Jeff Howell, Elmwood Township Trustee and member of the Elmwood Planning Commission, informed board members and residents at the Township's regular board meeting held Tuesday January 9, that the township's long awaited zoning overhaul could be expected to be completed in February. Howell further detailed a process that would include a formal legal review to be accomplished by Elmwood's attorney leading to a public hearing on the legislation to take place in March.

Elmwood voters rejected a zoning ordinance adopted by the township in
2003 by an overwhelming margin in a referendum vote. Since then efforts to bring an acceptable ordinance to the public has been accompanied by a major re-shuffle of Township Board members by voters in 2004, and a major shake-up of Planning Commission members by the newly elected Supervisor. The campaign against the defeated ordinance centered on the propriety of the densities to be allowed in the rural zoning district.

While the planning commission has worked since April 2006 with its consultant, LSL Associates, to re-work previously written ordinance language, commission Chair Jack Kelly has admitted that the commission has yet to open discussion concerning basic residential densities and development options.

Elmwood's exposure to damages resulting from potential legal challenges stemming from its outmoded and conflict ridden zoning ordinance has been characterized in the past by the township attorney as "horrendous".

The planning commission has finished work on up-dating standards governing development in the township's Rural Resort zoning district, and has completed work on defining an overlay district that would govern the re-use of waterfront buildings in Greilickville.

Posted by Publius at 07:37 PM | Permalink

At their regular meeting held Monday, October 9, The Elmwood Board of Trustees voted 4-2 to reject zoning ordinance amendments written to create clearly defined standards or the township's Rural Resort-1 zoning district.

Continue reading "Elmwood Board Rejects Zoning Up-date" »

Posted by Erik at 11:35 AM | Permalink

[Editor's note: Alice Van Zoeren's Piper Plover blog will be updated once a week with the latest doings from Platte Point. Newest entries on the top; oldest at the bottom. To see an enlarged version of any image, simply click on the thumbnail.]

8/13/06

This will be the last Plover update of 2006. The Piping Plovers have now left Platte Point and headed south for the winter. It was a pretty good year for the Great Lakes Piping Plovers but not for the Platte Point birds. This was the fist year since 1997 that BORX didn’t raise any chicks. He and gOOX did produce four eggs before gOOX disappeared, probably the victim of a predator.
These eggs were transferred to the University of Michigan Biological Station where they hatched and were captive-reared, then released at Sturgeon Bay. Unfortunately his superior parenting skills were unused this summer. Hopefully he’ll be back next summer, his thirteenth year, and have better luck.

Storms and predators took a toll on all the nests at Platte Point this summer except for one. BOXg and LXOL managed to successfully raise all four of their chicks.

Elsewhere at Sleeping Bear Dunes the story was much more upbeat. One North Manitou Island, twelve nests were completed and eleven of them hatched. A thirteenth nest was washed out in a storm May 11th. A record total of 31 chicks fledged from those nests. It was exciting to see flocks of juvenile Piping Plovers on the beaches together.

Now our beaches are empty of Piping Plovers, except for an occasional few passing through. They have all begun their migrations to the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts where they will feed in small flocks until next April, when I’ll be watching the beaches for their return.

Until then…

7/21 –

The Plovers are leaving us now. Recently fledged juveniles are turning up all over along the shorelines. They are able to fly across Lake Michigan from North Manitou Island to the mainland. Today I saw a flock of 10 Plovers at Platte Point. Of the 10 four were from North Manitou. The chicks hatched here have been seen at Ludington State Park as well. There have already been reports of three Great Lakes Piping Plovers on their wintering grounds in the Carolinas and Georgia.

Earlier this week I found OO:X,B (two Orange bands on her left leg, a metal (“X”) and a dark Blue band on her right) at Platte Point. She was BO:RX’s mate at Platte Point last year and nested at Ludington State Park this year. It’s interesting that she came north to visit last year’s home after her chick-rearing duties were done.

Five unfledged chicks remain at Sleeping Bear Dunes tended by their fathers. They should begin flying sometime in the next week. The chicks are beginning to stretch their wings and jump up into the air. The females have all already left to begin their migrations.

6/30 – It’s been a while since I’ve been able to make a posting.

The Plovers on North Manitou Island are doing very well. All twelve nests have hatched. The nest mentioned in the 5/25 posting where the male had his own, egg-less nest, was two weeks past the hatch date when it was decided to move the eggs (apparently dead) to the Biological Station. Amazingly three of the four chicks had survived and they hatched on June 30th…2 ½ weeks late.

On the mainland two of the six nests have fledged. They are now able to fly proficiently. Their mothers have left to begin their journeys south and as is typical the fathers are watching over them as they build up the strength and ability to migrate to the Atlantic or Gulf coasts for the fall and winter.

BORX has been unable to find a new mate and I seldom see him any more. It’s too bad that his fathering skills aren’t being put to use this summer. The chicks he and gOOX produced have fledged at the University of MI Biological Station and were released with wild Piping Plovers. His son has raised all 4 of his chicks successfully. BORX already has had a large impact on the genetics of the Great Lakes Piping Plover population.

6/9 – Back to Platte. All is well. BORX is hanging out in his territory but I didn’t see any signs of him trying to attract a new mate. There is a new female - --:X,O/L (no bands on the left. A metal, “X” and an Orange and bLack split band on the right) hanging out at the point with g/O/gX:-- (light green, Orange, light green split band and metal “X” on the left. Nothing on the right).
It looks like he will make a third nesting attempt this year after his first nest washed away in the storm on 5/11 and his mate disappeared during his second attempt, probably caught by the Merlin that has been hunting at Platte.

6/5 – 6/8 – I was out on North Manitou Island this week. There are now 12 active nests at Dimmick’s point. While we were out there five of them hatched. The little chicks don’t know about territory boundaries so they wander everywhere and cause many boundary disputes and fights among the adults.

6/1 – More chicks! BOX,g and LXOL are hatching their chicks at Platte this morning. When I arrived BOX,g was sitting on the nest. Nothing seemed different until I noticed part of an egg shell just outside the nest. In a moment when he stood up to turn around I could see one wet little chick and three eggs under him.

5/29 – CHICKS! The first nest was hatching when I arrived this morning. There were 3 chicks and one egg. The chicks are very cute. They move around and peck at things almost immediately.
Plover parents don’t have to provide food for their babies, they do watch over them and protect them until they are able to fly. These new chicks are BORX’s grandchildren. BORX is now trying to attract a new mate.

5/25 – We spent the week camping on North Manitou Island while banding Plovers and building exclosures around their nests. This is the most active Piping Plover area in all of the Great Lakes. We currently have 11 active nests and there is at least one more to come soon. In most Plover couples incubation proceeds smoothly. Each parent spends one to two hours incubating the eggs then leaves to feed when their partner returns to take their place. One pair on North Manitou is having a problem. The female behaves like a normal Plover but when it comes time for her mate to take over he sits in his own separate nest scrape about 1 meter away from the real nest. Even smoothing out his scrape didn’t encourage him to sit on his eggs. It seems doubtful that his eggs will survive. This is his first year as a parent. It will be interesting to see if he does a better job in future seasons.

5/23 – I spent the day assisting the highly-trained bander, Mark who comes down from the University of Michigan Biological Station at Pellston to put identifying bands on nesting Piping Plovers. Each Plover wears a unique combination of color bands as well as an aluminum US Fish and Wildlife Service band. The color combination allows monitors and researchers to recognize each bird individually. Much information can be gained about their lives, where they spend the winters, where they nest, and with whom, how long they live, and much more.

5/21 – I checked on BORX today. He’s still incubating. Most Piping Plovers would have given up long before this. Perhaps he’ll stay long enough to get his eggs back for hatching. The rest of the birds at Platte are still there

5/19 -A sad day at Platte Point. When I arrived at 10:00 I was immediately concerned that neither BORX nor gOOX were on their nest. I found BORX feeding at the shore. It just isn’t like them to leave their eggs unattended. After almost 2 hours he returned to the nest to incubate. There was no sign of gOOX. At 12:40 a Merlin made several passes up and down the shore hunting for shorebirds. This time it was unsuccessful. I fear that gOOX may not have been so lucky. .
After 3 hours of incubating BORX left the nest to feed. In consultation with US Fish and Wildlife and University of Minnesota authorities the decision was made to remove their eggs, replace them with clay replicas and transport them to the University of Michigan Biological Station incubation facility staffed by volunteer professional zookeepers. If gOOX miraculously returns or BORX continues to tend his nest they can be replaced for hatching and raised by their dad. In most cases the remaining parent eventually gives up on waiting for their mate to return and leaves the nest to re-mate and re-nest. If he stopped incubating at a time when no one was monitoring, the eggs could cool and die.

I spent May 8th – 12th away from Platte Point working on North Manitou Island with the nesting Piping Plovers there. Thursday’s storm hit hard both on North Manitou and at Platte Point.

5/16 – Today a Merlin was hunting at Platte Point. A Merlin is a medium-sized falcon. It flies along the shoreline just above the sand hoping to spook a shorebird into flight. All of the nesting Plovers have avoided capture so far but I didn’t see the female that –OX had finally attracted. He now has interested a new mate, X,L—(On the left leg a metal “X” band and below it a bLack one). I hope he is lucky in love this time.

5/11 – I woke up to rain and wind at 3am. When I got up at 7 and left the shelter of our campsite the wind was really starting to blow. The waves obliterated the formerly wide beach and washed out one of the Plover nests. Volunteers Janet and Nate tried to save the two eggs but unfortunately one was broken by rocks and the other was slightly cracked. The good news is that it is early in the season and the pair will probably re-nest.

On Platte Point waves and rain flooded the beach and filled the nest belonging to g/O/gX—(On the left leg a single band with stripes of light green, Orange and light green and a metal “X” band) and –O/g- (On the right leg a single band with Orange and light green)at the north end of the beach. All four eggs were lost. The rest of the nests were high enough to survive the storm.

5/4

We now have four nests with eggs. Today we built “exclosures” around the nests. Exclosures keep predators out of the nest area but allow the adult Plovers to run in and out to incubate their eggs.
The exclosure must be built quickly but very carefully so that the nest isn’t disturbed and the parents can return to keep their eggs warm.

The male, --OX (no bands on his left leg “--“, On his right there is an Orange band and a metal “X” band) has been scraping out nest cups, displaying and hoping that a female would join him for three weeks now. Finally today one did. She is a very young bird. She hatched last summer at Ludington State Park. Perhaps his wait is over.

BORX and gOOX and BOX,g and LXOL have settled into their incubation routine. One adult sits on the eggs for an hour or two while the other feeds, and preens, then runs or flies back to the nest, and takes over the incubation duties while the mate feeds and preens. Both share equally in incubating the eggs.

April 29th – EGGS!!

Today I found the first nests of the year. When I arrived BOX,g and LXOL were courting right by the path. I sat and watched for awhile. They were quite persistent about visiting and displaying at one spot and when I stood up and looked with my binoculars I could see why. There was an egg there! They haven’t begun incubating yet…they won’t until their full clutch of 4 eggs is laid. That will cause all their chicks to hatch at about the same time…probably about June 2nd.

A little later on I

Posted by Publius at 10:19 AM | Permalink

The Glacier Bay water park in Elmwood township has withdrawn its application, according to Elmwood clerk Connie Preston. The news came at Monday night's meeting of the Elmwood Board of Trustees.

The massive project had encountered fierce community opposition at a public hearing last October. More recently, the Elmwood township Planning Commission had expressed doubts about whether the project would pass under the terms of the current Zoning Ordinance.

Update 5/10/06: The Record-Eagle has details.

The Leelanau Enterprise chimes in here.

Posted by Publius at 09:46 PM | Permalink

The Record-Eagle has run an editorial that goes to the heart what's going on in Elmwood township today. Correctly describing the recall effort turned back by Elmwood voters last Tuesday as a "smear campaign" and a cynical effort by failed politicians and their cronies, the editorial lays out a constructive agenda for the community.

The editorial calls upon John Stanek and Noel Flohe, the involuntarily resigned politicians behind the campaign, to find something constructive to do with their time. And it cautions that voters should keep an eye on the four holdover members of Elmwood Township Board of Trustees: clerk Connie Preston, treasurer Debbie Street and trustees Terry Lautner and Jim O'Rourke. These four individuals have been relentless in their efforts to thwart Deri Smith's efforts to clean up Elmwood, and many of the problems that the recall campaign tried to blame on Smith can be laid at their collective doorstep.

The editorial missed only one trick. That is the role played in the recall campaign by pro-development forces in the recall campaign, a role that became clear only in the group's last mailing. We suspect we will be hearing more about those players once the recall group is forced to reveal the information about contributors it has apparently tried to conceal.

Finally, we also agree with Record-Eagle editorial that the real point now is to move ahead in Elmwood. There are challenges, to be sure, but it is an exciting time as well as the township finally gets it together with a new zoning ordinance and exciting plans for the waterfront and along the Leelanau Trail. Let's just hope those who have tried to undermine the progress can find a more constructive outlet for their energies.

Posted by Publius at 11:25 AM | Permalink

The mysteriously multiplying recall committees behind the failed effort to oust Elmwood superivsor Deri Smith continue to attract attention from state officials and local media.

As first reported by the Post, mailings to Elmwood residents were sent out over the names of at least two and possibly three different organizations, all of which shared the same street address. Opponents of the recall suspect that the multiple committees where intended to avoid the requirement that any individual committee spending more than $1000 report on its finances, including the sources of its donations.

Contacted for this Record-Eagle story, Ellie Lessard, who is listed as chairperson of one of the recall committees, denied any wrongdoing.

"There are two committees because there was a group of people interested in seeing her (Smith) recalled who didn't want to be part of ECHO," she said. "Some were interested in the recall for different reasons." As the Record-Eagle notes, however, the mailings from the two groups contain whole paragraphs of identical content.

The final anti-Smith mailing did differ from the earlier pieces in that it charged her with thwarting pro-development interests in the township. Developers have been prominent contributors to earlier campaigns by Smith's political opponents in the township.

Secretary of State spokesperson Kelly Chesney said the department would be reviewing the complaints against the recall forces.

Posted by Publius at 10:52 AM | Permalink

Leelanau County Treasurer Vicki Kilway is being investigated by the county prosecutor concerning her employment by a title company to whom she gave a county contract.

According to this Record-Eagle story, Kilway gave a contract worth about $30,000 to Title Check, LLC of Kalamazoo to do county title research. Title Check subsequently hired Kilway to do title work for the company.

Title Check general manager Marty Spaulding said Kilway's work consisted of 30 to 40 "10-minute jobs." Kilway says that she was paid $1800 after taxes for the work.

Taking Spaulding's upper estimate of time spent, Kilway worked about 400 minutes, which is about 6 and one half hours. That works out to somewhere between $250 and $300 an hour. Nice work, if you can get it!

Posted by Publius at 12:33 PM | Permalink

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.

Posted by Publius at 11:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

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.

Posted by Publius at 11:51 AM | Permalink

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.

Posted by Publius at 11:36 AM | Permalink

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.

Posted by Publius at 02:09 PM | Permalink

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.

Posted by Publius at 12:16 PM | Permalink

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.

Posted by Erik at 09:34 PM | Permalink

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.

Posted by Publius at 12:14 PM | Permalink

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.

Posted by Publius at 12:12 PM | Permalink

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 i