 |
| Home |
| Mission Statement |
| News |
| Current Issues |
| Govt Info |
| Editorial |
| ECSG Board |
| Contact Us |
| Links |
 |
 |
(Ed. note: This paper was delivered to the Planning Commission Dec. 19, 2006) As the Elmwood Township Planning Commission moves into the final phases of work on the zoning ordinance it is preparing for consideration and adoption, ECSG would like to take the opportunity to make several observations regarding the draft standards defining development and density in the proposed Rural Low Density zoning district. The necessity for comment at this point springs from the fact that to date, the standards that have been made a part of the draft have come into being without the benefit of discussion relative to the goals and strategies put forth in the township master plan. In fact, anyone familiar with the discussions and events that made up the establishment of the standards currently in place, understands that the one unit per five acre minimum lot size standard was placed in the document simply as a place holder until a discussion regarding a legitimate standard could take place. While ECSG understands that a particular number designating minimum lot size tends to become the most simplistic way to characterize standards that will effect development in a given district, we also know that no single number can adequately describe how land will actually be developed in a district served by multiple development options. We are going to proceed to make what we believe will be seen to be a convincing, logically derived, and practical case for a one unit per 10 acre minimum lot size in the proposed Rural ow Density zoning district.
Master Plan
By Michigan State statute, standards created and adopted into law in the form of a zoning code must flow from the local master plan. As such, standards should demonstrate a tight fit with stated goals and strategies as put forth by the plan. In Elmwood we enjoy the benefit of a recently created plan that clearly defines the community's agreed upon goals. The plan is the first place to look for direction in establishing zoning standards and Elmwood's plan stands out in its clear presentation of the interests and desires of the community. In regard to the establishment of the standards we consider here, several significant plan statements present themselves.
The very first objective for planning and growth management in the township's plan asks us to: "Accommodate future growth within the township while maintaining its existing rural/residential character" (p.33). We're asked to ensure that new land uses "...are compatible and in character with existing uses" (p.33), and that we "Balance the rate of land development with the availability of public facilities and services" (p.33). The plan states that one of our primary objectives is to "Encourage the retention of important farmlands, orchards, forest lands, and open space areas" (p.34). One of the many strategies suggested to meet that objective is to, "Encourage the use of cluster designs to conserve scenic views, agricultural lands, wetland areas, inland lakes, ground water recharge areas, steep slopes and other environmentally sensitive areas" (p.35). We are asked to, "Encourage the development of residential neighborhoods that are well integrated into the existing landscape and complement the character of existing neighborhoods" (p.35). To reach this objective we are presented with the following strategies among others: "Encourage new residential developments to be sited in a manner that protects the township's rural character and scenic views..." (p.35), and with the requirement that we "Discourage a pattern of scattered rural housing development on overly large lots, particularly in areas of productive agricultural or forest lands" (p.35). We are likewise directed to, "Encourage higher density housing on lands that have or are planned to have the capacity to support such development by means of public roads and utilities" (p.35), along with the direction to, "Encourage cluster housing and other creative forms of development to permit higher density housing while protecting the township's rural character..." (p.36). The plan describes an over arching concept critical to meeting the goals and objectives within the context of future land use planing that, "clustering and permanently designated open space,... be used to preserve the township's rural character and to minimize the demand on the township's limited public services" (p.40). As a specific method for use in protecting the identified characteristics found in the Rural Low Density Future Land Use classification the plan gives us the tool to meet our community's goals in this regard, "As landowners take increased measures to preserve the Township's open spaces and rural character and minimize public impacts, greater development densities could be permitted" (p.47), in other words the direction we need to implement density bonuses for development that helps the township meet its plan goals.
By no means is the above intended to be an exhaustive discussion of master plan issues that bear on the determination of development standards for the RLD zoning district. But, The major concepts intended to be adhered to are laid out, identifying the broad concepts meant to guide in formulating development standards and some of the tools available to reach those goals.
It is clear that in order to meet the most basic master plan objectives, preservation of rural character and concentration of development near existing municipal services, the plan's direction to offer incentives to facilitate open space and clustered housing developments is a central need. A great deal of attention must be focussed on offering meaningful bonuses through the various development options to accomplish this. But of primary importance is the establishment of an underlying standard that will allow for the pursuit of agriculture in the first place. These two factors together point the way toward basic 10 acre metes and bounds minimum lot size for a few very important reasons.
First off, public input in the ordinance formulation process has offered the practical opinion that meaningful commercial agriculture can take place on 10 acre units (see the records associated with public workshops held after the referendum defeat of the previously adopted ordinance). Serious consideration must be given economic reality when our ordinance suggests five acre zoning as a standard that either encourages agricultural uses or the creation of open space development. How a five acre parcel would more likely be created for an agricultural use than for a residential use would have to be justified by the planning commission in discussing meeting master plan objectives.
Secondly, the commission should carefully weigh the options at its disposal in offering density bonuses for clustering when beginning with five acre zoning as a right in the district. Under the standard as currently proposed at five acres, little imagination is required to see density bonuses bypassed in the interest of the expedient in many cases, creating exactly the land use pattern discouraged by the master plan. 10 acre zoning offers the township the opportunity to grant meaningful bonuses for the encouragement of the preferred open space development option, and leaves the minimum viable agricultural 10 acre unit as the default for development without open space consideration.
Development options
The beauty of the flexibility provided by the development options detailed in Article 10 of the proposed zoning ordinance is that the ability to approve residential land uses at greater than underlying density is available to applicants at many levels of complexity. Open space developments can be accessible and relatively easy to facilitate. In keeping with master plan guidelines it will always make more sense for land owners to opt for one of the open space clustering options as opposed to using straight metes and bounds land divisions when the underlying zoning value is maintained at 10 acres. Applicants that wish to create residential developments in the simplest way, with the least intrusion from a permitting process, could avail themselves of the "Open Space Preservation" option. A 100% density bonus could be granted, allowing 5 acre density, for simply agreeing to adhere the open space requirements detailed in the ordinance. By selecting this option applicants would immediately avail themselves of the density currently proposed as the basic underlying value. As the master plan suggests, land owners willing to dedicate a greater proportion of open space, and to follow more stringent design guidelines, could opt for the "Planned Residential Unit" option and possibly garner another 100% density bonus moving to one unit per two and a half acres. Following this course would require working closely with the planning commission through a pre-determined approval process, and probably representation on the developer's side by a design or engineering consultant. In effect, the minimum lot size becomes the standard to use in creating agricultural or open space land divisions, and the flexible development options allow greater density while working to meet the goals and objectives of the master plan in residential uses. To argue that this system would be more effective when based on five acre zoning would seem to raise more questions relative to the master plan than would be answered.
2.5 acre firewall
At the base of the discussion is the master plan's basic ground floor requirement that development without the advantage of public services not exceed one unit per two and one half acres. This requirement acts to create a basic environmental and public health standard while defining the engine that encourages residential development to take place where public services are already available. The township's ability to offer density bonuses in the proposed Rural Low Density district is therefore constrained to the range of density contained between that two and a half acre floor, and a ceiling defined by whatever standard is chosen as the defining minimum lot size. The township is simply allowed a more reasonable range of incentives to offer when that upper limit is placed at 10 acres. Defining bonuses in the range from two and one half acre density to five acre density restricts the ability of the township to create the environment where the best design developments are encouraged, and that encouragement is called for by the township master plan.
Common ground
The public debate surrounding the referendum on zoning that took place in 2003 basically revolved around the perception that the zoning standard was moving from the then in effect 10 acre standard, to a one acre standard for development where clustering was a feature. The public at that time seemed to have a sense that 10 acre zoning meant ag/open space, and that one acre zoning didn't. In the aftermath of the referendum vote, the feeling was voiced (again at the public workshops meant to re-direct the ordinance building process) on both sides of the issue that an underlying five acre zoning standard was precisely the type of requirement that should be avoided by the township, that it was potentially the most destructive option in terms of maintaining rural character, and that it was exactly the standard that would create the large lot residential land use pattern specifically discouraged by the master plan. When we can discriminate between the idea of density as opposed to minimum lot size we're well on our way to understanding the options that will be open to all land owners in the Rural Low Density zoning district. When we acknowledge the advantages offered by adopting an underlying 10 acre zoning standard for the Rural Low Density District in combination with flexible development options that allow residential development to reach to the two and one half acre limit, we begin to see that broad array of options is being given the land owner, except the ability to build in a way that strips our master plan of meaning. Take notice of the development option that allows agricultural land owners to choose a "Sliding Scale" small parcel land division, which is a process designed to accommodate those that would like to split off a few small lots for family use, or simply to offer for sale, and a picture is emerging that shows that both the rights of land owners, and the community are potentially served by an underlying 10 acre zoning standard.
ECSG is extremely comfortable going on the record in support of a policy for Elmwood in which a hierarchy of development density values based on an underlying minimum lot size of 10 acres supports the accommodation of more intense uses through the use of flexible development options. Our formal comparative studies of build out scenarios done in the past have clearly shown that carefully planned clustered housing/ open space residential development best meets the goals and objectives of the township master plan. Offering land owners a clear choice will most surely direct development in that direction. We strongly advocate a path forward that includes serious discussion at the planning commission level of development densities in the Rural Low Density district and their connection to the township master plan. We strongly state that to continue with a standard which has clearly been arrived at as a superficial political expedient may cause the worst possible option to be chosen for our community.