Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections and University Archives. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context DC-09 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 DC-09_SGF_LGBTQ_2013_Pride-Awards_Poster.pdf Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2013-03-27 Title A name given to the resource 2013 Pride Awards Poster Description An account of the resource Poster with information of the event, including the place, time and date. Subject The topic of the resource Sexual minorities Community centers Gay pride celebrations Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/">In Copyright</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 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived The Rainbow Resource Center Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource The Rainbow Resource Center https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/2e57adb0c6c4a16fb40c35ae66337885.pdf 89822ac21544c594a9cdc92c35075063 PDF Text Text Welcome Brandon Fitzgerald and Nathan Bentley Ally of the Year- Rhonda LeMieux Presented by Carrie Simmons Ambassador of the Year - Andrew Collier Presented by Lindsay Greyerbiehl Loud & Queer Recognition Presented by Emily West and Rachael Blansett Entertainment Outstanding Student Award - Tyler Stringer Outstanding Student Award - Rachael Blansett Presented by Lindsay Greyerbiehl and Emily West FQA Recognition Presented by Lindsay Greyerbiehl and Tyler Stringer Entertainment Dedicated Faculty Award - Dr. Scott Berlin Presented by Colette Seguin Beighley Solidarity Award - Dr. Donald Mitchell, Jr. Presented by Colette, Emily and Lindsay Entertainment Milt Ford LGBT Leadership Award - Colette Seguin Beighley Presented by Gary Van Harn LGBT Resource Center FIERCE Award - Dr. Milt Ford Presented by Colette Seguin Beighley Entertainment Reception We would like to thank our enterta iners, El iana Ri ley, Nathan Bentley, Jacob Guajardo, Quey Hunt, Zerka, Kayla Martin and Salvia. � 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 GVSU Sexuality and Gender Flyers Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource The Rainbow Resource Center Women and Gender Studies Department Women's Commission Gayle R. Davis Center for Women and Gender Equity Description An account of the resource Digitized posters, flyers, event notices, and other materials relating to gender expression and sexuality at Grand Valley State University, with materials spanning from 1974 to 2019. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1974/2019 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Digitized from collections at the Rainbow Resource Center (formerly the Milton E. Ford LGBT Resource Center), Women and Gender Studies Department, Women's Commission, and Gayle R. Davis Center for Women and Gender Equity. Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copyright Subject The topic of the resource Gender identity Gender expression Sexual orientation Women's studies Queer theory Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections and University Archives. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context DC-09 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 DC-09_SGF_LGBTQ_2014_Pride-Awards_Flyer.pdf Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2014-03-25 Title A name given to the resource 2014 Pride Awards Flyer Description An account of the resource The flyer outlining the order of events for the reception. Subject The topic of the resource Sexual minorities Community centers Gay pride celebrations Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/">In Copyright</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 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived The Rainbow Resource Center Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource The Rainbow Resource Center https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/698466dd106522c5e58f20b3b4944564.pdf 89ff0fe6cc26d373008b70736e6a6cf5 PDF Text Text • &e6iate ... ·d Aono~ people who have positively impacted the LGBT community at GVSU. ~ '·r 1 l . •M. , · :.~- ! J \,f ·-r ... -- ".' . . ~ .-·1''?" 'I '-i Tuesday, March 25th at 5 p.m. 2204 Kirkhof Center For more information email: igbtc enter@,gvsu.edu 1 @ GR .:, '·. VALLEY 5TATEUN1.V ERSIT Y 1 LGBT R 'ESOURC'E CENT f R � 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 GVSU Sexuality and Gender Flyers Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource The Rainbow Resource Center Women and Gender Studies Department Women's Commission Gayle R. Davis Center for Women and Gender Equity Description An account of the resource Digitized posters, flyers, event notices, and other materials relating to gender expression and sexuality at Grand Valley State University, with materials spanning from 1974 to 2019. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1974/2019 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Digitized from collections at the Rainbow Resource Center (formerly the Milton E. Ford LGBT Resource Center), Women and Gender Studies Department, Women's Commission, and Gayle R. Davis Center for Women and Gender Equity. Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copyright Subject The topic of the resource Gender identity Gender expression Sexual orientation Women's studies Queer theory Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections and University Archives. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context DC-09 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 DC-09_SGF_LGBTQ_2014_Pride-Awards_Poster.pdf Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2014-03-25 Title A name given to the resource 2014 Pride Awards Poster Description An account of the resource Poster with information of the event, including the place, time and date. Subject The topic of the resource Sexual minorities Community centers Gay pride celebrations Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/">In Copyright</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 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived The Rainbow Resource Center Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource The Rainbow Resource Center https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/ccd8978f8be7872a51a95686f3f6fea6.pdf dbb16588a8812e484ff4c1de5428abf1 PDF Text Text and Aono~ people who have positively impacted the LGBT commun ity at GVSU. Tuesday, March 10th at 5 p.m. 2204 Kirkhof Center For more information email: lgbtcenter@gvsu.edu @ GRANDVALLEY STATE UNIVERSITY. --- ···· ~l11Tc)< E.F6Ro - LGBT RESOURCE Cl:NTER � 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 GVSU Sexuality and Gender Flyers Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource The Rainbow Resource Center Women and Gender Studies Department Women's Commission Gayle R. Davis Center for Women and Gender Equity Description An account of the resource Digitized posters, flyers, event notices, and other materials relating to gender expression and sexuality at Grand Valley State University, with materials spanning from 1974 to 2019. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1974/2019 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Digitized from collections at the Rainbow Resource Center (formerly the Milton E. Ford LGBT Resource Center), Women and Gender Studies Department, Women's Commission, and Gayle R. Davis Center for Women and Gender Equity. Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copyright Subject The topic of the resource Gender identity Gender expression Sexual orientation Women's studies Queer theory Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections and University Archives. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context DC-09 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 DC-09_SGF_LGBTQ_2015_Pride-Awards_Poster.pdf Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2015-03-10 Title A name given to the resource 2015 Pride Awards Poster Description An account of the resource Poster with information of the event, including the place, time and date. Subject The topic of the resource Sexual minorities Community centers Gay pride celebrations Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/">In Copyright</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 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived The Rainbow Resource Center Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource The Rainbow Resource Center https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/b4f77b803eb91c04e704224dad0fd1fb.pdf e4c0aa3ad10f124ae25695a33c823729 PDF Text Text Welcome Milton E. Ford Leadership Award Dr. Jessica Jennrich Entertainment-Ashlynn· Rowell and Erica Ruffner Service to Community Award Gary Van Harn Monica Johnstone GVSU LGBT Faculty/Staff Association PRISM Award Neal Rogness First-year Queer Alliance Recognition Loud & Queer, T2, and Intersections Ambassadors Recognition Entertainment - Roxy Cox Student Group Recognition QTPoC, Out 'N' About, In the Margins Outstanding Student Leader Award Andrew Collier SammMartin Alex Vail Entertainment- Natalia Walter Solidarity Award Alli Montaie Takeelia Garrett Faculty Engagement Award Dr. Coe/ Keegan Entertainment - Eric Lacerna Reception � 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 GVSU Sexuality and Gender Flyers Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource The Rainbow Resource Center Women and Gender Studies Department Women's Commission Gayle R. Davis Center for Women and Gender Equity Description An account of the resource Digitized posters, flyers, event notices, and other materials relating to gender expression and sexuality at Grand Valley State University, with materials spanning from 1974 to 2019. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1974/2019 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Digitized from collections at the Rainbow Resource Center (formerly the Milton E. Ford LGBT Resource Center), Women and Gender Studies Department, Women's Commission, and Gayle R. Davis Center for Women and Gender Equity. Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copyright Subject The topic of the resource Gender identity Gender expression Sexual orientation Women's studies Queer theory Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections and University Archives. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context DC-09 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 DC-09_SGF_LGBTQ_2016_Pride-Awards_Flyer.pdf Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2016 Title A name given to the resource 2016 Pride Awards Flyer Description An account of the resource The flyer outlining the order of events for the reception. Subject The topic of the resource Sexual minorities Community centers Gay pride celebrations Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/">In Copyright</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 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived The Rainbow Resource Center Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource The Rainbow Resource Center