Elmwood Citizens for Sensible Growth has engaged in a process of examination and analysis of the application that has been submitted by Wilderness Development for its “Glacier Bay” resort complex. We have pursued consultation with both accredited planning professionals and legal specialists in our review. As a group that speaks for many concerned citizens we would like to share the results of our enquiry with you in the form of this submission of formal public comment. We fully expect that this document will become an official part of the record of the Planning Commission’s deliberations regarding this application.
First, a few facts on this development and related topics:
1. When completed the Glacier Bay Resort, with 978 planned lodging units, will be about twice the current size of The Grand Traverse Resort in Acme. The GT resort currently uses in the neighborhood of 450 sanitary sewer “benefits” a real-world indicator of its size. The Glacier Bay development will nearly equal that size when phase one construction is complete.
2. In June of 2005 Great Wolf Resorts announced that due to poor occupancy rates investors could expect losses of up to $.03 per share. In reality losses topped $.08 per share triggering a massive stock sell-off and attending precipitous loss in stock value in August.
3. Elmwood Township is still struggling to bring the Timber Lee water system into compliance with standards many years after the system was constructed by a developer of commercial recreation for a project that never really got off the ground. The current zoning standard under which Glacier Bay is making its application was basically created to facilitate the Timer Lee development. Elmwood is still paying for mistakes made in the Timber Lee case.
Comment: Will the planning commission act to ascertain the financial stability of the applicant, and how will the commission act to safeguard the community against the failure of this enterprise, if approved, in the next 5, 10, or 20 years?
Glacier Bay and Elmwood’s Zoning:
The overriding theme of comment should speak to the fact that this development is too big, too intense, and too much of a risk to the community; and that the community has acted to protect itself from this kind of development in the formulation of its zoning ordinance and its master plan.
Comments relative to the zoning ordinance
1. The ordinance states that, “activities, structures and entry ways proposed to be located in this district are so situated and designed to minimize adverse effects upon owners and occupants of adjacent properties and the neighborhood including both public and private roadways...” (p. 78). How will this be accomplished in general regarding noise and light pollution etc, and in the case of Eitner Rd. in particular? How can neighbors that have chosen a quiet area with dark nights in which to live be guaranteed that they will not be adversely effected?
2. Glacier Bay claims that the primary outdoor recreational use as required in the zoning district is “swimming”. The ordinance requires that all other “PUD” uses be secondary to that primary use (p.79). All the listed secondary uses, excepting “Residential dwellings” (not a part of this project) are uses generally accepted as being commercial uses, that is, owned by a private entity and operated for profit. In fact, the ordinance defines “Recreational Facility, Commercial Outdoor” as, “Private enterprises,... that offer recreational opportunities to the public.” (p.17) Will the planning commission issue a finding of fact stating that both the primary and secondary uses as applied for here are commercial uses?
3. In its statement of intent, the Elmwood PUD Article states that the purposes of the Article are in part to be used in, “providing enhanced housing, employment, shopping, traffic circulation and recreational opportunities for the people of this Township...” (p.125). Can the Planning Commission find as fact that the statements provided by the applicant offer proof that the township’s housing stock (as described in the master plan) will be enhanced, that relative to occupational data contained in the master plan that employment opportunities will be enhanced, that shopping in Elmwood will be enhanced, that traffic circulation within the township will be enhanced?
4. The Elmwood PUD states further that “The provisions of the article (PUD) are not intended as a device for ignoring the Zoning Ordinance or the planning upon which it has been based...” (p.125) and that “The proposed PUD shall be in conformance with the Elmwood Township Master Plan,...” (p.126). The PUD Article further requires that the PUD District be created as an overlay district requiring that the property functionally be re-zoned (p.127). In addition the plan must be reviewed in the context of “Site Plan Review (Article 13.C). All 4 of these requirements tell us that the project must be found to comply with the Elmwood Township Master Plan. Can The Planning Commission find this to be so?
Comments relative to the Master Plan
1. By looking at the township’s “Future Land Use Map”, a figure following page 47 in the master plan, it can be seen that the area to be incorporated in the PUD overlay district is contained almost wholly within the map’s “Rural Low Density” classification. Will the Planning Commission make a finding of fact that this development lies almost wholly within the “Rural Low Density” classification?
2. Several pertinent discussions appear in the master plan’s section on Recommendations relative to activities and uses in the Rural Low Density classification. The Plan states on p.46 that development should be primarily residential in nature, but that the PUD option should be permitted to allow “some mixing of uses”, and that these should be planned to, “help meet the needs... as well as helping to create a sense of community for residents living in the developments. Examples of recommended retail uses would include coffee shops, bookstores, and small grocery stores.... Retail uses with large consumer draw and/or which have a large trip generation rate should be avoided.” (p. 46) Can the Planning Commission find as fact that the commercial PUD uses found in the Glacier Bay development are designed to meet the needs of residents of the development and scaled in such a way as to accomplish this?
3. On the same page of the master plan direct reference is made to the property in the Wilderness application, “Large outdoor recreation facilities may also be considered for properties in the Rural Low Density classification. Golf courses, riding stables and similar uses enhance the quality of life for residents and visitors to the area while helping preserve the open, rural character of the community. An example of this type of use is the recently permitted golf course located in the south-central portion of the township between M-72 and Hoxie road.” (p.46) The referenced golf course project included residential uses at the underlying density (1 unit per 5 acres). Can the Planning Commission find that the proposed Glacier Bay Resort resembles the cited residential/golf course proposal in any way?
4. This section of the Master Plan continues on page 47 to directly address issues central to the configuration of any development in the specific area this proposed project would occupy, “Another critical area of concern in this land use classification is the M-72 corridor. There is now, and will continue to be, pressure to develop this corridor with stand-alone commercial land uses. During an all day open house held on April 20, 1999, residents of the Township indicated overwhelmingly their desire to keep this corridor as a primarily residential area with limited access drives. This plan which adopts this sentiment, is not the first plan to take that position on M-72. The 1975 Leelanau County Plan planned for public/semi public uses (eg., golf courses, public towers, schools, et.) along M-72, west of Greilickville to the Township line. The Grand Traverse Bay Region Development Guidelines (Planning and Zoning Center, 1992) also designed a plan for the corridor which would enhance the open spaces and limit curb cuts.” Can the Planning Commission make a finding that in fact the proposed Glacier Bay Water Park honors in any way the specifically cited desire of the community to choose some form of low density residential development over commercial uses in this corridor?
5. In the Master Plan’s Goals, Objectives and Policies section, specific guidelines direct the township in matters dealing with commercial development. The stated goal of the plan is, “To maintain the existing commercial base and encourage only limited commercial development that satisfies local market needs without compromising the township’s rural character.” (p. 36) Can the Planning Commission find as fact that the development proposed by Wilderness Development is limited as suggested or works in any way to advance that goal?
6. Other statements in this section of the plan focus on this theme, as stated in “Objectives”, “Provide limited but reasonable opportunities for the establishment of commercial uses that meet the demonstrated market needs of local residents.” (p.36) Can the Planning Commission find as fact that the plan submitted by Wilderness Development contains evidence that proves that this project is scaled solely in terms of the market needs of the residents of Elmwood Township?
7. The Master Plan continues along this line, “Encourage limited local commercial development to occur in the established Greilickville area in the vicinity of M-22. Discourage commercial development from spreading along major thoroughfares outside of that area.” (p. 36) Can the Planning Commission find that The Wilderness Development proposal meets that criteria in any way?
8. In the same section the Master Plan addresses “Recreation Land Use” under one major goal, “Foster scenic and recreational opportunities that meet the needs of area residents.” (p. 37) Can the Planning Commission find that the uses proposed by Wilderness Development are limited in their scope to the desired scale that would by definition seek to provide for the recreational needs of area residents alone? Can the Commission support a finding along those lines as fact?
9. The primary strategy put forward in the Elmwood Township Master Plan to achieve the above goal is simply stated, “Provide public facilities and encourage private community facilities in size, character, function, and location suitable to the population and needs of the community.” (p.37) Can the Planning Commission find as fact that the proposal offered by Wilderness Development is scaled, located and designed in any way toward simply meeting the recreational needs of the community?
Issues stemming from impacts created by the construction and operation of the proposed development.
1. Traffic. The traffic study supplied by the applicant states quite simply that the M-72/M-22 intersection will fail at peak hours when this development is built out. The study also reports that traffic leaving the development at peak hours would be severely delayed (projecting a queue of 32 vehicles). The suggested remedy is to create an additional left-turn lane on to west-bound M-72 from Grand View Parkway, and to add a traffic light at the development entrance on M-72. Service traffic on Eitner Road and through Greilickville on Grand View is not mentioned. Can the Planning Commission justify this kind of impact on our community? Is anyone willing to begin an ever escalating cycle of road and intersection expansion on the very doorstep of our region’s most prized natural feature, Grand Traverse Bay? Are you ready to hold your vehicle at a stop light on the steep M-72 down-grade on a dark winter morning while you watch a 40,000 pound gravel truck roll down the hill behind you in your rear-view mirror?
2. Community Impact. The study commissioned by the applicant and provided by its project engineering provider, Gourdie Frazer is perfunctory and simplistic. The Elmwood Planning Commission needs to have this report reviewed by an independent consultant. Impacts need to be clearly defined, not disposed of by the citation of hardware capacities. The success or failure of this project, if approved, will have an enormous impact on life for residents and taxpayers in Elmwood. Where will Elmwood taxpayers stand if this business fails and the on-site water and sewer systems fail, or become the responsibility of the township? The developer must prove that he meets the standards for site plan review, not simply specify lighting that “should minimize” light pollution sources.
3. Economic Impact Study. The report seems to be based on research generated by the study of residential property values as effected by the construction of a Pharmacy. Other sources are anecdotal or admitted by the report to be “vague”. Will the Planning Commission rely on the information provided by the applicant, and on the scope of the supplied report, or will it commission a report or review from an independent source? Are the future property values of adjacent land the only factors the Commission intends to review, or are other factors important?
4. Environmental Impact. Is the Planning Commission satisfied that the applicant provided assessment covers all the areas it should? that it is complete and serviceable? Will it choose an outside, independent source for verification? Will it ask the independent verification supplier to apply the National Environmental Protection Act standards as a template in its review?
Conclusion
ECSG acknowledges the depth of planning that has gone into Wilderness’ application to this point, and also the care that has been taken in many areas to soften impacts and preserve green space, many times with expensive solutions including parking structures and extensive run-off containment. However we need the Planning Commission to consider fully and deliberately the above points, points that appear to directly conflict with many of the elements of this plan. We would ask that the Planning Commission discuss, devise, and submit to the developer, as required in the PUD article of the Township zoning ordinance, written suggestions detailing changes in the project that would bring it into conformance with the Elmwood Township Master Plan.
We would suggest that changes designed to bring the development into the Elmwod community and to scale commercial elements within the development could lead to a plan that would fully conform to our communities plan for the future.
We would suggest that a residential element planned to conform to local zoning would be in keeping with Master Plan guidelines. Commercial and recreational uses scaled, as the community plan suggests, to serving the residents of the development and the local area would be appropriate on this property. Consider including more conventional recreational elements for community use. Uses like a regulation pool that could be used by local school athletic departments for swimming and diving competition are examples of facilities that would help bring this project into conformance. Shaping this project to conform with Elmwood planning guidelines is critical and will cause impacts to fall within the abilities of state, regional and local agencies to deal with them.