« March 2006 | Main | May 2006 »
Telford Farms is an "intentional community" located near Cedar. The 90-acre site is owned by a group of families who each have their own house, but who share work, community, and the rest of the land.
This Free Press article describes a bit of the history and flavor of the place. Sounds pretty idyllic.
It seems there is more than one registered committee active in the effort to recall Elmwood supervisor Deri Smith. Trouble is, they all have the same organizers and the same street address. Voters may wonder whether there really is more than one group behind the effort, and if not, why they have gone to the trouble to make it appear that there is.
Mailings to township residents have been sent out now over the names of three different committees. One mailing, sent in early April, bore the name of Elmwood Citizens for Honest Government (ECHO). A subsequent mailing changed the name to Elmwood Citizens for Honest Officials. And a third mailing, sent last week, was from a group calling itself the Elmwood Township Alliance. All had different ID numbers, as required by law.
In every case the committees list the same street address on Bayview Court in Elmwood with the same organizer’s last name. Which raises the question: why the different committee names? Let’s assume that the Elmwood Citizens for Honest Government (ECHO) became the Elmwood Citizens for Honest Officials (ECHO) because it makes a better acronym. Where does Elmwood Township Alliance come from?
Some facts: Campaign finance laws specify that committees that spend less than $1000 do not need to file finance statements, nor to reveal the name of their donors. Campaigns that spend over $1000, on the other hand, must reveal all such information. In past Elmwood elections, the John Stanek / Noel Flohe party that is behind the recall received its biggest contributions by far from various Elmwood developers and developer wannabes. The current campaign certainly is an expensive one, with multiple, elaborate mailings and campaign signs. Could it be that this campaign is being financed again by contributions from developers and others who hope to benefit from a return to power by the Elmwood old guard of Flohe and Stanek? And that they, or the people running the campaign, would prefer to keep that information hidden?
Is it illegal to register multiple committees organized by the same people for the same ballot question? The Post will be researching this question. If it’s not, it should be, as it seems clearly intended to frustrate and circumvent the law’s intention to make clear the financing of election campaigns and keep the benefactors’ identities hidden from the voters.
There are a couple of things the people running the campaign against Deri Smith can do to lay to rest the suspicions that their campaign has been bought and paid for by developers. First: they can reveal a complete list of their contributors, with the amounts they donated. The Committee to Support Deri Smith has said they will do that. And second, they can explain the reasons behind this very unusual arrangement.
These “groups” need to come clean before the election takes place. Voters deserve to know who is bankrolling the campaign to recall Deri Smith.
A key witness in the recall campaign against Elmwood Township Supervisor Deri Smith has stepped back from the allegation that Smith threatened a female member of the Planning Commission. A mailing earlier this month from a group supporting the recall claimed that Elmwood township Planner Bill Swanson witnessed threats by Smith against an unnamed planning commissioner. But interviewed by the Post, Swanson characterized the allegation as “an exaggeration.” The mailing was sent by ECHO (Elmwood Citizens for Honest Government).
According to Smith, the conversation had to do with the costs of unauthorized contacts between the planning commissioner and the township attorney. A policy regulating such contacts was later put in place by the board.
Other charges associated with the recall campaign have also been called into question. In another mailing by the same group, allegations were made concerning Smith’s performance. As long ago as May 2005, however, Suttons Bay Village Manager Chuck Stewart told members of the group in writing that the allegations were unfounded. Nevertheless, the charges continue to be circulated by the recall group.
The Michigan Land Use Institute's Julie Hay has a good analysis of the Northport recall contest here. (Hat tip: The Leelanau News Blog)
School officials in Suttons Bay are looking into the possibility of a merger with the Traverse City school system. Declining enrollments in Leelanau and TC have led to large budget deficits next year, and to a flurry of interest in mergers and collaborations as a way of trimming expenses.
This Leelanau Enterprise story has the details. Suttons Bay is coming off an experiment where they shared a superintendent with Glen Lake schools. All the Leelanau school districts have engaged in talks about various forms of collaboration and cooperation, but one obstacle has been the different millages assessed in the different districts. Suttons Bay and Traverse City are alike in that they both assess the maximum millage on non-homestead properties, 18 mills, which is more than most other Leelanau districts are willing to pay for their kids' educations.
If the two districts were joined, Suttons Bay students would have access to TC's Montessori and Talented and Gifted programs. That would be a plus, as I can testify from personal experience.
According to Glen Lake's outgoing superintendent, Tom Harwood, the legal form of the merger would be an annexation of the Suttons Bay district by TC.
On Tuesday, May 2nd Elmwood township voters will be asked whether or not to recall Supervisor Deri Smith from her position. We believe the answer is “No.” Deri Smith has always put the interests of all of Elmwood’s citizens first. She has made real progress in a number of important areas, cleaning up the troubled township marina, reorganizing the Planning Commission so that progress can be made on the township’s divisive land use issues, and steering Elmwood away from the embarrassing and expensive legal battles that characterized the previous administration.
If Smith has been so successful, why has a recall campaign been mounted against her? A look at the campaign’s organizers tells a great deal. Chief among them are two officials who were tossed out by voters in the 2004 election: former trustee John Stanek, and ex-supervisor Noel Flohe, whom the Record-Eagle once referred to as a “regional embarrassment.” A recent mailing from the recall group declared its intention to “take back” the township. It seems these former officials, already rejected by the voters once in 2004, are seeking to reverse the results of that election and to seize power by other means. Most of the other organizers are either closely associated with those who lost their cushy positions at the marina, or developers who see Smith as an obstacle to their plans to subdivide the township.
The fact of the matter seems to us to be that Smith is being opposed precisely because she has been making progress in Elmwood. Believe it or not, there are people who want to see the process of drafting a new zoning ordinance fail, or who see the township government primarily as a source of lifetime employment for themselves and their friends. We don’t think that’s what a majority of Elmwood voters want, and we urge them to make their voices heard next Tuesday.
Deri Smith’s opponents are motivated and well-organized. If the decent, public-spirited voters of Elmwood don’t turn out, they will allow a small group of special interests return the township to its bad old days next Tuesday. That would be a shame.
A nice article in the online magazine Slate about the beauty of cherries--tarts, sweets, and others--with a nod to the Cherry Capital.
The most successful newspaper in Leelanau County has been the Leelanau Enterprise-Tribune, but there have been a number of other newspapers in the county through the years as well.
Since the Enterprise's beginning on an autumn day in early October 1877, by B.H. Derby, the paper has not missed a weekly publication. As of this writing (April 22, 2006), 6,630 issues of the Enterprise-Tribune have been published.
When the Enterprise began, its home was in the Village of Northport, which was the county seat of Leelanau County. When the county seat moved to Leland in January 1883, the Enterprise moved with it, and was published there until 2000 when it moved to Lake Leelanau.
The second publisher of the Enterprise was W.C. Nelson, beginning in 1879, and he published the paper until 1925, longer than anyone. Dayton Selby was publisher from 1925 to 1939, being succeeded by Gerold Selby, publisher until 1943. From 1943 to 1948, the paper was published by Fred and Julia Dickinson. Julia wrote a column called "Leelanau Lookout," which continued until June 1967. She later reported on news from the Glen Lake area for the paper, and wrote "The Story of Leelanau," published in 1951.
In 1948, the Enterprise was sold to Karl and Clarice Detzer, and in March 1950, the Northport Tribune, begun in 1942, was purchased by the Detzers. Their paper became the Leelanau Enterprise-Tribune, which they sold to Don Gorden and E.J. Ziebell in 1951.
In 1961, Mr. Gorden was succeeded by C.G. Egeler, and he and Mr. Ziebell were the publishers until 1975, when they sold the paper to Richard Kerr. Since 1997, the paper's owner and publisher has been Alan Campbell.
The Leelanau Enterprise-Tribune has had some unique mastheads. Since 1877, the title of the paper has been printed in old English style lettering. When the Dickinsons published the paper three drawings appeared under the title, compliments of Fred Dickinson. On the left was a picture of the fishing boat harbor (Fishtown) in Leland with a Great Lakes ship drawn in. The
middle picture was an early map of Leelanau County, published when Lake Leelanau village was called Provemont, and there were the villages of Good Harbor and North Unity. The picture on the right was a farm with a cornfield, and a quail perched on a fence. There was a cherry branch to the right of the farm, and one of the Manitou Islands was in the background, as well as another Great Lakes ship sailing. Later, only the two ships from the illustrations appeared, and today, only the old English letters of the paper's title remain.
Like most weekly newspapers, the Enterprise-Tribune publishes local news only. About the only times other news was reported was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, and President Kennedy's murder in November 1963. Some editorials also dealt with state or national issues.
In December 1944 and January 1946, the Enterprise published special history editions, which covered events and stories of interest of the early history of Leelanau County, and annual history sections have been published every latter part of winter since 1986.
Advertisements appeared on the front pages in the early days, but are now on the inside pages, and classified ads have their own section in the paper. One regularly printed classified ad is worth noting, because the man who ran it was a fixture in Leelanau County. During the 1970's, Preston Smith's ad offered a free search service for old and out-of-print books, and he could be reached at Box No. 2 in Omena. He also reported on happenings in the Omena area for the Enterprise-Tribune until he passed away.
The Leelanau Enterprise did not have a monopoly on newspaper publishing in Leelanau. In
addition to the Northport Tribune, that village also had the Leelanau Tribune in the early 1870's, Leelanau Co. News until 1915, and the Northport Leader from 1903 to 1941. Empire had the Leelanaw Leader in the 1890's, Empire Leader until 1901, and Empire Journal from 1901 to about 1914. Provemont (now Lake Leelanau) had the Courier until it moved to Suttons Bay
in 1921, and published until November 1960. Suttons Bay also had the Tribune in the 1880's, and the Bazoo. There were also the Suttons Bay Telephone in 1882, and the Leelanau News in the 1910's. The Suttons Bay Courier's final competitor in the village was the Leelanau Co. Times from 1947 to 1949. Other newspapers in Leelanau County were the Burdickville Meteor in the 1870's, the Leelanau Republican in Greilickville in 1890-1891, and the Maple City Mirror. Cedar also had its own weekly newspaper.
Today, the only other source of print news in addition to The Leelanau Enterprise is the Glen Arbor Sun, published by Norman Wheeler. On the internet, Andrew McFarlane's leelanau.com (www.leelanau.com/news) has published continuously since March of 1998, and the Leelanau Post (www.leelanaupost.com) since 2005.
~ Thomas Baird
[Updated 4/23/06]
A Leelanau County sheriff's deputy was recently fired for having a relationship with a woman whom he investigated.
According to this Record-Eagle story, Bruce Beeker was dismissed because he had a "consensual" relationship with a woman whom he first met when responding to a domestic violence case.
Representatives of five area townships, including Elmwood, voted Friday to accept Gordie-Fraser's proposed fixes to its failed Grand Traverse County septage plant.
Acme Township Supervisor Bill Kurtz was the lone dissenter. According to the Record-Eagle, Kurtz said the original design "was poorly designed, poorly constructed, and had poor oversight." Of Gordie-Fraser, he added "I have no confidence in them."
In the wake of the shakeup to their leadership, House Republicans have promoted our congressman, Rep Dave Camp (R-Midland), to serve as spokesperson for the effort to make President Bush's 2003 tax cuts permanent.
Camp got off to a rocky start in his new position when he misstated the facts about who benefits from such cuts. Camp claimed on the House floor that "Nearly 60 percent of the taxpayers with incomes less than $100,000 had income from capital gains and dividends.''
In fact, I.R.S. data show that among the 90% of taxpayers who make less than $100,000, just one in seven benefited from the cuts in dividend taxes and just one in 20 from the capital gains reduction.
Questioned about the discrepancy, Camp asserted through his office that he had been mislead by a House staffer, but that making the cuts permanent was ''good policy and good for our economy.''
Although they do little for the middle and working classes, the tax cuts have been a bonanza for the richest Americans. Among those making more $10 million a year, tax bills have gone down an average of $1 million per year as a result of the Bush cuts. These taxpayers, whose average income is $26 million per year, pay about the same share of their income in income taxes as those making $200,000 to $500,000 per year, thanks to the investment tax cuts championed by Camp.
Leelanau Sheriff's Department deputy Bruce Beeker has been dismissed for violating "department policies and procedures."
According to this Record-Eagle article, Sheriff Mike Oltersdorf has declined to be any more specific about Beeker's offenses, citing Beeker's rights to dispute his firing.
This little guy escaped from his trailer today on Grandview Parkway near Toms. After wandering through various parking lots, he headed west up M-72, pursued by multiple squad cars, tv crews, and curious bystanders
I'm sure you'll see him on the news tonight. At the rate he was going, he'll be in Empire around midnight.
Update 4/20/06: The calf was eventually captured by Elmwood Township Trustee Terry Lautner, a man who has some experience with cows. The Record-Eagle has a picture.
A free workshop on pruning apple trees will be held on May 5 at the Sleeping Bear National Lakeshore. The release says:
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore is hosting a free pruning workshop May 5, 2006 from 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. in the Port Oneida Rural Historic District. This year’s workshop will be held at the Miller Farmstead four miles north of Glen Arbor on M-22. The Miller orchard is located off Port Oneida Road on Miller Road. Attendees are not required to have any existing skill at pruning. The purpose of the workshop is to teach pruning techniques and train homeowners and the interested public how to restore and then maintain the health of antique apple trees.
The workshop will focus on the care and maintenance of old apple orchards. Participants will learn and practice 1) how to identify and properly remove dead materials from abandoned trees; 2) proper pruning of the canopy for optimum apple production; 3) maintenance and care of trees; 4) importance of ground cover in the orchard; and 5) equipment safety.
“Thanks to the dynamic partnership between the Leelanau Conservation District, Michigan State University Northwest Michigan Horticultural Station, and the County Extension Master Gardener Program, the National Park Service is able to offer this hands-on training” says National Lakeshore Superintendent, Dusty Shultz. These partners provide the technical expertise, while an historic orchard in the park benefits from some overdue care and attention. The park is proud to and grateful for the opportunity to host this 2nd Annual event.
Interested parties should contact Kimberly Mann at (231) 326-5135, ext. 501 to sign up for the workshop or by email at kimberly_mann@nps.gov. Participants will meet at 1:00 p.m. for orientation at the Port Oneida Schoolhouse on Port Oneida Road, 4 miles north of Glen Arbor on M-22. There is no cost, and tools, handouts and materials will be provided. Participants must wear sturdy shoes and gloves. In case of rain, the event will be rescheduled for May 8 at the same time and location.
Elmwood Township Planning Commission members voted Tuesday night to table a vote on two important amendments until their May 2 meeting. The two amendments would have established new standards for the Recreational-Commercial (RC-1) zoning district and for PUD (planned unit development) developments. The second amendment has attracted attention for its innovative use of a "hearing officer" who would review and, in one version, decide on PUD applications. The use of a hearing officer is common in other states, but seems to be unprecedented in Michigan. Advocates for the practice (including township attorney Jim Young) say it can help depoliticize a process that is often controversial.
The vote on the two amendments was put off in order to give the planning commissioners and staff time to analyze and digest comments from the public, including a lengthy and detailed comment from the Gordie-Fraser company. The local engineering firm is representing the Glacier Bay water park proposed for the township's largest RC-1 parcel. Several planning commissioners expressed chagrin that the Gordie-Fraser comments were presented only on the evening of the meeting, with no time for review. The Glacier Bay developers have said that they want their project to be considered under the ordinance as it is currently written, without the proposed amendments, and--perhaps coincidentally--the late submission of Gordie-Fraser's comments will have the effect of delaying any implementation of the new amendments.
Turkey vultures obtained their name because of the similarity of their head to that of the turkey.
Though classified for many years as a raptor, the turkey vulture is now considered to be more closely related to storks and should therefore be classified in the order ciconiiformes instead of falconiformes. Nevertheless, it is still usually placed in bird books with the falcons and hawks.
The DNA of the turkey vulture points to a common ancestor with storks. Contrary to raptors and vultures of Eurasia and Africa, turkey vultures are less aggressive and have weak, turkeylike feet more suitable to running than grasping prey. Moreover, their beaks are thinner and weaker than their old world relatives.
Generally they appear in Leelanau in late March and have left for warmer climes by the end of October.
Their diet, besides carrion, includes plants such as pumpkin and bits of other crops as well as shoreline vegetation. Turkey vultures will not feed on live prey. To find food they depend on very keen eyesight and sense of smell. (It may be the only bird in North America that has a sense of smell.)
According to the Michigan Breeding Bird Atlas published in 1991, the turkey vulture is not a confirmed breeder in Leelanau County. However, according to data acquired after 1987, it has been confirmed as a breeding species there. All nesting sites were found to be in abandoned buildings. Other potential nesting sites are on the ground in dense thickets, in caves, hollow logs and stumps, brush piles, and abandoned hawk nests.
Turkey vultures often return to the same nesting site year after year. Though they are commonly found soaring over open fields, in Michigan, their nesting places are often in or on the edge of woodlands. This bird does not “build” a nest but rather digs a sort of depression in the soil or debris surrounding it. Their clutch usually consists of 2 eggs which must be incubated for 38 to 41 days. Both parents incubate. Egg dates in Leelanau are likely from late April through May. Eggs hatch in June through mid July. The young fledge 70-80 days after hatching. This is an extensive period of vulnerability, hence their secretive, isolated, nesting sites. Juvenile turkey vultures have black heads.
The Michigan Breeding Bird Atlas indicates that only 27 of 1,850 blocks had confirmation of nesting. One breeding bird block is 9 square miles. Research indicates also that the home range of a breeding pair is equal to about 12 Atlas blocks, or 3 townships. Interpretation of data is further complicated by the tendency of not just two birds but a sizable group to gather at a food source. Additionally they are commonly found to roost regularly at local sites where the number of roosting birds has been found, at times, to exceed 50 birds.
Turkey vultures are often seen standing or perched with their wings extended. Suggested reasons for this are drying the wings, warming the body, and baking off bacteria.
Turkey vultures have been claimed by some to spit or vomit on potential predators with the claim that the “smell” of the vomit or its acidic content is a deterrent. If most birds are unable to smell, this suggestion is untenable except in the case of non-avian predators. Others suggest that the vulture vomits to reduce its weight to enable a quick escape and that the vomited material will induce its attacker to give up pursuit and instead slake its hunger by consuming this free meal.
Turkey vultures are skilled, graceful gliders. The ratio of bird weight to wing area is low which enables them to remain aloft for long periods of time without flapping their wings. They consistently fly with their wings in a pronounced dihedral (v-shape). This along with their tippiness in flight renders them quickly identifiable by birders. Their dependence on thermals for flight ensures that they do not remain in Leelanau County during the winter.
~bob c.
Your National Lakeshore is losing some eight acres of woodland this spring. The trees are being removed to modify The Homestead Resort’s sewage disposal system. It’s a story that began 34 years ago, and one most folks find quite surprising—
Back in the early ‘70’s, when Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore was an infant, the owners of a large tract of property east of the resort faced being required to sell the land for creation of the new park, as did others whose property had not been developed before 1964. However, unlike most folks, they 1) apparently had very good lawyers, and 2) had a major family interest in The Homestead. They came up with the idea of selling an easement for a 13-acre “seepage area” to the resort, for $1. When the property was purchased for the Park, it came encumbered with the easement. Effectively, the owners had avoided giving up use of the land, while getting paid for it.
While the easement gave the resort considerable control over the property, at least the Park was able to utilize the surface of the land. Everyone knew what a seepage area was—a system of underground pipes that allowed wastewater to seep into the soil. Meanwhile, cross-country ski trails crossed the land above, hunters staked it out, and mushroom-lovers roamed it.
Unfortunately, during the ‘80’s the Homestead’s sewage system began to fail. It was overloaded, and DNR tests showed that the groundwater was being polluted. Sewage oozed from hillsides. Citizens threatened lawsuits. The resort came up with the idea of spraying their partially-treated sewage out over the ground, allowing the vegetation to absorb some of the nitrogen that had been causing problems. Anxious to resolve the problem, the superintendent of the Park agreed to the program, with the condition that most of the existing trees (and there were some huge ones) would remain.
During following years there have been numerous problems, including spray that routinely drifts over the easement boundaries to surrounding Park lands. The system has never been properly maintained, and has not functioned adequately. The groundwater again tests over prescribed limits.
Now the resort has decided that the old trees need to be removed and replaced with a grass mixture that can absorb more nitrogen. Although experts have stated that the spray system never should have been allowed, officials have concluded that the Park cannot now contest the spray or the tree cutting.
The land is now being clear-cut. It’s too late for the trees, but concerned citizen groups such as Northern Michigan Environmental Action Coalition (NMEAC) and Michigan Land Use Institute (MLUI) are now watching, and will try to make sure the system is properly built and maintained to avoid the continuing drift of hazardous spray. MLUI's contact for information is Julie Hay, Leelanau County Policy Specialist, 941-6584; julie@mlui.org.
Remember the picnics we had at the springs / The sails in the moonlight, the Sunday night sings / The calm of the lake in the dawn's early light / Leelanau, Leelanau, land of delight. So goes the song quoted in the opening graph of this NY Times piece. And, as the author says, we often add another line "And don't tell anyone else."
That's kinda how I feel about articles like these. I cringe. I'm afraid that Leelanau County will be "discovered" and overrun with tourists gripping their torn-out copies of this or another guide to Leelanau. On the other hand, the piece does remind us (as if we could forget) what an absolutely wonderful place this is.
One last thing. The author details the natural splendors, the restaurants, the wineries. And those are all good. But what is that's so heart-rending about the song quoted at the start of the article? Isn't it the picture of the families singing this song as a summer up north ritual? For many of us, Glen Lake or Lake Leelanau or wherever was the place we came together as families. The families may be gone (replaced by other young families, no doubt). But the place endures.
Here are the texts of the new Zoning Ordinance amendments to be discussed at the public hearing on Tuesday, April 18. See this article for details and analysis of these new measures.
There are two versions of the proposed PUD language. In this one, the hearing officer in effect makes a final decision on the matter before them. In this version, the hearing officer simply makes a recommendation to the township Board of Trustees.
Here is the language for the Resort Commercial (RC-1) District.
Forgive us, please while we blow our own horn. The Leelanau Post is featured in the Our Town section of the Record-Eagle today. (Not available in the online version, unfortunately -- what's up with that?) So hurry on down to your local newstand if you want to see a photo of our fearless publisher and her loyal editor, and to read a very nice article.
Update: The webmaster from the Record-Eagle considerately contacted me to say that because the article was written by a freelancer, the RE does not have the rights to post it on the online edition. (See the comment below.) So that's why it's not online.
With the announcement of a public hearing scheduled for Tuesday, April 18th, to be held at the Elmwood Township Hall at 7pm, the Elmwood Township Planning Commission is inviting the public to take a look at the first installment it is proposing for the township's developing new zoning ordinance. Intended to be adopted both into Elmwood's existing zoning ordinance, and to become a part of its new ordinance, the proposed code consists of newly defined standards for the township's Resort-Commercial zoning district, and of newly defined standards for the implementation of Planned Unit Development (PUD) projects. Currently the Resort Commercial district is the only zoning district in Elmwood to accommodate PUD projects.
Elmwood entered into a zoning up-date process in the mid 1990s with a stated goal of producing a new master plan and a new zoning ordinance to support it. After a period of public input and one false start, the township board accepted and unanimously adopted a master plan in 1998. The creation of the plan had been facilitated by consultants Wade Trim Associates while working in conjunction with the Elmwood Planning Commission. The plan received universal support at the planning commission level at the time of its completion as well. With phase one behind them, the Elmwood Planning Commission began work on its new zoning ordinance by hiring consultants from the Gourdie-Fraser engineering firm to assist in putting the zoning code together.
The process never progressed smoothly. Work on the ordinance began almost concurrently with the Planning Commission's involvement with a controversial project known as Lincoln Meadows. Elmwood government insiders at the time were to face court scrutiny based on apparent conflict of interest problems arising from the review of that project, along with criticism stemming from perceived issues with their interpretation of zoning rules. The ongoing battle over the propriety of that development was to run for years pitting citizens on one side against the Township and project developers on the other. While becoming more deeply embroiled in their problems with The Meadows, The same officials were growing more and more alarmed with the zoning ordinance draft they were being presented with by Gourdie-Fraser. Rather than creating the possibility for suburban development as represented by Lincoln Meadows, ordinance drafts written to back up the township's master plan were expressly calling for something more substantially in support of rural living and agricultural uses in the ag-openspace district. Gourdie-Fraser was (and still is) Elmwood's contract engineering firm. At the time they were preparing marina expansion projects, a water system expansion, and were working as consultants for applicants for land use approvals before Elmwood planning staff, boards and commissions. The Gourdie-Fraser planner that had been working on the zoning ordinance project was removed from the job. Over the protests of a vocal minority of planning commissioners and closely engaged members of the public, the Elmwood Planning Commission went on to write permissive development standards into the ordinance in the face of a master plan that required something else, submitting an ordinance that was finally adopted by the Elmwood Board of Trustees late in 2002. By July of 2003 that ordinance had bee rejected at the polls in an overwhelming referendum vote by township voters.
The elected township board of 2000-2004 and its planning commission could never come to grips with accommodating the provisions of the Elmwood Master Plan and accepting the voters' will to have that plan adhered to in a zoning ordinance. The planning commission and its consultant pushed and prodded at the failed ordinance but never addressed the essential elements that lead to its downfall. No progress was made until after the election of 2004.
The election of 2004 introduced several voices that had argued against the defeated zoning ordinance to the township board and administration, and had excused several township officials that been seen as the primary authors of both the Lincoln Meadows and the zoning ordinance debacles. Change was in the air. On top of the election results, it was discovered that appointments to the planning commission had been so hopelessly entangled that it had become impossible to determine which terms were valid, and which seats were lawfully occupied. On the advice of the township attorney the planning commission was dissolved and created anew. In the process many fresh voices became a part of the official discussion. The Board of Trustees hired a new, more independent, planning consultant, and the process has been rejuvenated.
The ordinance up-dates to be presented on Tuesday April 18th are the first fruits of Elmwood's fresh look at zoning issues, and as such offer an interesting first glance into the direction and forms zoning reform is likely to take. Language and standards put forth in the Resort Commercial rewrite are a particular contrast to existing code standards.
Where Elmwood's current ordinance lists possible outdoor recreational uses to be allowed in the district along with secondary commercial and recreational uses that may be constructed, the standards by which the planning commission is to measure the appropriate scale and intensity is left to its interpretation as to conformance with the master plan. Like more conventional ordinances, the proposed code sets out clearly measurable and definable requirements in black and white, requirements designed from the outset to back up Elmwood's master plan. While gray areas regarding the intensity and density of uses are largely eliminated, the flexibility of PUD development will still allow developers to configure uses to best serve successful design.
Developments in the PUD article itself are interesting in their innovation. While accepted and conventional in many areas of the country, Elmwood is presenting a PUD approval process based on the oversight of an independent administrative "Public Hearing Officer", something rarely if ever seen in Michigan. Current PUD application processes are lumbering and ungainly activities based on the presentation to and evaluation by the planning commission of vast quantities of technical data and reports. The commission must review all this, usually relying to a great extent on technical consultants, to make a committee decision on whether projects meet ordinance standards. The proposed Hearing Officer would be an expert independent planner, or an attorney with a municipal or planning specialty. That single administrator would conduct the public hearing where all evidence regarding the application pro or con would be submitted, and make a determination as to the suitability of the application following a detailed point by point review. Questions regarding the Officer's judgment would be taken up by the planning commission on a by request basis.
The striking qualities shared by both these proposals, in stark contrast to Elmwood's current rules, are those that function to de-politicize the interpretation of the rules and the process for approval. Its easy to see that the current authors are keenly aware of what has gone before in the township, and are striving to create easy to understand, easy to enforce, and easier to process zoning rules that support the provisions of the master plan.
While some of the standards presented in these two new Articles are deserving of further discussion, for instance residential development can still take place on a metes and bounds basis at 1 unit per 5 acres—a standard commentators on every side of the land use debate in Elmwood agree is a recipe for sprawl, one can only be impressed with the contrast these standards and procedures make in comparison to the existing codes.
It appears that Elmwood officials are determined to close the loopholes and define the gray areas that for years have caused the township to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to argue over interpretations of its obsolescent and contradictory zoning ordinance. It seems that the authority for direction and the object of the standards that are being created, finally, is the township master plan.
What's the difference between Michigan and Wisconsin? An interesting perspective.
[Editor's note: Don Coe is the managing partner of Black Star Farms near Suttons Bay and an important voice in the discussion of how develop Leelanau County's economy. The following remarks were recently submitted to the County Commissioners in connection with the discussion over a farmland preservation millage, and we are reprinting them here with Don's permission.]
First the good news. It is an established fact that agriculture and tourism are two of the mainstays for the economy in Leelanau County. It is also well recognized that these two endeavors are linked to many of the other economic sectors in the County whether they are residential construction for our non-homestead community, retail stores, restaurants, galleries, conservancies, and museums. Open land, national, state, and community parks, beaches, boat harbors, golf courses, ski hills, recreational trails, et al, are all linked to the mosaic that makes Leelanau County a place to live, work, play, invest, and raise families. This is the traditional and long held view of Leelanau County, and who can blame us for a certain smugness or satisfaction that “this is what we are and what makes us so special, and we are not going to change."
Second the bad news. There might be no reason to change if we lived in a static world or if our economy was thriving. In reality we do not live in such a world, and we cannot claim to be thriving. Leelanau County no longer enjoys an isolated position in either the world, Michigan or on Grand Traverse Bay. Leelanau County (projecting so proudly out into Lake Michigan) stands out prominently in any satellite photo, television weather report, or regional news coverage. We share exactly the same problems: low household incomes for our working families, declining school populations, illegal drugs, underemployment in seasonal jobs, deterioration or absence of essential infrastructure, increased demands for services, aging of our population, lack of affordable housing, pressures on water use, and urban sprawl - just to name a few. Can anyone deny that these issues have not been headline news in Leelanau County at one time or another or constantly for the last decade?
We have not escaped today's problems, but are we ready to address them? I sense a 1980's mentality about Leelanau County. We are still living in that time, and we are not completely sure we want to face up to today's challenges and responsibilities. Perhaps the problem is ours. Many of us came here in the 80’s, or our most active working years were in the 80's, and we are still living in that mindset. We remember when cherries were king in Leelanau's economy, tourism meant "those summer people", Sugar Loaf Resort offered some winter employment, our septic fields were not overflowing, and everyone was scandalized when the Sheriff talked about getting a drug dog. We came and we stayed because Leelanau County was beautiful, bucolic and yes, even boring. The 80's are gone. They will never come back, and Leelanau County will not be able to hide behind an old mindset.
My subject is Agricultural Tourism, and surprisingly enough this is a hot topic today - so much so that the Governor has just set up an Agricultural Tourism Commission housed within the Department of Agriculture to address this opportunity. If the subject of agricultural tourism is important enough to attract the attention of the bureaucrats in Lansing it certainly needs some attention in Leelanau County.
An old axiom is, "You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow's ear," and that is true for both agriculture and tourism in Leelanau County. We cannot expect to maintain or grow either agriculture or tourism in Leelanau County unless we move off our 80's mentality about either industry sector. We are not going to survive on one-crop “mono-culture” farming, lakeside resorts, and summer cottage residents. The cherry industry knows that, and the tourism industry has learned that. If we attempt to stay where we are, we doom ourselves to underemployment in seasonal jobs, a loss of farmland, and tourists finding other destinations. We will continue to grow houses rather than crops, watch our open land be consumed by urban sprawl, and become a bedroom community for wealthy retirees. We will see more of our young people departing for greater opportunities as we open more nursing homes and close more schools. Hardly a formula for building on what we now enjoy.
There is however, a way forward for Leelanau County. We are blessed with great natural resources, entrepreneurial business people who would like to live, work, play, invest, and raise families in Leelanau County, and the infrastructure for both agriculture and tourism. The barriers are only in our minds and in some of our public policies. We need to do a lot more to unleash the potential for both agriculture and tourism in Leelanau County so that the private sector can do what it does best.
I already hear someone saying, "Uh, oh, here comes another developer, spouting off about getting rich at our expense again - I just want it to be the same as it was - we don't need any change, particularly if it costs me anything - I am all right, let's keep it that way." However, there’s a funny thing about change…IT HAPPENS…and you either step aside, get run over, or jump on the wagon. The trick is to drive the wagon and that is called Smart Growth. What would Smart Growth be like in the agriculture and tourism sectors of Leelanau County?
Smart Growth for agriculture would be:
1. To get a grip on affordable farmland. We are losing farmland everyday to urban sprawl for all the reasons we know. As long as it remains more profitable to grow houses than to farm, that wagon is going to continue to run over our farming community. Any resource-based industry can only compete if it starts with an affordable resource, in this case the land. Maintaining agriculture will depend upon us underpinning agricultural land prices so that the farming community can be retained or we can attract new farmers. There are successful models for preservation of agriculture based upon farmland preservation. I can point to no successful models for agriculture preservation where highest land price has been able to determine the best use. If you want the best example take Napa Valley in California where the only way to stop sprawl and to keep agriculture was to establish the nation’s first agriculture preserve. There are no magic bullets, no government handouts. We have to decide whether we are going to support farmland preservation ourselves. That decision needs to be made by the people of Leelanau County.
2. To foster entrepreneurial agriculture or value-added or product agriculture. After the land, the most important ingredient is viable agriculture - the farmer has to make a living off his land. Successful farming is not a view shed it is a business. We have supported agriculture too long on the basis of growing a lot of commodity crops and growing them cheaply. That wagon is running over the farmer who is too small and who cannot compete in a world market. We do not have very large, low cost, commodity farms in Leelanau County. What we do have is specialty crops, smart farmers, and an established tradition of high quality, healthy food production. We are seeing growth in value-added agriculture in dozens of farm markets, fish, poultry, and beef suppliers, flower and herb growers, preserves, honey and maple syrup producers, wineries and cider mills as evidenced by MLUI's Taste The Local Difference program. We are seeing development of hydroponics, greenhouses, nutriceuticals, organics, and Community Supported Agriculture (CSI) farms. These are all based on doing more than simply growing a crop by adding processing, retailing, and marketing on the farm. One big advantage is moving from seasonal to year round employment. These all prove that if government policy, particularly in zoning restrictions, does not stand in the way and if land cost allow, the entrepreneur will invest in developing sustainable, value-added agriculture enterprises.
Smart Growth for tourism would be:
1. To encourage year round tourism development. We need to break the mindset and the reality of the "summer people" which restricts us to a very short season in northwest lower Michigan with all the dependence on a seasonal workforce. Leelanau County needs to be a year round tourist destination offering tourism jobs year round in Leelanau County. A destination today has to offer a variety of attractions in a variety of seasons. That is why we are so dependent upon our entire offerings in Leelanau County, not simply sun, beach, golf, and sailing. Our competitors know this well, and every time we drive away a new year round destination water park resort or a baseball field because of zoning or traffic or neighbor's concerns we benefit other destinations. We need to recognize that tourists have choices and they will go where they want to go and not necessarily for the reasons we treasure. We should be able to deal with local concerns by giving the developer an opportunity to do so rather than scaring him away up front in our press or public comments.
2. To build upon the agricultural heritage, the environment, and our multiple attractions to make Leelanau County the most successful agricultural/recreational/cultural tourism destination attraction in the Midwest. That could set us apart from other areas while ensuring our quality of life is maintained and enhanced. It won't be the 80's. Change will have occurred, but it will offer us a economic base more attractive to a young, stable work force that will continue to live, work, play, invest and raise families in Leelanau County. The alternative of becoming a bedroom community for Traverse City or a retirement home for downstaters is not appealing particularly when the cost for doing so will be so much higher than investing in a vibrant economy now.
There are very successful examples close to hand, and one of the best is the Niagara Peninsula of Ontario. They faced the same issues and have evolved into a major agricultural-recreational-cultural tourism destination by taking steps necessary to contain sprawl, to promote living in villages, to mix horticulture, viticulture and animal farming in townships, to support cultural and recreational attractions, and to manage through Smart Growth principals. We really have no choice. Like it or not, we are growing, but the way we’re growing is not smart and it’s threatening our way of life. Let’s work together to agree on public policies for Smart Growth.
Don Coe, Managing Partner
Black Star Farms
In a major reversal, the Leelanau County Board of Commissioners voted Tuesday to allow a public vote on a millage for farmland preservation. In a 4-3 vote, the Commissioners decided to put the measure on the ballot but to delay the review of the ballot language for a month.
Commissioner Hawley, Save Leelanau Farmland president George Wellman, County Administrator David Gill and a county attorney will finalize the ballot language including the date for the vote.
There was a large turnout of local farmers and residents who spoke in support of farmland preservation during the public speaking time period. Some who spoke against the proposal to put the measure on the ballot felt the program would not work well. Save Leelanau Farmland presented information from a survey showing that land use issues are the most important topics of concern for the public. The organization also presented data that shows that 70% believe the millage (0.5 mills/15 years) should go to the public for a vote.
Don Coe of Black Star Farms spoke about how the agricultural and tourism industries are linked so that saving farmland is an important part of encouraging prosperity in Leelanau County.
Commissioners Melinda Lautner of Solon, Mark Walter and Jean Watkoski of Elmwood voted against the measure. Commissioners Hawley, Buneck, Schliffet and Tonneberger voted yes.
I'm partial to Rieslings. I think the best wines from our region are Rieslings, and even when they cme from upstate New York or Germany (as many do), I still enjoy them.
Here's a New York Times article on the grape and its wines and the curious way in which they are often overlooked even by those who appreciate fine wines.
According to Michigan's constitution, each county's seat is determined by the registered voters of the county. When Leelanau County was created by the Michigan Legislature in 1863, a majority of the voters chose Northport to be the new county's seat. Since that time, the county seat has been relocated only twice, but there have been other proposals to change the county seat as well. One of these proposals was actually approved, but not officially carried out.
In 1883, the county seat was moved to Leland after a vote of the county's residents. After this, there were two more moves suggested, one of them that could be said to be a prelude to the recent move from Leland.
In 1920, a proposal was put on the county ballot to move the county seat to Suttons Bay. In the general election that year, the proposal was approved by the voters. However, for reasons not known, the move was never officially made and the county government remained at Leland.
Another proposed move of the county seat had its beginnings in 1956 when a ballot proposal for a new county jail was approved by the voters. Discussion started to determine where to build the new jail, some wanting it in Leland, and others believing another location would be better suited. The latter choice would have involved possibly another change in the county seat. The debate on the county seat issue began at a meeting of the County Supervisors in early 1958 when a resolution to move the county seat was introduced, and then was tabled. After the story was reported in the Leelanau Enterprise, people began to promote various communities for the new location, and the Suttons Bay Courier published a special section in its paper promoting the advantages of Suttons Bay. People living in Greilickville nominated their community, and Cedar was nominated by its local Chamber of Commerce because it was near the center of the county. After about a month and a half the matter was suddenly dropped, and the new county jail was built in Leland in 1959.
In the opening years of the twenty-first century, another proposal to build still another county jail was presented, and a new proposal to move the county seat to Suttons Bay was passed by the County Commissioners in 2004 and was approved by voters later that year. The new county jail has been completed just west of the village, but the official move from Leland to Suttons Bay has not yet taken place as of this writing.
-- Thomas Baird
Growing grapes for wine in Nothern Michigan involves a constant struggle to find enough hours of sun in the growing season.
Here's a story from the Record-Eagle about a grower on the other side of West Bay who is using plastic covers to prolong the season for grapes several weeks at the beginning and at the end. It's spendy, no doubt...but are the wines it yields worth it?
ARTICLE IX
RESORT COMMERCIAL RC-1
SECTION 9.1.0 INTENT
The RC-1 District implements the Elmwood Township Master Plan by maximizing protection of its rural atmosphere and its natural environment and by complementing the character of surrounding neighborhoods. This is accomplished by permitting resorts with limited commercial development that satisfy market needs of the local community, including seasonal residents and tourists, without compromising Elmwood Township’s rural/residential character.
Such commercial resorts must help maintain a local sense of community by integrating a mix of land uses that are of a size, character, function, and location suitable to the needs of Elmwood Township and are sited so as to minimize impacts on and views from adjacent properties and roads. They are intended to have primarily an outdoor orientation so that they enhance quality of life while preserving the open, rural character of the Township. Any commercial uses with a large consumer draw and/or a high automobile trip generation rate should be avoided and any non-residential, or intensive outdoor recreation elements should be generally located centrally and to the interior of a site.
This District is a restrictive zone and it is intended to permit development only after in depth review. Such a process helps promote the protection and enhancement of critical elements such as natural resources, surface and groundwater quality, steep slopes, and woodlots. In addition, it helps ensure the availability of adequate utilities and public services, and the protection of public health, safety and welfare.
SECTION 9.1.1 PERMITTED USES
1. Single family residences on parcels 5 acres or larger.
2. Clustered Housing Developments pursuant to the requirements of Article XIII A.
3. Commercial resorts – Approved pursuant to the requirements of Article XIIID, Planned Unit Development (PUD) District. Commercial resorts must include primary commercial use(s) and may include secondary commercial and residential use(s). The following factors will be used to determine whether a proposed outdoor recreation use constitutes a primary commercial use:
I. Compare the development, capital and operating costs associated with primary commercial uses with those associated with secondary commercial uses.
II. Compare the number of persons participating in activities associated with primary commercial uses with those participating in activities associated with secondary commercial uses
III. Compare the anticipated annual revenues associated with primary commercial uses with those associated with secondary commercial uses.
a. Primary commercial uses - Outdoor recreation uses such as: cross country and downhill skiing, sledding, ice skating, golf courses, equestrian facilities and trails, pedestrian trails, and swimming pools.
b. Secondary commercial uses - Uses that are directly related or integral to primary commercial use(s) but that are of a supporting nature including: hotels/ motels, and restaurants. Also related uses, such as snack bars, small retail shops selling goods directly related to or integral to the primary outdoor recreational uses and indoor recreation uses such as tennis and racquet ball courts, equestrian riding rings, and swimming pools.
c. Residential uses - Single family, two-family and multiple family dwelling units that are developed in conjunction with a commercial resort.
SECTION 9.1.2 ACCESSORY USES
1. Accessory buildings and uses that are customarily incidental to the permitted uses.
SECTION 9.1.3 COMMERCIAL RESORT REQUIREMENTS
A. Lot and Building Requirements
Minimum lot area: 40 acres
Perimeter setbacks: 100 feet for all buildings, structures and parking lots
Maximum Height: 35 feet
Maximum Building Length: 300 feet
B. Open Space Requirements
1. Minimum open space – Areas devoted to open space and/or unpaved outdoor recreation areas shall constitute no less than 65 percent of an entire site. For the purposes of this ordinance unpaved outdoor recreation areas include by example: downhill and cross country skiing trails, golf courses, equestrian centers, and soccer, baseball and football fields.
C. Development Density
1. Residential
a. The maximum number of permitted dwelling units shall be calculated based on one dwelling unit per 2.5 acres of an entire site.
2. Secondary Commercial Uses
a. The area devoted to secondary commercial uses, as defined in Section 9.1.1.3.b, supplemental commercial areas, and hard surface outdoor recreation uses shall not exceed 5% of an entire site. Supplemental commercial areas shall include by example parking, loading and service areas. Hard surface outdoor recreation uses include facilities such as tennis and basketball courts, skating rinks, and swimming pools and their related deck areas.
3. The area devoted to commercial use contained in a commercial resort may be increased by substituting permitted residential dwelling units for commercial site area based on a conversion factor of one dwelling unit for each additional 2,000 square feet devoted to secondary commercial uses, supplemental commercial areas, and hard surface outdoor recreation uses.
D. Sample Commercial Resort Density Calculation for a 100 acre parcel:
Step Requirement Process Result
Step One Minimum lot area is 40 acres. Determine entire site area (in acres) based on a boundary survey. 100 acres
Step Two Maximum number of allowed dwelling units is 1 per 2.5 acres. Divide entire site area by 2.5. 40 dwelling units
Step Three 65% in open space or unpaved outdoor recreation areas. Take 65% of entire site. 65 acres
Step Four Maximum 5% of the site area may be developed for secondary commercial uses, supplemental commercial areas, and hard surface recreation areas Take 5% of entire site. 5 acres
Step Five Permitted dwelling units can be substituted for additional commercial site area by converting a dwelling unit to 2,000 square feet of secondary commercial use, supplemental commercial areas, and hard surface outdoor recreation uses. To determine maximum additional commercial site area multiply the number of permitted dwelling units by 2,000. 80,000 sq. ft.
additional commercial site area,
(about 1.4 acres).
SECTION 9.1.4 SINGLE FAMILY LOT AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS
1. Single Family Residences:
Minimum lot size: 5 acres
Minimum lot width: 200 feet
Setbacks:
Front – 30 feet
Side – 30 feet
Rear – 50 feet
Water’s edge – 50 feet
Maximum Height: 35 feet
DEFINITIONS
HOTEL/MOTEL
A building or group of buildings on the same lot, whether detached or attached, containing sleeping or dwelling units, which may or may not be independently accessible from the outside, with garage or parking spaces located on the lot. The term shall include any building or building groups designated as motor lodges, transient cabins, rooms, or by any other title intended to identify them as providing lodging, with or without meals, for compensation on a transient or periodic basis.
USE, PRIMARY COMMERCIAL
The main use of land as developed and occupied, including the activities that are conducted on the site for a majority of the hours during which activities occur, as distinguished from a secondary commercial use.
USE, SECONDARY COMMERCIAL
Any use that is secondary to the primary commercial use.
ARTICLE XIII D
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
SECTION 13D.1 INTENT AND PURPOSE
A. The provisions of this Article establish the authority and standards for the submission, review, and approval of applications for Planned Unit Development (PUD). It is the intent of the Article to authorize the creation of PUDs as a Special Land Use (referred to as Conditional Land Uses in other sections of this Ordinance) for the purposes of:
1. Encouraging the use of land in accordance with its character and adaptability;
2. Conserving natural resources, natural features, and energy;
3. Encouraging innovation in land use planning;
4. Providing enhanced housing, employment, shopping, recreational, and open space opportunities for the people of Elmwood Township;
5. Bringing about a greater compatibility of design and use between neighboring properties; and
6. Facilitating the implementation of the Township Master Plan.
B. The provisions of the Article are not intended as a device for circumventing the Zoning Ordinance or the planning upon which it is based. However, these PUD provisions are designed to permit a degree of flexibility not available through the conventional zoning districts, resulting in a substantially superior development for the community and the ultimate users of the development that could not be achieved otherwise. A PUD for a parcel of land is eligible for consideration if the zoning district in which the land is located authorizes a PUD application.
SECTION 13D.2 STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL
A. When the Hearing Officer makes a recommendation or the Planning Commission makes a decision regarding a PUD Plan, the Hearing Officer and Planning Commission shall approve or approve with conditions a PUD application that complies with the following standards:
1. The land uses within a PUD shall comply with the uses designated for those lands in the applicable zoning district of the Township Zoning Ordinance where PUDs may be permitted.
2. The PUD shall meet the minimum land area requirements specified for each zoning district where PUDs may be permitted.
3. The lands comprising a PUD must be subject to unified ownership or control, so that the person or legal entity that is applying for PUD approval will have proprietary responsibility for the completion of the development, if approved. If multiple persons or legal entities have ownership interests in the land, all such persons or entities shall sign the PUD application or, if the application is signed by a prospective purchaser or optionee, written consent to the application by all owners of the land must be submitted with the application.
4. Except as provided in this section, water supply and sanitary sewage disposal in and for a PUD shall be accomplished only by public or community water supply and sanitary sewer systems, approved by the Leelanau County Health Department and other agencies having jurisdiction and in compliance with applicable Township ordinances. On-site septic systems and wells may be permitted for individual residential lots of one acre or more in areas that contain a single dwelling, if approved by the Leelanau County Health Department.
5. Motor vehicle access to the uses within a PUD shall be provided only from interior roads.
6. A PUD shall comply with all dimensional and use regulations of the zoning district in which the proposed PUD will be located, unless otherwise modified by the Hearing Officer as provided in this Article.
7. The PUD Plan and the proposed land uses within the PUD must be consistent with the applicable provisions of the Township Master Plan.
8. The PUD Plan is consistent with the intent of this Article, as described in Section 13D.1, and also represents a development opportunity for the community that could not be achieved through conventional zoning.
9. The PUD Plan and the proposed land uses within the PUD must be consistent with the intent and all of the requirements of the underlying zoning district.
10. The PUD Plan and the uses proposed for the PUD must be compatible with the type, character and density of the existing and anticipated land uses on adjacent and nearby lands.
11. The proposed PUD must be compatible with the capacities of public services and facilities affected by the development.
12. The proposed PUD does not contain uses or conditions of use that would be injurious to the public health, safety, or welfare of the community.
13. The proposed PUD preserves, in perpetuity, significant natural features, if any.
14. If a proposed PUD lies partially outside the jurisdictional boundary of the Township, then the minimum parcel size shall be based on the total size of the project and not just that portion within the Township.
15. The proposed PUD consolidates and maximizes useable open space.
16. Sufficient landscaping must be provided to insure that proposed uses will be adequately buffered from one another and from surrounding public and private property and to create a pleasant pedestrian scale outdoor environment.
17. Safe, convenient and well-defined vehicular and pedestrian circulation within and access to the development must be provided.
18. Important historical and architectural features, if any, within the development are to be preserved.
19. The PUD Plan also complies with the standards in Section 13C.7, entitled Site Plan Review.
SECTION 13D.3 APPLICATION & REVIEW PROCEDURES
A. Special Land Use – Hearing Officer & Planning Commission -- Escrow. A PUD shall constitute a Special Land Use. A PUD application shall be decided by the Planning Commission after it receives a proposed decision from a Hearing Officer. The Planning Commission makes the final determination regarding the PUD application. The Hearing Officer shall be appointed by the Township Board and may be appointed on a case-by-case basis or for such a period of time as the Township Board shall deem appropriate. The Hearing Officer shall be a public official when performing the duties required by this Ordinance. The applicant shall place funds in escrow with the Township in such amount as shall be determined by the Township Board to pay for the anticipated charges of the Hearing Officer and any consultants that the Hearing Officer or Planning Commission determines are reasonably necessary to complete the duties imposed on them by this Ordinance. The funds shall be placed in escrow on or before a PUD application is filed with the Township. Based on anticipated future charges, the Township may require the applicant to replenish the escrow fund to its original amount or to a lesser amount when the escrow fund reaches one-third or less of the original amount of the escrow fund. The failure of an applicant to make payments to the escrow fund shall render the PUD application incomplete and not ripe for further consideration. Any monies that remain in the pre-application conference escrow fund may be applied to this escrow fund.
B. Pre-application Conference and Escrow. Prior to submitting an application for a PUD, the applicant shall meet with the Township Planner, Zoning Administrator and any staff and consultants that the Township deems appropriate. If a Hearing Officer has been appointed, the Hearing Officer may attend any pre-application conference. No statements of the Hearing Officer at a pre-application conference shall be construed as a position on the merits of the PUD application. No fee shall be required for this review, except that if the Township will use independent contractors as a Hearing Officer or for legal, planning or other consulting services related to any pre-application conference or as the Hearing Officer, the Township may require that the anticipated costs of those persons to review documents and attend any pre-application conference be paid to the Township in escrow prior to any such conference or conferences. The purpose of a pre-application conference is to determine the eligibility of a project for consideration as a PUD and to discuss PUD application procedures. Multiple pre-application conferences may be held if the potential applicant and Township agree. After the pre-application conference(s) have been completed, the Township representatives shall recommend an amount to be placed in escrow as described in Section 13D.3.A. During at least one
pre-application conference, the applicant shall informally describe the intended concept at the conference, with a sketch plan of the proposed PUD, as well as the following information:
1. The total number of acres in the project;
2. The number of residential units;
3. The number and/or square feet and type of nonresidential uses,
4. The number of acres to be occupied by each type of use;
5. Variations from Ordinance regulations that are being sought and the reasons to support requested changes;
6. The number of acres to be preserved as open or recreational space; and,
7. All known natural resources and natural features to be preserved and a separate indication of those to be removed.
C. Variations. Variations to any requirements of the underlying zoning district may be authorized by the Planning Commission as long as the approved plan with any variations complies with the standards of Section 13D.2.A.
D. PUD Application. Following the pre-application conference, the applicant shall submit a completed application form for PUD approval, an application fee, and ten (10) copies of the materials and information shown below. These materials and information are also collectively called the PUD Plan. If the PUD is to be developed in phases, the PUD Plan shall show all phases. The PUD Plan shall contain or have with it:
1. An initial deposit of the required fees associated with a zoning escrow account for reimbursement to the Township for its expenses to review and consider the application.
2. A narrative statement together with supporting charts, maps and documents describing:
a. The total number of acres in the project;
b. The number of acres to be occupied by each type of use;
c. The number of residential units;
d. A residential density calculation indicating the number of dwelling units per gross site area and a more specific residential density calculation by type of unit per gross site area associated with that particular unit type;
e. The number and/or square feet and type of nonresidential uses;
f. The number of acres to be preserved as common open or recreational space;
g. The objectives of the proposed PUD and how they relate to the intent and purpose of Planned Unit Development in Elmwood Township, as described in Section 13D.1;
h. The relationship of the proposed PUD to the Township Master Plan;
i. The implementation phases of the PUD and the approximate time frame for each phase;
j. Proposed utility services and how they are to be provided;
k. Proposed deed restrictions, covenants, or similar legal instruments to be applied within the PUD;
l. Anticipated start and completion dates for construction;
m. Variations from Ordinance regulations that are being sought and the reasons to support requested changes;
n. Areas of the site containing significant natural features, including a breakdown of the approximate square feet/acres by type of significant natural feature. Significant natural features shall include: wetlands, flood plains, water bodies, woods, slopes in excess of 25%, active agricultural land, or other unique natural features as determined by a local, state or federal department or agency authorized by law to designate or classify a unique natural feature.
o. Anticipated phases of the PUD;
p. A specific schedule of the intended development and construction schedule details, including phasing and timing; and
q. Signatures of all parties having an interest in the property with a statement of the nature of their interest and intention to see the development of the property completed in accordance with the approval, if granted.
2. Maps shall be drawn at a conventional scale appropriate to the size and scale of the property and development, as approved by the Zoning Administrator. It shall contain the following:
a. The name of the PUD, the applicant’s name, the name and address of the firm or individual who prepared the Preliminary Development Plan, date, scale, and north arrow;
b. Property lines, dimensions of all property lines, and size of the PUD (and individual phases) in acres;
c. Existing zoning and land use of all abutting properties;
d. Significant natural features on the site, as specified in section 13D.3.C.2.n;
e. Existing buildings and structures on the site and that are located on abutting land within fifty (50) feet of a common property line;
f. Proposed uses, buildings and their locations;
g. Rights-of-way and pavement edges or curb lines of existing streets abutting the PUD;
h. Locations of proposed access drives, parking lots and streets within the PUD;
i. Proposed walkways or pedestrian paths;
j. Proposed method of providing water, sanitary sewer, and storm water drainage facilities;
k. Layout and typical dimensions of proposed lots;
l. A specific schedule of the general improvements to constitute a part of the development, including, without limitation, lighting, signs, the mechanisms designed to reduce noise, utilities, and visual screening features; and
m. Specification of the exterior building materials with respect to the structures proposed in the project.
3. The Planning Commission Officer may require additional information reasonably necessary to determine compliance with the review standards and other requirements applicable to a PUD or to determine the impacts of the proposed development. Such information may include, for example, soil reports, hydrological tests, traffic studies, wetland determinations or a market analysis. At any time during the PUD Plan review process, the Planning Commission shall have the right to hire such experts as may be needed to provide independent studies regarding issues related to the PUD approval standards or to review documents or the reports of experts. Fees and expenses related to any such experts shall be paid from the monies that have been paid to the Township in escrow.
E. PUD Public Hearing. Upon determining that the application and all required information are complete, the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing and the Hearing Officer shall also be present. The Hearing Officer shall preside at the public hearing. Notice of the hearing shall be in accordance with the notification procedures for Special Land Uses as described in the Township Zoning Act. At the public hearing, the Hearing Officer shall permit comments from the public with respect to the proposed PUD. The public hearing may be adjourned as needed by a majority vote of the Planning Commission to obtain public input, to allow for the gathering of additional factual information, to obtain professional reviews, studies or opinions, to obtain legal advice or for other good cause. In addition, the Hearing Officer or Planning Commission may, but is not required to seek an interpretation of any of the applicable provisions of this Ordinance from the body to whom that interpretation authority has been granted by this Ordinance.
F. Hearing Officer Decision. Following the public hearing, the Hearing Officer shall consider whether the proposed PUD Plan complies with the standards of Section 13D.2.A. and shall prepare a recommended decision for consideration by the Planning Commission. The recommended decision shall include proposed findings of fact and whether the PUD Plan should be approved, denied, or approved with conditions. The recommended decision of the Hearing Officer shall be given to the Planning Commission, mailed to the applicant by first class mail and shall be available at the township offices for the public.
G. Final Decision by the Planning Commission. After the recommended decision of the Hearing Officer has been provided to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission shall make its decision at any regular or special meeting. Another pubic hearing is not required. However, the Planning Commission may schedule another public hearing to gather additional information regarding any standard if it finds that additional information from experts or consultants is needed to help it determine whether a standard has been met. At a meeting on which the Planning Commission makes its decision, the Planning Commission shall review the record compiled at the public hearing, the reports of any experts or consultants and the Hearing Officer’s recommended decision. More than one meeting may be held. The Planning Commission may invite the Hearing Officer to attend the meeting or any subsequent meeting to explain the recommended decision and to answer questions. The Planning Commission may also invite the applicant or any expert or consultant to a meeting to answer questions that the Planning Commission may have or to explain a report or recommendation. Based on the record compiled at the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall determine whether the PUD Plan complies with the standards of Section 13D.2.A. The Planning Commission shall approve or approve with conditions the PUD plan if it complies with the standards of Section 13D.2.A. The proposed PUD shall be denied if it does not meet the standards of Section 13D.2.A. The Planning Commission shall make a written decision. The Planning Commission may adopt, as its own decision, the recommended decision of the Hearing Officer or it may modify the recommended decision based on the record created at the public hearing. The decision of the Planning Commission shall be a final decision after the minutes of the meeting at which the decision was adopted has been approved. Once the decision has become final, judicial review may be taken as authorized by law.
H. Optional Procedure - Separate Site Plan Consideration. An applicant may elect to have a PUD site plan considered after an initial PUD has been approved. In this two step process, the initial PUD shall be referenced as a Preliminary PUD Plan while the site plan shall be referenced as a Final PUD Plan. All other provisions of this Article shall apply to this section, except if there are any differences then the provisions of this section shall control. The escrow fund shall be sufficient to cover all costs incurred by the Township because of this optional procedure.
1. Preliminary PUD Plan.
a. Submittal Requirements. An applicant must submit all information required in Section 13D except items 13D.2. - m, n and o.
b. Standards. All approval standards of this Article shall apply except the site plan standards referenced in Section 13.D.2.14.
2. Final PUD Plan.
a. Submittal Requirements. An application and 10 copies of a Final PUD Plan meeting the requirements of Section 13D and in compliance with the approved PUD Preliminary PUD Plan must be filed not less than 30 days and not more than 1 year following approval of a Preliminary PUD Plan. If not submitted within this period all previous approvals shall expire.
b. Standards. The approval standards in Section 13D.2.A shall apply and shall be substantially consistent with the approved Preliminary PUD Plan.
3. Preliminary and Final PUD Plan Processing. The Preliminary and Final Plan shall be processed using the Hearing Officer and Planning Commission procedures provided in this Article. However, a public hearing shall not be required for a PUD Final Plan.
4. Denial of Final PUD Plan. If the Final PUD Plan is denied because it is not substantially consistent with the approved Preliminary PUD Plan, then the applicant may elect to have the Township treat the rejected Final PUD Plan as a revised PUD Preliminary Plan. The revised PUD Preliminary Development Plan shall be reviewed in accordance with the procedures of Sections 13.D.3, which shall include consideration by the Hearing Officer and final Planning Commission action.
SECTION 13D.4 CHANGES TO AN APPROVED PUD
Changes to an approved PUD shall be permitted only under the following circumstances.
A. The holder of an approved PUD Plan shall notify the Zoning Administrator, in writing, of any desired change to the approved PUD.
B. Minor changes may be approved by the Zoning Administrator upon determining that the proposed revision(s) will not alter the basic design and character of the PUD, nor any specified conditions imposed as part of the original approval. Minor changes shall include the following:
1. Change in any building size, up to five percent (5%) in gross floor area.
2. Movement of buildings or other structure by no more than ten (10) feet.
3. Replacement of plant material specified in the landscape plan with comparable materials of an equal or greater size.
4. Changes in building materials to a comparable or higher quality.
5. Changes in floor plans which do not alter the character of the use.
6. Relocation of dumpster or signs.
7. Modification of parking up to ten (10) percent of the total parking area, provided there is no change in the approved driveway location(s).
8. Changes required or requested by the Township, the Leelanau County Road Commission, or other County, State, or Federal regulatory agency in order to conform to other laws or regulations.
9. Change of phases or sequence of phases, only if all phases of the PUD have received final approval.
C. A proposed change determined by the Zoning Administrator not to be minor shall be submitted as an amendment to the PUD and shall be processed in the same manner as the original PUD application.
SECTION 13D.5 CONDITIONS
A. Reasonable conditions may be required with the approval of a PUD, to the extent authorized by law, for the purpose of ensuring that public services and facilities will be sufficient to serve the proposed land use, protecting the natural environment, ensuring compatibility with adjacent uses of land, and promoting the use of land in a socially and economically desirable manner.
B. Conditions imposed shall be: designed to protect public health, safety, and welfare; reasonably related to the purposes affected by the PUD; necessary to meet the intent and purpose of this Ordinance, and related to the objective of ensuring compliance with the standards of this Ordinance. All conditions imposed shall be made a part of the record of the approved PUD.
SECTION 13D.6 RECORDING OF AFFIDAVIT
The applicant shall record an affidavit acceptable to the township attorney with the Leelanau County Register of Deeds that contains the full legal description of the project site, specifies the date of completed PUD approval, specifies the description or identification number which the township has assigned to the PUD project, describes all conditions that were imposed as part of the approval and declares that all improvements will be carried out in accordance with the approved PUD application and plan. If the PUD is amended, the applicant shall record an amended affidavit acceptable to the township attorney that contains all of the information described above, describes the amendment, specifies the date on which the amendment was approved, describes all conditions that were imposed as part of the amendment approval and declares that the improvements will be carried out in accordance with the approved PUD, as amended. Finally, all deed restrictions and easements shall be duly filed with the Leelanau County Register of Deeds and copies of recorded documents filed with the zoning administrator. Copies of these recorded documents shall be given to the zoning administrator prior to the issuance of any land use permit.
SECTION 13D.7 PHASING
A. Phasing: Where a project is proposed for construction in phases, each phase, upon completion, shall be capable of standing on its own in terms of the presence of services, facilities, and open space, and shall contain the necessary components to ensure protection of natural resources and the health, safety, and welfare of the users of the PUD and the residents of the surrounding area.
B. For PUDs with both residential and nonresidential uses, the relative mix of uses and the scheduled completion of construction for each phase shall be disclosed and determined to be reasonable in the discretion of the Planning Commission. Uses within each phase shall meet the requirements of this Article.
SECTION 13D.8 TIME LIMIT
Each PUD shall be under substantial construction within one (1) year after the date of approval of the PUD Plan, except as noted in this Section. Substantial construction shall mean the commencement of construction of a building that is part of the approved PUD Plan or approved Final PUD Plan and for which a land use permit has been issued pursuant to Section 13D.11. Substantial construction does not mean merely grading or infrastructure.
A. The Planning Commission may grant one (1) extension of up to an additional one (1) year period, if the applicant applies for such extension prior to the date of the expiration of the PUD and provided that:
1. The applicant presents reasonable evidence that the development has encountered unforeseen difficulties beyond the control of the applicant; and
2. The PUD requirements and standards, including those of this Ordinance and the Master Plan, that are reasonably related to the development have not changed.
B. If substantial construction has not taken place within one (1) year after the date of approval of the PUD Plan, the date of approval of the Final PUD Plan if the optional preliminary PUD Plan and Final PUD Plan approach was used or prior to the expiration of an extension, the PUD approval shall be null and void.
C. If a PUD Plan has expired, the Planning Commission may rescind the PUD approval for the property after notice to the PUD applicant and providing the applicant an opportunity to be heard before the rescission becomes effective.
SECTION 13D.9 PERFORMANCE GUARANTEES
A. The Planning Commission may, as a condition of PUD Plan approval, require that the applicant provide a performance guarantee, in the form of a cash bond, a bank letter of credit, or other security in order to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and any conditions attached to the PUD approval.
B. The amount of the bond or security to be submitted, if required, shall be equal to the total estimated cost for completing the required improvements, as approved.
SECTION 13D.10 ZBA JURISDICTION
The Board of Appeals is without jurisdiction to accept appeals regarding a PUD.
SECTION 13D.11 PUD APPROVAL & LAND USE PERMIT
PUD approval is not a land use permit (also, called a zoning permit). If there are no conditions on the PUD approval and no performance guarantee requirement, then the Zoning Administrator shall issue the land use permit upon request of the applicant. If the PUD approval is subject to any conditions or if a performance guarantee has been required, then the Zoning Administrator shall not issue a land use permit until all conditions have been met and the performance guarantee has been provided to the Township. An approved PUD shall not be commenced until a land use permit has been issued.
ARTICLE XIII D
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
SECTION 13D.1 INTENT AND PURPOSE
A. The provisions of this Article establish the authority and standards for the submission, review, and approval of applications for Planned Unit Development (PUD). It is the intent of the Article to authorize the creation of PUDs as a Special Land Use (referred to as Conditional Land Uses in other sections of this Ordinance) for the purposes of:
1. Encouraging the use of land in accordance with its character and adaptability;
2. Conserving natural resources, natural features, and energy;
3. Encouraging innovation in land use planning;
4. Providing enhanced housing, employment, shopping, recreational, and open space opportunities for the people of Elmwood Township;
5. Bringing about a greater compatibility of design and use between neighboring properties; and
6. Facilitating the implementation of the Township Master Plan.
B. The provisions of the Article are not intended as a device for circumventing the Zoning Ordinance or the planning upon which it is based. However, these PUD provisions are designed to permit a degree of flexibility not available through the conventional zoning districts, resulting in a substantially superior development for the community and the ultimate users of the development that could not be achieved otherwise. A PUD for a parcel of land is eligible for consideration if the zoning district in which the land is located authorizes a PUD application.
SECTION 13D.2 STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL
A. When making a decision regarding a PUD Plan, the Hearing Officer shall approve or approve with conditions a PUD application that complies with the following standards:
1. The land uses within a PUD shall comply with the uses designated for those lands in the applicable zoning district of the Township Zoning Ordinance where PUDs may be permitted.
2. The PUD shall meet the minimum land area requirements specified for each zoning district where PUDs may be permitted.
3. The lands comprising a PUD must be subject to unified ownership or control, so that the person or legal entity that is applying for PUD approval will have proprietary responsibility for the completion of the development, if approved. If multiple persons or legal entities have ownership interests in the land, all such persons or entities shall sign the PUD application or, if the application is signed by a prospective purchaser or optionee, written consent to the application by all owners of the land must be submitted with the application.
4. Except as provided in this section, water supply and sanitary sewage disposal in and for a PUD shall be accomplished only by public or community water supply and sanitary sewer systems, approved by the Leelanau County Health Department and other agencies having jurisdiction and in compliance with applicable Township ordinances. On-site septic systems and wells may be permitted for individual residential lots of one acre or more in areas that contain a single dwelling, if approved by the Leelanau County Health Department.
5. Motor vehicle access to the uses within a PUD shall be provided only from interior roads.
6. A PUD shall comply with all dimensional and use regulations of the zoning district in which the proposed PUD will be located, unless otherwise modified by the Hearing Officer as provided in this Article.
7. The PUD Plan and the proposed land uses within the PUD must be consistent with the applicable provisions of the Township Master Plan.
8. The PUD Plan is consistent with the intent of this Article, as described in Section 13D.1, and also represents a development opportunity for the community that could not be achieved through conventional zoning.
9. The PUD Plan and the proposed land uses within the PUD must be consistent with the intent and all of the requirements of the underlying zoning district.
10. The PUD Plan and the uses proposed for the PUD must be compatible with the type, character and density of the existing and anticipated land uses on adjacent and nearby lands.
11. The proposed PUD must be compatible with the capacities of public services and facilities affected by the development.
12. The proposed PUD does not contain uses or conditions of use that would be injurious to the public health, safety, or welfare of the community.
13. The proposed PUD preserves, in perpetuity, significant natural features, if any.
14. If a proposed PUD lies partially outside the jurisdictional boundary of the Township, then the minimum parcel size shall be based on the total size of the project and not just that portion within the Township.
15. The proposed PUD consolidates and maximizes useable open space.
16. Sufficient landscaping must be provided to insure that proposed uses will be adequately buffered from one another and from surrounding public and private property and to create a pleasant pedestrian scale outdoor environment.
17. Safe, convenient and well-defined vehicular and pedestrian circulation within and access to the development must be provided.
18. Important historical and architectural features, if any, within the development are to be preserved.
19. The PUD Plan also complies with the standards in Section 13C.7, entitled Site Plan Review.
SECTION 13D.3 APPLICATION & REVIEW PROCEDURES
A. Special Land Use – Hearing Officer -- Escrow. A PUD shall constitute a Special Land Use. A PUD application shall be considered by a Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer shall be appointed by the Township Board and may be appointed on a case-by-case basis or for such a period of time as the Township Board shall deem appropriate. The Hearing Officer shall be a public official when performing the duties required by this Ordinance. The applicant shall place funds in escrow with the Township in such amount as shall be determined by the Township Board to pay for the anticipated charges of the Hearing Officer and any consultants that the Hearing Officer determines are reasonably necessary to complete the duties imposed on the Hearing Officer by this Ordinance. The funds shall be placed in escrow on or before a PUD application is filed with the Township. Based on anticipated future charges, the Township may require the applicant to replenish the escrow fund to its original amount or to a lesser amount when the escrow fund reaches one-third or less of the original amount of the escrow fund. The failure of an applicant to make payments to the escrow fund shall render the PUD application incomplete and not ripe for further consideration. Any monies that remain in the pre-application conference escrow fund may be applied to this escrow fund.
B. Pre-application Conference. Prior to submitting an application for a PUD, the applicant shall meet with the Township Planner, Zoning Administrator and any staff and consultants that the Township deems appropriate. If a Hearing Officer has been appointed, the Hearing Officer may attend any pre-application conference. No statements of the Hearing Officer at a pre-application conference shall be construed as a position on the merits of the PUD application. No fee shall be required for this review, except that if the Township will use independent contractors as a Hearing Officer or for legal, planning or other consulting services related to any pre-application conference or as the Hearing Officer, the Township may require that the anticipated costs of those persons to review documents and attend any pre-application conference be paid to the Township in escrow prior to any such conference or conferences. The purpose of a pre-application conference is to determine the eligibility of a project for consideration as a PUD and to discuss PUD application procedures. Multiple pre-application conferences may be held if the potential applicant and Township agree. After the pre-application conference(s) have been completed, the Township representatives shall recommend an amount to be placed in escrow as described in Section 13D.3.A. During at least one
pre-application conference, the applicant shall informally describe the intended concept at the conference, with a sketch plan of the proposed PUD, as well as the following information:
1. The total number of acres in the project;
2. The number of residential units;
3. The number and/or square feet and type of nonresidential uses,
4. The number of acres to be occupied by each type of use;
5. Variations from Ordinance regulations that are being sought and the reasons to support requested changes;
6. The number of acres to be preserved as open or recreational space; and,
7. All known natural resources and natural features to be preserved and a separate indication of those to be removed.
C. Variations. Variations to any requirements of the underlying zoning district may be authorized by the Hearing Officer as long as the approved plan with any variations complies with the standards of Section 13D.2.A.
D. PUD Application. Following the pre-application conference, the applicant shall submit a completed application form for PUD approval, an application fee, and five (5) copies of the materials and information shown below. These materials and information are also collectively called the PUD Plan. If the PUD is to be developed in phases, the PUD Plan shall show all phases. The PUD Plan shall contain or have with it:
1. An initial deposit of the required fees associated with a zoning escrow account for reimbursement to the Township for its expenses to review and consider the application.
2. A narrative statement together with supporting charts, maps and documents describing:
a. The total number of acres in the project;
b. The number of acres to be occupied by each type of use;
c. The number of residential units;
d. A residential density calculation indicating the number of dwelling units per gross site area and a more specific residential density calculation by type of unit per gross site area associated with that particular unit type;
e. The number and/or square feet and type of nonresidential uses;
f. The number of acres to be preserved as common open or recreational space;
g. The objectives of the proposed PUD and how they relate to the intent and purpose of Planned Unit Development in Elmwood Township, as described in Section 13D.1;
h. The relationship of the proposed PUD to the Township Master Plan;
i. The implementation phases of the PUD and the approximate time frame for each phase;
j. Proposed utility services and how they are to be provided;
k. Proposed deed restrictions, covenants, or similar legal instruments to be applied within the PUD;
l. Anticipated start and completion dates for construction;
m. Variations from Ordinance regulations that are being sought and the reasons to support requested changes;
n. Areas of the site containing significant natural features, including a breakdown of the approximate square feet/acres by type of significant natural feature. Significant natural features shall include: wetlands, flood plains, water bodies, woods, slopes in excess of 25%, active agricultural land, or other unique natural features as determined by a local, state or federal department or agency authorized by law to designate or classify a unique natural feature.
o. Anticipated phases of the PUD;
p. A specific schedule of the intended development and construction schedule details, including phasing and timing; and
q. Signatures of all parties having an interest in the property with a statement of the nature of their interest and intention to see the development of the property completed in accordance with the approval, if granted.
3. Maps shall be drawn at a conventional scale appropriate to the size and scale of the property and development, as approved by the Zoning Administrator. It shall contain the following:
a. The name of the PUD, the applicant’s name, the name and address of the firm or individual who prepared the Preliminary Development Plan, date, scale, and north arrow;
b. Property lines, dimensions of all property lines, and size of the PUD (and individual phases) in acres;
c. Existing zoning and land use of all abutting properties;
d. Significant natural features on the site, as specified in section 13D.3.C.2.n;
e. Existing buildings and structures on the site and that are located on abutting land within fifty (50) feet of a common property line;
f. Proposed uses, buildings and their locations;
g. Rights-of-way and pavement edges or curb lines of existing streets abutting the PUD;
h. Locations of proposed access drives, parking lots and streets within the PUD;
i. Proposed walkways or pedestrian paths;
j. Proposed method of providing water, sanitary sewer, and storm water drainage facilities;
k. Layout and typical dimensions of proposed lots;
l. A specific schedule of the general improvements to constitute a part of the development, including, without limitation, lighting, signs, the mechanisms designed to reduce noise, utilities, and visual screening features; and
m. Specification of the exterior building materials with respect to the structures proposed in the project.
4. The Hearing Officer may require additional information reasonably necessary to determine compliance with the review standards and other requirements applicable to a PUD or to determine the impacts of the proposed development. Such information may include, for example, soil reports, hydrological tests, traffic studies, wetland determinations or a market analysis. At any time during the PUD Plan review process, the Hearing Officer shall have the right to hire such experts as may be needed to provide independent studies regarding issues related to the PUD approval standards or to review documents or the reports of non-township experts. Fees and expenses related to any such experts shall be paid from the monies that have been paid to the Township in escrow.
E. PUD Hearing. Upon determining that the application and all required information are complete, the Hearing Officer shall conduct a public hearing. Notice of the hearing shall be in accordance with the notification procedures for Special Land Uses, as described in the Township Zoning Act or a successor statute. At the public hearing the Hearing Officer shall invite comments from the public with respect to the proposed PUD. The public hearing may be adjourned as needed to obtain public input, to allow for the gathering of additional factual information, to obtain legal advice or for other good cause. In addition, the Hearing Officer may, but is not required to seek an interpretation of any of the applicable provisions of this ordinance from the body to whom that interpretation authority has been granted by this Ordinance.
F. Hearing Officer Decision. Following the public hearing, the Hearing Officer shall determine whether the PUD Plan complies with the standards of Section 13D.2.A. The Hearing Officer may approve, deny, or approve with conditions the PUD Plan. The decision of the Hearing Officer shall be in writing and shall include findings of fact regarding why the applicable PUD standards have or have not been met. The decision of the Hearing Officer shall be a final decision after it is posted at the township hall. A copy of the decision shall be mailed to the applicant by first class mail on or before the posting of the decision at the township hall. Once the decision has become final, judicial review may be taken as authorized by law.
G. Optional Procedure - Separate Site Plan Consideration. An applicant may elect to have a PUD site plan considered after an initial PUD has been approved. In this two step process, the initial PUD shall be referenced as a Preliminary PUD Plan while the site plan shall be referenced as a Final PUD Plan. All other provisions of this Article shall apply to this section, except if there are any differences then the provisions of this section shall control. The escrow fund shall be sufficient to cover all costs incurred by the Township because of this optional procedure.
1. Preliminary PUD Plan.
a. Submittal Requirements. An applicant must submit all information required in Section 13D except items 13D.2. - m, n and o.
b. Standards. All approval standards of this Article shall apply except the site plan standards referenced in Section 13D.2.14.
2. Final PUD Plan.
a. Submittal Requirements. An application and 5 (five) copies of a Final PUD Plan meeting the requirements of Section 13D and in compliance with the approved PUD Preliminary PUD Plan must be filed not less than 30 days and not more than 1 year following approval of a Preliminary PUD Plan. If not submitted within this period all previous approvals shall expire.
b. Standards. The approval standards in Section 13D.2.A shall apply and shall be substantially consistent with the approved Preliminary PUD Plan.
3. Preliminary and Final PUD Plan Processing. The Preliminary and Final Plan shall be processed by the Hearing Officer as provided in this Article. However, a public hearing shall not be required for a PUD Final Plan.
4. Denial of Final PUD Plan. If the Final PUD Plan is denied because it is not substantially consistent with the approved Preliminary PUD Plan, then the applicant may elect to have the Township treat the rejected Final PUD Plan as a revised PUD Preliminary Plan. The revised PUD Preliminary Development Plan shall be reviewed in accordance with the procedures of Sections 13.D.3.
SECTION 13D.4 CHANGES TO AN APPROVED PUD
Changes to an approved PUD shall be permitted only under the following circumstances.
A. The holder of an approved PUD Plan shall notify the Zoning Administrator, in writing, of any desired change to the approved PUD.
B. Minor changes may be approved by the Zoning Administrator upon determining that the proposed revision(s) will not alter the basic design and character of the PUD, nor any specified conditions imposed as part of the original approval. Minor changes shall include the following:
1. Change in any building size, up to five percent (5%) in gross floor area.
2. Movement of buildings or other structure by no more than ten (10) feet.
3. Replacement of plant material specified in the landscape plan with comparable materials of an equal or greater size.
4. Changes in building materials to a comparable or higher quality.
5. Changes in floor plans which do not alter the character of the use.
6. Relocation of dumpster or signs.
7. Modification of parking up to ten (10) percent of the total parking area, provided there is no change in the approved driveway location(s).
8. Changes required or requested by the Township, the Leelanau County Road Commission, or other County, State, or Federal regulatory agency in order to conform to other laws or regulations.
9. Change of phases or sequence of phases, only if all phases of the PUD have received final approval.
C. A proposed change determined by the Zoning Administrator not to be minor shall be submitted as an amendment to the PUD and shall be processed in the same manner as the original PUD application.
SECTION 13D.5 CONDITIONS
A. Reasonable conditions may be required with the approval of a PUD, to the extent authorized by law, for the purpose of ensuring that public services and facilities will be sufficient to serve the proposed land use, protecting the natural environment, ensuring compatibility with adjacent uses of land, and promoting the use of land in a socially and economically desirable manner.
B. Conditions imposed shall be: designed to protect public health, safety, and welfare; reasonably related to the purposes affected by the PUD; necessary to meet the intent and purpose of this Ordinance, and related to the objective of ensuring compliance with the standards of this Ordinance. All conditions imposed shall be made a part of the record of the approved PUD.
SECTION 13D.6 RECORDING OF AFFIDAVIT
The applicant shall record an affidavit acceptable to the township attorney with the Leelanau County Register of Deeds that contains the full legal description of the project site, specifies the date of completed PUD approval, specifies the description or identification number which the township has assigned to the PUD project, describes all conditions that were imposed as part of the approval and declares that all improvements will be carried out in accordance with the approved PUD application and plan. If the PUD is amended, the applicant shall record an amended affidavit acceptable to the township attorney that contains all of the information described above, describes the amendment, specifies the date on which the amendment was approved, describes all conditions that were imposed as part of the amendment approval and declares that the improvements will be carried out in accordance with the approved PUD, as amended. Finally, all deed restrictions and easements shall be duly filed with the Leelanau County Register of Deeds and copies of recorded documents filed with the zoning administrator. Copies of these recorded documents shall be given to the zoning administrator prior to the issuance of any land use permit.
SECTION 13D.7 PHASING
A. Phasing: Where a project is proposed for construction in phases, each phase, upon completion, shall be capable of standing on its own in terms of the presence of services, facilities, and open space, and shall contain the necessary components to ensure protection of natural resources and the health, safety, and welfare of the users of the PUD and the residents of the surrounding area.
B. For PUDs with both residential and nonresidential uses, the relative mix of uses and the scheduled completion of construction for each phase shall be disclosed and determined to be reasonable in the discretion of the Hearing Officer. Uses within each phase shall meet the requirements of this Article.
SECTION 13D.8 TIME LIMIT
Each PUD shall be under substantial construction within one (1) year after the date of approval of the PUD Plan, except as noted in this Section. Substantial construction shall mean the commencement of construction of a building that is part of the approved PUD Plan or approved Final PUD Plan and for which a land use permit has been issued pursuant to Section 13D.11. Substantial construction does not mean merely grading or infrastructure.
A. A Hearing Officer may grant one (1) extension of up to an additional one (1) year period, if the applicant applies for such extension prior to the date of the expiration of the PUD and provided that:
1. The applicant presents reasonable evidence that the development has encountered unforeseen difficulties beyond the control of the applicant; and
2. The PUD requirements and standards, including those of this Ordinance and the Master Plan, that are reasonably related to the development have not changed.
B. If substantial construction has not taken place within one (1) year after the date of approval of the PUD Plan, the date of approval of the Final PUD Plan if the optional preliminary PUD Plan and Final PUD Plan approach was used or prior to the expiration of an extension, the PUD approval shall be null and void.
C. If a PUD Plan has expired, a Hearing Officer may rescind the PUD approval for the property after notice to the PUD applicant and providing the applicant an opportunity to be heard before the rescission becomes effective.
SECTION 13D.9 PERFORMANCE GUARANTEES
A. The Hearing Officer may, as a condition of PUD Plan approval, require that the applicant provide a performance guarantee, in the form of a cash bond, a bank letter of credit, or other security in order to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and any conditions attached to the PUD approval.
B. The amount of the bond or security to be submitted, if required, shall be equal to the total estimated cost for completing the required improvements, as approved.
SECTION 13D.10 ZBA JURISDICTION
The Zoning Board of Appeals is without jurisdiction to accept appeals regarding a PUD.
SECTION 13D.11 PUD APPROVAL & LAND USE PERMIT
PUD approval is not a land use permit (also, called a zoning permit). If there are no conditions on the PUD approval and no performance guarantee requirement, then the Zoning Administrator shall issue the land use permit upon request of the applicant. If the PUD approval is subject to any conditions or if a performance guarantee has been required, then the Zoning Administrator shall not issue a land use permit until all conditions have been met and the performance guarantee has been provided to the Township. An approved PUD shall not be commenced until a land use permit has been issued.
A cigarette discarded on one of the buidling's access ramps probably led to the big fire at the Orchard Creek nursing home last week. Elmwood Fire Chief Ray Haring told the Elmwood Township Board of Trustees meeting Monday night that "we haven't found the cigarette butt," but that he was sure the fire began on the outside ramp. High winds spread the blaze to the structure's attic area, where it quickly grew.
The fire resulted in a total loss of the structure. No residents were injured thanks to a speedy evacuation and the rapid response from the fire department.
Regarding the alert given to residents of Orchard Creek, Cedar Creek Commons, and Woodwinds to boil their drinking water in the aftermath of the blaze--that danger has now passed, and the water supply at the three developments is safe to drink. [Updated 4/11/06]
The bad news has started at Glen Lake schools, where the layoffs of 11 teachers were recently announced. The district is trying to cope with a substantial anticipated budget shortfall. Details here.
The Leelanau Peninsula Vintners Association will be holding their annual Sprig Sip and Savor winery tour May 6 - 7. For $25, you get a tasting ticket good at 13 Leelenau wineries.
Sounds like a great way to learn about some new wines and wineries. Details and order forms here.
The Empire Township Planning Commission acted Monday night to reject a proposed, massive development of up to 980 units on 338 acres near Empire.
The proposal now goes to the County Planning Commission, and then to the Empire Township Board of Trustees, who will have final say on the rezoning that would have made the project possible. Details at the Enterprise.
A man claiming to be Harry L. Johnson of Solon passed a bad check in Traverse City for river shoes, misses' rubbers and cash.
The Grand Traverse Herald has this news from 100 years ago.
The massive Timber Shores development in Northport has received preliminary approval from the planning commission.
This Leelanau Enterprise article has the story.
State Senator Jason Allen intervened in favor of the developer of a Traverse City parking deck after receiving at least $32,000 in campaign contributions from the developer.
Just an interesting nugget in this Record-Eagle story about the controversial proposed parking deck in Traverse Cityk. Ka-ching!
In North America there are 21 subspecies of Horned Lark all of which seem to display black bib, cheek, and forehead, but not all of which have the black “horns”. Some of these subspecies also present throats that are more white than yellow.
Though a possible year round resident in parts of southern lower Michigan, Horned Larks tend to disappear from the landscape of Leelanau County by mid-November and reappear in mid-February.
The breeding range of this species extends from northern South America to the Arctic tundra. Their breeding habitat is most often described as sparsely vegetated, open country, tundra, dunes, croplands, grasslands, and barren fields.
Males begin establishing territories in February with courtship occurring in March. Courtship includes males strutting before the female with erect horns and drooping wings as well as performing impressive song flights to heights of 800 feet, then plummeting ground-ward with wings folded.
The song of Horned Larks during flight display tends to be more extended. On the ground, however, it is brief, sounding somewhat disjointed and metallic. It might be likened unto the sound of brads being dropped into a glass jar.
Horned Larks are ground nesters. Though males select the territory, females select the nest site. Fledglings from the first nest can be seen as early as April. This early nesting increases the likelihood of a second brood. Though some speculate that early nesting increases survival rate of the young of this species, since most breeding count activities do not begin until June, it also decreases the accuracy of breeding records.
In autumn, juvenile Horned Larks form post breeding flocks. In fall and winter, Horned Larks have been observed in huge flocks, occasionally with Snow buntings.
Residents of the Orchard Creek Care Facility, Cedar Creek and Woodwinds developments in Elmwood Township are being urged to boil their water.
According to this story on the TV 7&4 site, fire officials are concerned that bacterial contamination may have occurred because of loss of pressure in the local water system during the fight against Thursday's fire at the Orchard Creek facility.
Interesting story in the Record-Eagle about Leland resident Rebecca Reynolds, who writes for an HBO show.
Reynolds, who is active locally in the Beyond the Bay film series and other events, has a long and interesting career in comedy, acting, and writing. Check it out.
A public hearing will be held Monday at 7:30 pm on a request by a Grand Rapids developer to put up to 980 residential units on 338 acres near the village of Empire.
According to this Record-Eagle story, the project would require a rezoning of the Empire Orchards property agricultural to residential.
Smart Choices at Empire, a local group focused on land use issues in Empire and surrounding areas, sponsored a meeting Friday to inform residents about the potential rezoning and hear concerns about effects on the township and surrounding communities.
The rezoning hearing will be held Monday, 7:30pm at the Empire United Methodist Church. SmartChoices at Empire can be reached at EmpireInfo@aol.com, or contact Julie Hay: 231-941-6584 ext. 19 for more information.
