Attachment 18: Hilltop View Apartments New Construction Project Avalon Housing, Inc. 7651 Dan Hoey Rd, City of Dexter, Washtenaw County, MI
2019-20 HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) Funding
Conformance with Plans / Compatible Land Use and Zoning / Scale and Urban Design Documentation, Conformance with Plans / Compatible Land Use and Zoning / Scale and Urban Design Narrative, Dexter Master Plan, Dexter Zoning Ordinance Regs, Dexter Zoning Map, Washtenaw County Housing Affordability and Economic Equity Analysis
April 2, 2020
1 Conformance with Plans/Compatible Land Use and Zoning Narrative
The land use designation for this site according to the City of Dexter Master Plan adopted in November 2019, is identified as Village Commercial. The Master Plan specifically identifies this development site in its discussion of the Village Commercial zoning district: This designation is located in an area that includes ”. . . the parcel on Dan Hoey near the entrance to the industrial park. . . The area on Dan Hoey is to accommodate a pending mixed use development including housing, offices, and a food pantry.” The Village Commercial zoning district allows the mix of uses as proposed by this development, including: “Residential dwellings on upper floor only when commercial retail and office uses are within a building”; “Community Centers”; “Business and professional offices”; and “Multi‐family dwellings as a Special Use”. The Master Plan further states as a goal “Provide a desirable residential environment with diverse housing options for City residents” with an objective to “Allow for a range of housing options for City.” The Hilltop View Apartments development is seeking a rezoning from the current RD Research Development zoning designation to Planned Unit Development with Village Commercial as the underlying zoning district. The development received preliminary PUD Site Plan Approval from Dexter City Council in September 2019, and will be returning to Planning Commission and Council for Final PUD Site Plan approval. Hilltop View Apartments includes 24 residential units, a food pantry and a community center, all of which were part of the September 2019 preliminary PUD Site Plan approval. As part of their approval, City Council concluded that “the proposed density is acceptable.” Therefore, this project is in conformance with the Citys Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance. See Dexter Master Plan attached, including Future Land Use Map, Dexter Village Commercial Zoning District Regulations, and Dexter PUD Zoning District Regulations attached.
Scale and Urban Design Narrative
The Hilltop View site is surrounded on the immediate west by public use which is specifically a partially vacant property that includes the Dexter Community Garden and further west with multifamily residential development, south and southeast by a vacant portion of an adjacent parcel and further south and southeast by industrial research and development and vacant parcels, on the east industrial research and development and on the northwest, north and northeast by public use specifically public schools in all three of those directions and further northwest a cemetery. Currently the Hilltop View Site has four outbuilding appurtenant structures affiliated with a former single family residential farmstead structure that was demolished circa 2015 2016 located on the property parcel, plus portions of the Dexter Community Garden and a public mulch pile, plus open, unmowed vacant areas towards the rear of the site. All of these four outbuilding appurtenant structures are in fair to good structural condition. The appurtenant out‐buildings will be demolished. The development of this site which formerly contain one single family residential home increases the total number of residential units on site by 24 residential units, all of which will be affordable housing units. This supports the Washtenaw County Housing Affordability and Economic Equity Analysis which identifies the need to identify infill opportunities for new affordable housing projects. The residential units at the Hilltop View sites are well located in relation to access to commercial, cultural, schools and civic opportunities in the Dexter community as well as public transportation through the WAVE bus system and are close to job centers which will provide affordable housing in a location that is convenient for residents and less likely to contribute to increase commuting pressure. According to the Washtenaw County Housing Affordability and Economic Equity Analysis: Right now, the market is doing an adequate job of addressing significant portions of rental housing needs or working families. But families with poor credit and work histories, disabilities, or other challenges are not being served by the market. This project addresses these goals, and the undeveloped characteristics of this property provides an excellent opportunity to address
2 affordable housing needs within the greater Dexter community. The properties will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood as it will provide for the construction of 24 new multi‐family residential units on this site that are affordable for low‐income households on scarce infill parcel that are currently undeveloped and located within the city and are compatible with the nearby multi‐family residential uses located near the sites. It is of a similar size and impact as these surrounding as the multi‐family residential development to the west and therefore does not change the existing character and compatibility of the surrounding neighborhoods of the site. See Dexter Master Plan attached, including Existing Land Use Map and Future Land Use Map, and Washtenaw County Housing Affordability and Economic Equity Analysis attached.
3 Parks & Recreation DRAFTPlan Master Plan 4 Acknowledgments
Planning Commission Administration
Chair: Matt Kowalski City Manager: Vice Chair: Thomas Phillips Courtney Nicholls
James Carty City Clerk and Assistant to the City Manager: Alison Heatley Justin Breyer Kyle Marsh Karen Roberts Treasurer/Finance Director/Assessor: Marni Schmid Marie Sherry Jim Smith Community Development Manager: Scott Stewart Michelle Aniol
City Council Assistant Planner:
Mayor: Shawn Keough Mike Auerbach Council Members: Superintendent of Public Services: Scott Bell Dan Schlaff Paul Cousins Donna Fisher Julie Knight Zach Michels Jim Smith
2 5 11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction 7 Purpose of the Master Plan 7 How Is the Plan to be Used? 7 Historic Context 8 Planning Process 9 Regional Setting and History 10 Chapter 2: Existing Land Use and Community Plans 13 Existing Land Use 15 City Planning Initiatives 16 County Planning Initiatives 19 Non-Motorized Pathway Initiatives 20 Neighboring Communities 21 Chapter 3: Community Goals and Objectives 23 Public Participation 24 City of Dexter Goals 25 Overall Land Use 25 Natural Resources 26 Recreation/Open Space 27 Residential 27 Downtown – Mixed Use 28 Baker Road – Mixed Use 28 Dexter-Ann Arbor Road – Mixed Use 29
11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan 6 3 Economic Development 30 Mobility 31 Chapter 4: Future Land Use 33 General Description 33 Future Land Use Categories 33 Building Types 35 Downtown 38 Dexter – Ann Arbor Road Corridor – Mixed Use 41 Baker Road Corridor - Mixed Use 42 Village Commercial 44 Village Residential-1 45 Village Residential-2 47 Multiple-Family Residential 49 Suburban Residential 50 Research/Development 51 Light Industrial 52 Open Space 53 Public 54 Zoning Plan 55 Planning for Properties Outside the Current City Limits 56 Chapter 5: Mobility Plan 59 National Functional Classifications 60 Public Transportation 62 Non-Motorized Transportation 63 Access Management 65
4 7 11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan Chapter 6: Background Studies 67 Population 68 Education 71 Income 71 Housing Characteristics 72 Residential Target Market Analysis 73 Downtown Retail Market Study 73 Property Values 73 School Facilities 74 Chapter 7: Implementation 75 Zoning 76 Regulations and Ordinances 78 Strategies 78 Capital Improvement Program 82 Plan Education 83 Plan Updates 83 Project Implementation Table 84 Appendix 85
11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan 8 5 This page intentionally left blank.
9 Chapter 1: Introduction
Purpose of the Master Plan
Planning is a process that involves the conscious selection of policy choices relating to land use, growth, and physical development of the community. The purpose of the City of Dexter Master Plan is to state the goals and identify the objectives and strategies regarding land use and development that the City will pursue to attain those goals.
How Is the Plan to be Used?
The Master Plan is used in a variety of ways:
General Statement: The Plan is a general statement of the City’s goals and policies and provides a single, comprehensive view of the community’s desires for the future.
Aid in daily decision-making: The goals and policies outlined in the Plan guide the Planning Commission, City Council and other City bodies in their deliberations on zoning, subdivision, capital improvements and other matters related to land use and development. The Plan provides a stable, long-term basis for decision- making providing for a balance of land uses specific to the character of the City of Dexter.
Statutory Basis: The Plan provides the statutory basis upon which zoning decisions are made. The Michigan Planning Enabling Act (P.A. 33 of 2008, as amended) requires that the zoning ordinance be based upon a plan designed to promote the public health, safety and general welfare. The Master Plan and accompanying maps do not replace other City Ordinances, specifically the Zoning Ordinance and Map.
11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan 10 7 Public/Private Coordination: The Plan attempts to coordinate public improvements and private developments supported by the Capital Improvements Plan. For example, public investments such as road or sewer and water improvements should be located in areas identified in the Plan as resulting in the greatest benefit to the City and its residents.
Educational Tool: The Plan serves as an educational tool and gives citizens, property owners, developers and adjacent communities a clear indication of the City’s direction for the future.
The City of Dexter Master Plan is the primary, officially-adopted document that sets forth an agenda for the achievement of goals and policies. It is a long-range statement of general goals and policies aimed at the unified and coordinated development of the City that compliments the goals of nearby governmental units, wherever possible. It helps develop a balance of orderly change in a deliberate and controlled manner that permits controlled growth. As such, it provides the basis upon which zoning and land use decisions are made.
Historic Context
Because communities are constantly changing, the information contained in a plan becomes outdated in time. As the conditions change, so do opportunities and expectations for the future. It is essential to periodically update the information contained in the Master Plan as well as reevaluate its basic vision and implementation programs. Current State Legislation regarding City Planning requires a review of the Master Plan once every five years.
This document represents an amendment to the 2015 Dexter Master Plan, which amended the 2005 Master Plan that was adopted on April 11, 2005. An amendment of the 2005 plan was made one year later to incorporate the amendments made to the 1994 Master Plan in 1995 and 1997 into a single comprehensive plan. In addition, this document has been updated to include all new information available to the City, (i.e. U.S. Census, American Community Survey and SEMCOG projections) and addresses the City’s current desires for the future.
8 11 11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan Planning Process
The process used to generate the Plan consisted of four phases: background studies; evaluation of City character and development capability; identification of goals, and policies; and plan development. City and public engagement occurred throughout the process.
Background studies involving data inventory and analysis from Census data, existing reports, and field survey were gathered. Sound community planning cannot take place by itself. Many factors that exist must be taken into account when formulating plans for the future. This process is illustrated in the diagram below:
Figure 1 Planning Process
Background Studies Socio-Economics Natural Resources Built Environment Economic Base Soils Facilities Housing Topography Land Use Population Watersheds Transportation
City Character & Development Capability
Identification of Goals & Policies
Goals & Objectives Alternative Strategies City and Public Engagement
Plan Development Master Plan Implementation
11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan 12 9 Regional Setting and History
Dexter is located within the central portion of Washtenaw County, almost due east of the City of Chelsea, southeast of the Village of Pinckney and northwest of the City of Ann Arbor (see Figure 2 - Regional Setting - Washtenaw County). However, the abutting communities are primarily rural and semi-rural Townships.
The City of Dexter is almost completely surrounded by Scio Township with the exception of Webster Township to the north and a small portion of Dexter Township to the west where it abuts The Cedars of Dexter. The City of Ann Arbor is located approximately seven (7) miles east of Dexter, and allows access to entertainment, restaurants, medical, and educational (University of Michigan) opportunities, as well as supplements necessary products for City residents.
The City has easy access to the I-94 freeway via Baker Road, nearby Zeeb Road, as well as the M-14 freeway. Dexter-Ann Arbor Road provides the primary access from Dexter to the City of Ann Arbor, and along with Baker Road provides the primary access roads into and out of the City. Appropriate planning across borders will help facilitate compatible land use patterns between communities.
This area was originally settled in 1824 and was platted in 1830 as the Village of Dexter. After an eight-year process, the village officially became the City of Dexter on November 20, 2014. Historically, it has been noted that the Village was laid out in such a way that the sun could shine on both sides of each street all day. Even though Dexter was the fastest growing municipality in Michigan during the 2000’s, the City has retained its old time charm and hospitality.
The following sections of the City of Dexter Master Plan will carefully review the current state of the City and provide a plan to guide residents and officials in future development.
10 13 11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan Figure 2 - Regional Setting - Washtenaw County
Livingston County
Washtenaw County
Salem Township Lyndon Township Dexter Township Webster Township Northfield Township
Ann Arbor Township
Chelsea
Lima Township Scio Township Superior Township Sylvan Township City of Dexter
Ann Arbor
Ypsilanti
Sharon Township Freedom Township Lodi Township Pittsfield Township Ypsilanti Township
Wayne County
Wayne County
Washtenaw County Washtenaw County
Jackson County Washtenaw County
Livingston County Washtenaw County LivingstonJackson CountyCounty
Saline Washtenaw County LOCATION MAP Manchester City of Dexter Salem Township Lyndon Township Dexter Township Webster Township Northfield Township Washtenaw County, Michigan Augusta Township Manchester Township Bridgewater Township Saline Township York Township Miles 0 1.5 3 6
June 26, 2019 Milan Ann Arbor Township Washtenaw County Carlisle/Wortman Associates, Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan
Chelsea Monroe County
Lima Township Scio Township Superior Township Sylvan Township City of Dexter
Ann Arbor
Ypsilanti
Sharon Township Freedom Township Lodi Township Pittsfield Township Ypsilanti Township
Wayne County
Wayne County
Washtenaw County Washtenaw County
Jackson County
Washtenaw County Washtenaw County Jackson County
Saline LOCATION MAP Manchester City of Dexter Washtenaw County, Michigan Augusta Township Manchester Township Bridgewater Township Saline Township York Township Miles 0 1.5 3 6
June 26, 2019 Milan Washtenaw County Carlisle/Wortman Associates, Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan Monroe County
11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan 14 11 This page intentionally left blank.
12 15 11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan Chapter 2: Existing Land Use and Community Plans
While change is inevitable and growth will occur, the City of Dexter is committed to managing growth to enhance economic benefit, recreation activities and overall quality of life for all residents. This chapter is an inventory of existing land use patterns and current community plans, upon which the Master Plan is built.
The Existing Land Use map, table and analysis shows a snapshot of land use patterns in the City of Dexter in 2018. The section on City Planning Initiatives documents other planning efforts taken on by the City of Dexter from 2004 to the present.
Washtenaw County plans affecting City of Dexter from 2004 to present are noted in the County Planning Initiatives section, including transportation, transit and non- motorized planning efforts. A separate Non-Motorized Pathway Initiatives section is included due to the number of regional trails linking to the trail system in Dexter.
The Neighboring Communities section examines the future land use plans of adjacent communities.
11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan 16 13 Figure 3 - Existing Land Use
Daly Huron River
Alpine
Dexter Pinckney Samuel
Parkridge
Stoney Field Bridgeway Broad Jessica
Glacier Mast Pearl Fifth Westridge Eastridge
Potts
McCormick Katherine
Webster Boulder Sandhill
Cedars Island Lake Central Huron Alley
Webster Township Main Dexter Township
Dexter Township Alpine Joy Jeffords
Huron River Sandhill Broad Scio Township Central Fifth Alley Main Daly Huron River Jeffords Hermania Ann Arbor Third Broad Dover
IslandHill Dover Edison Alpine Dexter Pinckney Broad Samuel Fourth Ann Arbor H u r o n R iv e r Second Cottonwood Forest Dexter Chelsea Parkridge Forest
Stoney Field Grand Bridgeway Broad Jessica M i l l C r e e k Inverness Pineview
Glacier Mast Pearl Grand Fifth Eastridge Cushing Westridge
Potts
McCormick Katherine Webster Quackenbush Boulder Hudson Sandhill Lake Huron View Noble Cedars Baker Island Lake Central Huron York Ulrich Alley Meadow View Main
Pine ViewPine City Center WebsterWall Township
Dexter Township View
Dexter Township Alpine Joy Jeffords York View Huron River Palmer Sandhill Broad Kensington View Ulrich Sandfield Scio Township Oliver
Central Eaton Parker Shaw Fifth Alley Main
Jeffords Hermania Taylor Vacant Ann Arbor Third Broad Dover
IslandHill Dover Boenaro Bent Tree Edison Broad Single & Two Family Residential
Fourth Ann Arbor H u r o n R iv e r Ryan Wilson Second Cottonwood Forest Multi Family Residential Dexter Chelsea Forest Dan Hoey Grand M i l l C r e e k Inverness Pineview Commercial Dongara Grand Cushing Shield Office Quackenbush
Newlyn Hudson Lake Melbourne Lexington Huron View Noble Baker Industrial/Research & Development York Victoria Ulrich Carrington Meadow View
Pine ViewPine City Center Wall Hillside View
Weber York View Public/Semi-Public Mill Creek Cambridge Palmer Kensington View Ulrich Sandfield Oliver Eaton Open Space/Recreation
Parker Baker HeightsShaw
Oxbow
Scio Township Scio Township Bishop
Lima Township Vacant Lima Township Taylor Preston Shagbark Morrison Jananne Kingsley City Boundary Boenaro Bent Tree
Bristol Bristol
Coventry South Downs Single & Two Family Residential Forshee Ryan Wilson Wellington Multi Family Residential Dan Hoey Dexter-Ann Arbor Commercial EXISTING LAND USE
Dongara
Shield Office City of Dexter Newlyn
Melbourne Lexington Victoria Industrial/Research & Development Washtenaw County, Michigan Carrington Loch Highland Hillside Public/Semi-Public Weber
Mill Creek Cambridge Open Space/Recreation Feet Baker Heights Baker 0 630 1,260 1,890 2,520
Oxbow Scio Township
Scio Township Bishop ¯ Lima Township Lima Township Preston Shagbark Morrison Jananne Kingsley City Boundary
Bristol Bristol Coventry South Downs
Forshee Source: Washtenaw County Data Wellington
Dexter-Ann Arbor EXISTING LAND USE 4-12-2018 Carlisle/Wortman Associates, Inc. City of Dexter Ann Arbor, Michigan Washtenaw County, Michigan Loch Highland
Feet Baker ¯ 0 630 1,260 1,890 2,520
Source: Washtenaw County Data
4-12-2018 Carlisle/Wortman Associates, Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan
14 17 11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan Table 1. - City of Dexter Existing Land Use
Daly Huron River Dexter (City) Existing Land Use Alpine
Dexter Pinckney Acres % Samuel Vacant 31.09 3.2% Parkridge
Stoney Field Bridgeway Broad Jessica Single-Family & Two-Family Residential 344.8 35.7%
Glacier Mast Pearl Fifth Westridge Eastridge
Potts
McCormick Katherine Multiple-Family Residential 60.59 6.3%
Webster Boulder Sandhill
Cedars Island Lake Central Commercial 64.8 6.7% Huron Alley
Webster Township Main Dexter Township
Dexter Township Alpine Joy Jeffords Office 18.17 1.9%
Huron River Sandhill Broad Scio Township Industrial/Research & Development 148.19 15.3% Central Fifth Alley Main Jeffords Hermania Public/ Semi-Public 171.97 17.8% Ann Arbor Third Broad Dover
IslandHill Dover Edison Broad Open Space/Recreation 126.45 13.1% Fourth Ann Arbor H u r o n R iv e r Second Cottonwood Forest Dexter Chelsea Transportation (Right-of-Ways) Forest Grand
M i l l C r e e k Inverness Pineview Grand Total 966.06 100% Cushing
Hudson Quackenbush Lake Source: Washtenaw County, 2018 Huron View Noble Baker
York Ulrich Meadow View
Pine ViewPine City Center Wall View York View Palmer Kensington View Ulrich Sandfield Oliver Existing Land Use
Eaton Parker Shaw
Taylor Vacant
Boenaro Bent Tree Single & Two Family Residential The existing land use map documents land use patterns and
Ryan Wilson Multi Family Residential associations as they existed in 2018 within the City of Dexter. Dan Hoey Commercial
Dongara Table 1 shows the acreage and percentage of land area for Shield Office
Newlyn land uses. The Existing Land Use Map (Figure 3) shows where
Melbourne Lexington
Victoria Industrial/Research & Development Carrington those land uses exist in the City. Hillside Public/Semi-Public Weber
Mill Creek Cambridge Open Space/Recreation Baker Heights The existing land use survey shows:
Oxbow
Scio Township
Scio Township Bishop Lima Township Lima Township Preston Shagbark Morrison Jananne Kingsley City Boundary
Bristol Bristol Coventry South Downs Forshee • Only 31.09 acres of vacant land is available for Wellington 3.2% Dexter-Ann Arbor EXISTING LAND USE development. City of Dexter • The primary land use is single-family and two-family Washtenaw13.1% County, Michigan Loch Highland residential, over one-third of the City’s area. Feet Baker ¯ 0 630 1,260 1,890 2,520 • Industrial/Research & Development is the second largest 35.7% 17.8% Source: Washtenaw County Data land use in terms of acreage. As vacant parcels in the 4-12-2018 industrial park develop, this category will likely grow. Carlisle/Wortman Associates, Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan • Office is the smallest land use in terms of area in the City. 15.3%
6.7% 6.3%
1.9%
11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan 18 15 City Planning Initiatives
A number of existing and anticipated circumstances will affect Dexter’s future. These include a growing population, decentralized places of employment with increased commuting distances and conversely, an increase in those working from home. These factors together with the attraction of the Ann Arbor area as a place to live and work will provide development opportunities within Dexter and the surrounding communities for years to come.
The City has responded to these challenges in a variety of ways, including a continued commitment to community planning goals and policies geared to preserving important natural features, while planning for growth in those areas most suitable for development.
Village of Dexter, Michigan Downtown Development Strategic Plan The following plans, policies and initiatives highlight Dexter’s commitment to land use planning, and are incorporated into this Master Plan by reference:
Baker Road/Dexter Ann Arbor Road Corridors Joint Planning Initiative (2004) – City of Dexter/Scio Township - A guide in evaluating development proposals within the corridor along with the communities, current zoning, master plan, or other applicable reports and studies. It should also be used as an action plan in relation to the future land use and implementation portion of the report for both the City and the Township. This plan is the result of a joint planning effort between Scio Township and the City of Dexter Planning Commission. While much of the area discussed within 2006 the plan is for outside the City limits, the City of Dexter Master Plan endorses the goals and objectives of this document.
Storm Water Management Study (November 2004) – A study of the storm drainage system in the old Village area, including defining how storm water is conveyed in the area with figures that show existing drainage infrastructure and the drainage district areas.
Downtown Development Strategic Plan (2006) – The DDA engaged the public, downtown merchants and local elected leaders in a strategic planning process in order to develop goals, objectives and initiatives supportive of specific infrastructure improvements, programming, activity generators and public/private cooperation. The Strategic Plan also provides Tax Increment Financing (TIF) information required under State statute.
16 19 11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan FY 2008 State Revolving Fund Project Plan (July 2007) - A study of alternatives in order to provide the City with more capacity in the wastewater system, including the wastewater treatment plan and distribution system. This Plan was required to obtain funding from the State Revolving Fund. This plan led to the construction of the equalization basin. The Plan included an Inflow and Infiltration Removal Study.
Road Maintenance Program (June 2008, updated annually) – A review of the paved road conditions throughout the City. Each road is ranked between one (1) and ten (10), one (1) being totally degraded and ten (10) being a brand new road. This is used to determine where to complete road maintenance in the City in any given year. It is updated annually based on the maintenance that was completed that year.
Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund Project Plan (May 2009) – A study of alternatives in order to provide the City with an additional water supply and repair old water mains. The plan was required to obtain funding from the Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund. This plan led to the construction of the fifth City well, well house, improvements to the iron removal plant and upgrades to the distribution system. The Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund Project Plan included a Water System Improvements Report and a Water System Reliability Study.
Crosswalk Evaluation (November 2010) – A review of the crosswalks within the City with recommendations for improvements at each crosswalk. The evaluation included inspection and review of existing sidewalk ramps.
FY 2012 State Revolving Fund Project Plan (July 2011) – A study of alternatives to upgrade the wastewater treatment plant that included upgrading the sludge handling system (including an analysis that identified several alternatives to upgrade the sludge handing system to provide adequate sludge processing and storage), the grit system, and the instrumentation and controls system (SCADA). This project plan is required to obtain funding through the State Revolving Loan Fund.
Oil and Gas Drilling (Master Plan Update 2015) - The City of Dexter has experienced increased interest in oil and gas exploration and development, which the City will balance with other community goals for existing and planned land uses, including natural resource protection.
11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan 20 17 Residential Target Market Analysis (2015) - Part of a joint study with the cities of Chelsea, Saline and Ypsilanti, the analysis explored the potential for adding “Missing Middle” housing choices by measuring the residential market potential for rehabilitation of existing structures, conversions of existing buildings, and new construction.
Downtown Retail Market Study (2016) - The objective of the retail
2018-2023 Capital Improvements Plan market analysis downtown Dexter was to identify the additional Adopted by Planning Commission – April 2, 2018 Accepted by City Council – April 23, 2018 retail spending potential that would support the location of new businesses in the downtown.
Park and Recreation Facilities Master Plan (2016) – The Plan outlines existing and future parks and recreation needs, and identifies specific improvements, costs, priorities and years of completion to better represent the long-range vision of the Parks and Recreation Commission.
Capital Improvement Plan (2018) – The capital improvements plan (CIP) outlines a schedule of public service expenditures over a six- year period (fiscal years 2018-2023) and beyond. The CIP does not address all of the capital expenditures for the City, but provides for large, physical improvements that are permanent in nature, including the basic facilities, services, and installations needed for the functioning of the community. These include transportation systems, utilities, municipal facilities and other miscellaneous projects.
CITY OF DEXTER Downtown Dexter DDA Parking Study (2017) – The objectives of the study are: to inventory existing parking and land uses; examine MICHIGAN current parking standards; assess future parking needs; and provide DOWNTOWN RETAIL MARKET STUDY alternatives for parking management to be incorporated into the MARCH 2016
Master Plan by reference.
Economic Development Strategic Plan (2018) – The purpose of the
strategic plan is to lay out an optimum approach to economic
development efforts, focused on sustaining the local community
at the right size with the desired mix of businesses. The plan Prepared for the:
Office of Community Development City of Dexter includes a vision, factors to be addressed, long-term initiatives and 8140 Main Street Dexter Michigan, 48130-1092 recommendations to be incorporated into the Master Plan by
(734) 426-8303 reference.
18 21 11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan County Planning Initiatives
A number of planning initiatives recently took place in Washtenaw County and the City of Dexter which have relevance to the current Plan. Elements of these various plans and initiatives are incorporated throughout this document.
Moving You Forward Transit Master Plan Washtenaw County (2011)
– The Moving You Forward Transit Master Plan for Washtenaw ! ! ! ! County is a new long-range plan which sets out a county-wide ! ! ! transit vision for the next thirty (30) years. The Plan provides a Housing Affordability and Economic Equity - Analysis Washtenaw County, Michigan ! robust, feasible and integrated package of transit investments and ! ! ! services, designed to make transit a real transportation choice for ! ! ! ! everyone in Washtenaw County. In 2019, the Ride is starting a new ! !
czb! Report 5-year Capital Improvement Plan where options for enhanced and Prepared for the OfÞce of Community and Economic Development Washtenaw County January 2015 expanded service could be considered. !
Housing Affordability and Economic Equity – Analysis for Washtenaw County (2015) – Prepared for the Office of Community and Economic Development of Washtenaw County, the analysis provides a snapshot of housing market conditions and corresponding goals to improve affordability across a wide spectrum of households in Washtenaw County’s urban core communities. The report identifies tools to guide the allocation of resources and policy decisions toward a regionally balanced housing market in order to maximize opportunity for lower and middle class households and the development of a more equitable community, with corresponding economic, environmental, and other quality of life benefits for all residents.
Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS) 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan (Updated 2019) - The Washtenaw Area Transportation Study has updated a long-range transportation plan for the County. The plan includes goals and capital and operating 2045 LONG RANGE PLAN improvement projects which involve reconstruction or resurfacing, Washtenaw Area Transportation Study safety improvements, bridge reconstruction, environmental 2019 changes, non-motorized improvements and transit capital.
11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan 22 19 Non-Motorized Pathway Initiatives
A number of pathway initiatives link to the non-motorized network in the City of Dexter. Elements of these initiatives are part of the Master Plan, especially mobility and parks and recreation.
Border-to-Border Trail (B2B) – This initiative is an ongoing collaboration of communities and organizations to construct a shared-use path that will link the open spaces of the Huron River Greenway. With its County Greenways initiative, the Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation Commission has committed to expand hike and bike trails throughout the County. The B2B in 2017 has over 23 miles of paved, shared-use paths exist, with more planned. The Dexter segment of the Border-to-Border Trail links Dexter-Huron Metropark through Downtown Dexter to Mill Creek Park to Hudson Mills Metropark. http://www.bordertoborder.org/
Huron-Waterloo Pathways Loop – The Huron-Waterloo Pathways Initiative has begun planning, development, and fundraising for a 44-mile continuous “loop” trail system connecting Dexter, Chelsea, Stockbridge, and Pinckney to the State’s Iron Belle Trail System. The proposed system would connect to Dexter via the Border-to-Border Trail that runs north towards Hudson-Mills Metropark, and west via the Dexter-Chelsea Road corridor. http://huron-waterloo-pathways.org/
Iron Belle Trail – When completed, the Iron Belle Trail will allow travelers the opportunity to hike or bicycle on a continuous trail from Belle Isle in Michigan’s Lower Peninsula to Ironwood in the Northern Peninsula. The 1,273-mile hiking route uses existing multi-use trails that have been developed by local units of government, counties, and the State. The Border-to-Border Trail has been incorporated into this statewide trail, including the segment which runs through the City of Dexter. https://www.michigan.org/property/iron-belle-trail
Huron River Water Trail & Trail Towns - The Huron River Water Trail provides paddlers, boaters, and tubers a 104-mile trail with which to connect with nature, history, and the communities that abut the River. In January 2015, the Huron River received the distinction of being one of only 18 National Water Trails in the United States. Along the Huron River Water Trail, five communities have been designated as “Trail Towns” for their close-knit relationship with the River: Dexter, Milford, Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, and Flat Rock. These communities have worked and will continue to work with the Huron River Watershed Council to promote River preservation and water-based recreation. https://huronriverwatertrail.org/trail-towns/
20 23 11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan Neighboring Communities
The City of Dexter is located at the cross-section of three townships in Washtenaw County, Michigan: Scio Township, Webster Township and Dexter Township. In addition, Lima Township is less than one-half mile west of the City limits.
While the Townships generally share similar goals regarding maintaining rural character and preserving farmland, the development activities and planning policies in these communities can influence the City of Dexter’s future character. Figure 4 illustrates the different planned future land uses for the areas adjacent to the City.
The areas surrounding the City of Dexter are generally planned for lower intensity residential land use, with the exception of the “commercial node” found north of the City on Mast Road. While this commercial area is not necessarily inconsistent with the City, uses proposed by Webster Township in this area should be monitored by the City for compatibility. Working with Webster Township early in the development process for this area should be encouraged.
More specifically, the areas surrounding Dexter are planned as follows:
• Scio Township – Planned for low-density residential land uses surrounding the City. The only exception to that is the planned Office/Industrial area found adjacent to Dexter Chelsea Road. We note that this planned Office/Industrial area will primarily accommodate existing uses along this road. https://sciotownship.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/2015-Scio-Township-MP- Final.pdf
• Webster Township – Although not yet developed, Webster Township has planned a commercial node as well as an area of higher density residential land use north of the City along Mast Road. While adjacent to the City, it is separated from it by the Huron River. Outside of the Mast Road area, Webster Township has planned Recreation/Conservation and low density residential (2.5 to 3-acre lots) land uses. http://www.twp.webster.mi.us/Master%20Plan%202015%20Final%20Draft.pdf
• Dexter Township – Only a small portion of Dexter Township actually abuts the City. That area is adjacent to the “The Cedars” senior living, a 10-acre, 60-unit facility along Island Lake Drive. http://www.dextertownship.org/BoardCommission/PlanningCommission/ MasterPlan.aspx
11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan 24 21 Daly
Huron River
Dexter Pinckney
Island Lake
Stoney Field Parkridge
Glacier Bridgeway Mast Figure 4. - Generalized FLU map for surrounding area
Katherine Westridge Eastridge Pearl Daly Webster Sandhill
Potts
Huron River
Sandhill Dexter Pinckney Dexter Township
DexterCedars Township Huron Island Lake Webster Township Alpine Stoney Field Joy Parkridge Huron River Glacier Broad Bridgeway Mast KatherineScioWestridge TownshipEastridge Pearl
Webster Sandhill
Potts Fifth Central
Second Sandhill Dexter Township
Alley Main DexterCedars Township Hermania Huron Webster Township Cottonwood Alpine Joy Dover HuronAgricultural River IslandHill Broad Fourth Broad Ann Arbor Edison Scio Township
Fifth Central Alley Main Second Residential - 5 Acres Lots Hermania Dexter Chelsea Cottonwood Grand H u r o n R iv e r Dover Agricultural IslandHill Residential - 2 1/2 - 3 Acre Lots Forest Broad Fourth Third Ann Arbor Edison M i l l C r e e k Pineview
PineView Residential - 5 Acres Lots
Hudson Cushing Dexter Chelsea Residential - 1 Acre Lots Grand H u r o n R iv e r Forest Residential - 2 1/2 - 3 Acre Lots Third M i l l C r e e k Pineview Lake PineView Huron View Hudson Cushing Residential - 1/2 Acre Lots Residential - 1 Acre Lots Noble York Ulrich Huron View Lake Residential - 1/2 Acre Lots Inverness Noble Baker Residential - 1/4 - 1/3 Acre Lots York Ulrich Inverness Wall View Baker Residential - 1/4 - 1/3 Acre Lots York View Wall View Palmer York View Kensington Dexter-Ann Arbor Kensington Dexter-Ann ArborOffice/IndustrialPalmer Office/Industrial Eaton Oliver Eaton Oliver Shaw Ulrich Shaw Ulrich Public/Semi-Public C i t y Public/Semi-PublicTaylor Taylor Boenaro Recreation/Conservation C i t y Bent Tree o f Boenaro Recreation/ConservationRyan Wilson Commercial Node Bent Tree D e x t e r
o f D e x t eDan r Hoey
Scio Township Scio Township
Lima Township City Boundary Ryan Wilson Lima Township Commercial Node
Dongara D e x t e r Lexington
Dan Hoey Shield Melbourne
Scio Township
Newlyn Scio Township
Lima Township City Boundary Lima Township Victoria Carrington Dongara Lexington Hillside Melbourne Weber Shield Daly Parker Mill Creek
Cambridge
Newlyn Huron River Dexter Pinckney Figure 5 Oxbow
Bishop Preston Victoria Jananne Shagbark Carrington Kingsley Bristol Island Lake Hillside Weber Coventry Forshee Parker Wellington ADJACENT COMMUNITIES Stoney Field Parkridge Mill Creek Morrison
Cambridge
Glacier Bridgeway Mast FUTURE LAND USES Katherine Westridge Eastridge Pearl Figure 5 Oxbow Webster Sandhill
Potts Bishop Preston hland Jananne Shagbark City of Dexter
Sandhill Dexter Township
DexterCedars Township Kingsley Huron Bristol Loch Hig Washtenaw County, Michigan Webster Township Alpine Joy Coventry Wellington Forshee ADJACENT COMMUNITIES Huron River Morrison Broad Scio Township Feet ¯ 0 350 700 1,050 1,400 1,750 Fifth Central Alley Main Second Hermania FUTURE LAND USES Source: Washtenaw County Base Data Cottonwood Dover Agricultural IslandHill Broad Fourth Ann Arbor Edison Residential - 5 Acres Lots City of Dexter 6-26-2019 Carlisle/Wortman Associates, Inc. Dexter Chelsea Grand H u r o n R iv e r Ann Arbor, Michigan Forest Residential - 2 1/2 - 3 Acre Lots Loch Highland Third M i l l C r e e k Washtenaw County, Michigan Pineview
PineView Hudson Cushing Residential - 1 Acre Lots
Huron View Lake Residential - 1/2 Acre Lots Noble York Ulrich Feet Inverness Baker Residential - 1/4 - 1/3 Acre Lots 0 350 700 1,050 1,400 1,750 Wall View ¯ York View Kensington Dexter-Ann Arbor Palmer Office/Industrial Eaton Oliver Shaw Ulrich Public/Semi-Public Source: Washtenaw County Base Data C i t y Taylor Boenaro Recreation/Conservation Bent Tree o f D e x t e r Ryan Wilson Commercial Node 6-26-2019
Dan Hoey Carlisle/Wortman Associates, Inc.
Scio Township Scio Township
Lima Township City Boundary Lima Township Ann Arbor, Michigan
Dongara
Lexington
Shield Melbourne Newlyn Victoria Carrington Hillside Weber Parker Mill Creek
Cambridge Figure 5 Oxbow
Bishop Preston Jananne Shagbark 22 25 Kingsley Bristol 11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan
Coventry Wellington Forshee ADJACENT COMMUNITIES Morrison FUTURE LAND USES City of Dexter Loch Highland Washtenaw County, Michigan
Feet ¯ 0 350 700 1,050 1,400 1,750
Source: Washtenaw County Base Data
6-26-2019 Carlisle/Wortman Associates, Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan Chapter 3: Community Goals and Objectives
The City of Dexter is a growing community that faces the difficult challenge of accommodating increasing growth and development, and private land uses and values, while retaining its small town character, protecting natural resources, including air, water and public land. A key component of the City of Dexter Master Plan is the articulation of a vision for the City’s future growth and the formulation of community goals which reflect the community desires regarding how to respond to future development.
The goals of the community attempt to balance the various interests and ensure that each development decision is consistent with the overall vision for the City. They help convey preferred development strategies and outline development policies for the City.
The goals were developed with input from residents, property and business owners, the Planning Commission, the City Council and other City officials.
11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan 26 23 Public Participation
Public Input Events for 2019 Update
For the 2019 update, the City hosted a variety of public input events, ranging from walking tours to a community-wide implementation workshop. These events are briefly described below and documentation is included in the appendix:
• Joint Meetings with the City Council and Planning Commission: Three three joint meetings with the City Council and the Planning Commission were held to kick off the update process, decide goals and objectives and discuss implementation.
• Activity Booth at Apple Daze: At Apple Daze in October 2017, the City had a booth where people could mark on a map or write a comment about what they wanted to preserve, improve or change in the City of Dexter. Many contributed that they wanted to preserve the small town feel of Dexter. Comments on improvements or changes focused on traffic, more variety in businesses and additions to parks and playgrounds.
• Walking Tours: In the late summer to late fall of 2017, walking tours of the downtown area, the Baker Road Corridor and the Dexter-Ann Arbor Road Corridor were held. Participants included city staff, elected and appointed officials and members of the public. Along Baker Corridor, the consensus was the corridor lacked a clear vision, design regulations needed to be updated to be realistic, and pedestrian improvements were needed. In the downtown area, the group discussed redevelopment of buildings, uses of alleys and the mix of housing types. The Dexter-Ann Arbor Corridor tour was only attended by staff and consultants. Design guidelines and safety for cyclists and pedestrians were discussed.
• Interactive On-Line Mapping: An interactive mapping program, called the MiCommunity Remarks™ tool, was used throughout the process for people to conveniently post their ideas, comments, and concerns. The tool let comments to be linked to a specific geographic location. Remarks included suggestions for additional parks and pedestrian crosswalks as well as requests to lessen the traffic in the downtown.
• Community-Wide Future Land Use Workshop: In late October Photographs from 2018 2018, the Planning Commission hosted a community-wide Walking Tours workshop on the proposed Future Land Use Map and changes.
24 27 11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan City of Dexter Goals
Goals are general statements that define the direction and character of future development. Policies set forth a framework for action and form the basis upon which more detailed development decisions may be made. Adoption of policies does not commit the City of Dexter to any particular recommendation, but rather constitutes a commitment to take actions consistent with policy guidelines.
From evaluation of the survey results, background studies, existing land use information and various referenced City and County Planning Initiatives, the City of Dexter has formulated the following goals and objectives to serve as the basis for the future development of the City of Dexter.
Overall Land Use
Goal
Guide development to foster the responsible use of land, conserve natural features, preserve small town character and to make sustainable use of existing public services, utilities, and infrastructure.
Objectives
1. Prioritize positive development, redevelopment and adaptive re-use within the City’s borders.
2. Support controlled growth in all directions from City borders, honoring a spirit of cooperation with neighboring municipalities.
3. Advocate for the enhancement and preservation of natural features and a healthy ecosystem within and surrounding our City.
4. Preserve the small-town character of the City, especially in the Downtown and historic neighborhoods.
5. Allow residential density levels that correspond to available infrastructure (sewer, water and roads) and adjacent land use.
6. Incentivize or require high quality site and building designs that contribute to strong neighborhoods, vital shopping districts and desirable employment centers.
7. Organize commercial development into compact, unified commercial centers or nodes that complement the scale and character of existing development with shared parking, shared driveways and consolidated curb cuts.
8. Assure that new development and existing residential, commercial
11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan 28 25 and industrial areas protect the City’s small town character, open space, natural resources and recreational values of the City from activities and land uses related or ancillary to mineral, sand and gravel, and oil and gas exploration and development.
9. Evaluate impact of new development, proposed border expansions and new and expanded land uses on community services and facilities, such as police, fire, and parks, and work to ensure there are adequate regulatory tools and resources available to support new development and uses while protecting existing and planned uses and environmental quality, in particular where uses involve a higher risk of release, discharge, or spill of hazardous substances, pollutants, or similar substances.
Natural Resources
Goal
Protect and maintain the City’s natural resources, particularly the Huron River and Mill Creek areas.
Objectives
1. Protect and enhance the Huron River and Mill Creek.
2. Protect and maintain the City’s natural landscape.
3. Expand publicly-owned network of natural resources whenever possible.
4. Maintain and strengthen safe management of disposal of all waste materials, both hazardous and non-hazardous, which are generated within or transported through the City.
5. Reduce noise and air pollution and site lighting levels so as to minimize their impact on the community.
6. Continue to concentrate efforts on wellhead protection and groundwater quality to protect this vital community resource.
7. Protect the water quantity and quality of the City’s rivers, streams, groundwater, springs, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and creeks, particularly the Huron River and Mill Creek, as a single interconnected hydrologic system.
26 29 11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan Recreation/Open Space
Goal
Provide recreational opportunities for all residents of the City including programs and activities offered by the City and other agencies.
Objectives
1. Meet present and future community needs for parks, greenways, trails and recreation.
2. Encourage healthy lifestyles for City residents through a balanced program of active and passive recreation opportunities.
3. Strive to make every City park and recreation site accessible through barrier-free design and linkage to an all-season system of non- motorized pathways, trails, sidewalks and bike paths connecting neighborhoods with parks, greenways, pathways, recreation venues, schools and commercial retail areas.
4. Plan for and invest in recreation and open space as a driver of economic development in the City. Develop, as the lead agency or a partner, new parks and/or recreation assets when opportunities arise.
5. Investigate and place appropriate art, cultural and heritage elements in planned locations throughout the City.
Residential
Goal
Provide a desirable residential environment with diverse housing options for City residents.
Objectives
1. Allow for a range of housing options for City.
2. Protect the City’s historic neighborhoods.
3. Strengthen and protect the viability of residential neighborhoods.
4. Explore viability of allowing lot splits fronting alleys to increase buildable lots in historic neighborhoods.
11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan 30 27 Downtown – Mixed Use
Goal
Preserve and strengthen the existing character of the downtown area as a historic, pedestrian-scaled community, with traditional site and architectural design creating an aesthetically memorable place with vibrant streetscapes and community spaces.
Objectives
1. Concentrate development in the Downtown to foster the responsible use of land and natural features, and to make best use of existing public services, utilities and infrastructure.
2. Encourage, through regulations and incentives, mixed-uses with a village-scale and character.
3. Connect public gathering spaces in and adjacent to the Downtown with accessible sidewalks and trails, landmarks and gateways.
4. Protect public views and access to Mill Creek from the Downtown.
Baker Road – Mixed Use
Goal
Encourage cohesive development and strategic investments for this mixed use area to become a walkable corridor that acts as a gateway between the downtown area and adjacent neighborhoods.
Objectives
1. Encourage coordinated mix of commercial, office, service and residential uses.
2. Create a safe corridor for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists alike, linking neighborhoods to the downtown.
3. Require or build common design elements throughout the corridor to create a walkable, mixed-use, urban corridor.
4. Encourage preservation of natural features and development of parks and consider their interrelationship with existing parkland, natural areas and adjacent neighborhoods.
28 31 11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan Dexter-Ann Arbor Road – Mixed Use
Goal
Encourage cohesive and distinct development of a mix of commercial, office, service and residential uses within this area which serves as an entrance to the City as well as a transitional area between the historic Village area and the eastern portion of the City.
Objectives
1. Organize commercial development into compact, unified commercial centers that complement the scale and character of existing development or that promote the desired character for areas where new development/redevelopment is planned.
2. Encourage mixed use development or multiple-family or attached housing as a buffer between adjacent residential areas and other uses within this planned area. Such uses will be scaled, designed and landscaped so as to complement and enhance the adjacent properties.
3. Encourage preservation of natural features and consider their interrelationship with existing natural areas and adjacent neighborhoods.
4. Maintain public gathering spaces at key points of interest and entrances to intersections within a pedestrian/non-motorized circulation system.
5. Connect pathways, sidewalks and trails in adjacent neighborhoods to the corridor.
6. Update the Dexter-Ann Arbor Road Corridor Overlay District to ensure accommodation of a compatible and complementary mix of uses and building design within this planned mixed use area.
11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan 32 29 Economic Development
Goal
Provide quality, job producing economic development for a diverse economy within the City.
Objectives
1. Maintain commercial opportunities in mixed-use areas and commercial districts that meet the needs of City residents in terms of location and services offered.
2. Organize commercial development into compact, unified commercial centers or nodes that complement the scale and character of existing development.
3. Provide a balanced industrial development strategy to achieve environmental compatibility and maintain the neighborhood character of the City.
4. Promote and coordinate activities aimed at improving the business climate within the City, including cooperation with merchants and the Dexter Area Chamber of Commerce.
5. Facilitate the maintenance, updating and expansion of a high-speed fiber network within the City to allow technology-based businesses of all sizes to flourish.
6. Attract and retain businesses, such as technology-based businesses and unique lifestyle or artisan brands, which enhance the City’s unique small town feel.
7. Plan for and invest in recreation and open space as a driver of economic development in the City.
8. Foster development, redevelopment and expansion within the City creating new employment and business opportunities.
9. Plan for and promote tourism for the City of Dexter, while maintaining the small town character and quality of life for the community.
30 33 11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan Mobility
Goal
Facilitate safe, reliable movement by pedestrians, cyclists, motorists and transit riders through a system of complete streets interconnected with a non-motorized network.
Objectives
1. Maintain a safe transportation network that balances the protection of pedestrians and cyclists with the efficient movement of vehicles throughout the City.
2. Expand walkability in the City of Dexter.
3. Reduce the number of ingress and egress points to public roads wherever possible through on street parking, common parking and drives, and shared parking options.
4. Provide a variety of mobility choices including public transit and non- motorized options.
5. Prepare for shifts in mobility due to technology changes.
Community Facilities and Services Goal
Provide timely, efficient and quality police, fire, safety and governmental services and facilities to City residents, businesses and visitors.
Objectives
1. Provide reliable, quality City government services and facilities.
2. Provide reliable, quality police and safety services and facilities.
3. Provide reliable, quality fire services and facilities.
4. Provide reliable, quality sewer and water service for City residents and businesses.
5. Provide reliable, quality storm and seasonal services to City residents.
6. Provide and maintain open space, parks and recreation facilities.
11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan 34 31 This page intentionally left blank.
32 35 11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan Chapter 4: Future Land Use
The Future Land Use Plan is the framework for the future growth of the City of Dexter. This chapter gives a general description of the desired pattern of development for the community and follows with a description of the future land use categories as illustrated on the future land use map.
In addition to the future land use categories, specific development strategies are formulated to achieve community goals for the downtown area, the Dexter-Ann Arbor Road and Baker Road corridors.
The chapter also includes a zoning plan and a discussion of planning beyond the City’s borders.
General Description
In general, the City’s master plan continues a traditional neighborhood development pattern at a scale complementary to the rural, small town character of the City. Rehabilitation, redevelopment and properly scaled infill development, as well as thoughtful growth management policies are key to the sustainability of the City of Dexter and its small-town character.
Future Land Use Categories
Specific land use categories are identified and illustrated on the future land use map on the following page. The following sections identify the intent of each category, describes the desirable land uses and building types, the land use relationship with natural features, when applicable, and lists the corresponding
11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan 36 33 Alpine Samuel
Dexter Pinckney
Huron River
Parkridge *
Broad Bridgeway Jessica * Mast ** * Pearl Glacier
Eastridge Fifth Westridge
Potts Katherine Boulder Webster Sandhill
Jeffords Central McCormick Cedars Figure 5. -Future Land Use Map Alley
Sandhill Main Island Hill Island Lake k Huron Webster Township Alpine Alpine Samuel Joy k Dexter Pinckney k Huron River Parkridge * kkk k Central Huron River Scio Township Broad Bridgeway Jessica Broad * Mast Dover * Broad * * Pearl Ann Arbor Glacier Forest
Eastridge Fifth Dexter Chelsea Westridge Alley Potts Dover Katherine Main Boulder Webster Sandhill
Jeffords Central
Jeffords Hermania McCormick Fifth Cedars Alley
Sandhill Main k Island Hill Island Lake Third
Dexter Township Huron Dexter Township k Webster Township Broad Alpine H u r o n R i v e r k Baker Joy Fourth k kk Central Huron River Scio Township Ann Arbor k k Grand Scio Township Broad Dover Broad Cottonwood Forest Ann Arbor Edison Second Dexter Chelsea Alley Dover Grand k Main
Forest Jeffords Hermania k Fifth k
Third Dexter Township Dexter Township Pineview Alpine M i l l C r e e k Broad PineView Samuel Downtown H u r o n R iv e r Baker Fourth Ann Arbor Grand Dexter Pinckney k Cushing Edison Cottonwood k Second Huron River Grand k Forest Quackenbush k Parkridge * Pineview Hudson M i l l C r e e k PineView Lake City Boundary Research Development Downtown Broad k Cushing Bridgeway k Jessica Huron View * Mast Ulrich * Village Residential - 1 DexterQuackenbush - Ann Arbor Corridor Inverness * Hudson * City Boundary Research Development Pearl York Lake Glacier Meadow View
Baker Huron View Eastridge Fifth Ulrich Village Residential - 1 Dexter - Ann Arbor Corridor Westridge VillageInverness Residential - 2 Baker Road Corridor York Meadow View
Potts Wall View Baker Noble Village Residential - 2 Baker Road Corridor Katherine Wall View Boulder York View Suburban Residential NobleDowntown Webster York View Suburban Residential Downtown Sandhill
Jeffords Central Kensington View Kensington View McCormick Oliver Palmer Multi Family Residential Public Cedars Oliver Palmer Alley Multi Family Residential Public Ulrich Ulrich Sandfield Dexter-Ann Arbor Sandhill Shaw Sandfield Dexter-Ann Arbor Main Village Commercial Open Space Island Hill Island Lake Shaw Wilson Village Commercial Open SpaceTaylor Light Industrial Huron k Wilson Webster Township Eaton Area under Property Webster Township Bent Tree Boenaro Alpine Taylor Light Industrial Transfer Agreement Joy k Ryan Wilson k Institutional or Office Building k Eaton Area under Property Boenaro Bent Tree in Village Residential kkk k Central Huron River Scio Township Transfer AgreementDan Hoey
Broad
Lima Township Scio Township
Dongara Lima Township Scio Township Dover Broad Ryan Wilson Forest Annk ArborInstitutional or Office Building Dexter Chelsea Shield in Village Residential Alley Dover Main Lexington
Dan Hoey Melbourne Jeffords Hermania FUTURE LAND USE Fifth Victoria k Carrington
Third
Lima Township Scio Township
Dongara
Lima Township Scio Township
Dexter Township City of Dexter Dexter Township Kurtland Cambridge Weber Mill Creek Broad H u r o n R iv e r Baker Washtenaw County, Michigan Fourth Shield Grand Baker Heights Ann Arbor Bristol
Bishop
Parker Shagbark Cottonwood Preston Edison Second Lexington Kingsley
Melbourne
Grand k SouthDowns Bristol Jananne Feet Forest Forshee 0 500 1,000
FUTURE LANDBristol USE k Victoria ¯ Carrington Wellington Pineview Source: Washtenaw County Data M i l l C r e e k PineView Downtown City of Dexter 10-13-2019 Kurtland k Cushing Carlisle/Wortman Associates, Inc. Cambridge Weber k Mill Creek Ann Arbor, Michigan Quackenbush Washtenaw County, Michigan Hudson Lake City Boundary Research Development Baker Heights Huron View Bristol
Bishop Ulrich Village Residential - 1 Dexter - Ann Arbor Corridor
Parker Inverness Shagbark York Meadow View Preston
Kingsley Baker Village Residential - 2 Baker Road Corridor Wall View Jananne Noble SouthDowns Bristol Feet York View Suburban Residential Downtown Forshee 0 500 1,000 Bristol ¯ Kensington View Wellington Oliver Palmer Multi Family Residential Public Ulrich Source: Washtenaw County Data Sandfield Dexter-Ann Arbor Shaw Village Commercial Open Space Wilson 10-13-2019 Carlisle/Wortman Associates, Inc. Taylor Light Industrial Ann Arbor, Michigan Eaton Area under Property Boenaro Bent Tree Transfer Agreement
Ryan Wilson k Institutional or Office Building in Village Residential
Dan Hoey
Lima Township Scio Township
Dongara
Lima Township Scio Township 34 37 Shield 11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan
Lexington Melbourne FUTURE LAND USE Victoria Carrington City of Dexter Kurtland Cambridge Weber Mill Creek Washtenaw County, Michigan
Baker Heights Bristol
Bishop
Parker Shagbark Preston
Kingsley
Jananne SouthDowns Bristol Feet
Forshee 0 500 1,000 Bristol ¯ Wellington Source: Washtenaw County Data
10-13-2019 Carlisle/Wortman Associates, Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan Building Types
In most of the future land use categories, building types are listed. Building types refers to the form of the building, usually driven by the structure’s initial use, but may be used differently now. For instance, a house is a building type that originally was used as a single-family dwelling, but now, depending on its location, may be used as a residence, office or retail store. The Master Plan lays the ground work for a form-based code in a zoning ordinance update.
Examples of each building type are shown below:
Mansion
Commercial Mixed-Use Small
Commercial Mixed-Use Medium
11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan 38 35 2-Story Office
Multiple Family
Single-Story Single-Use
Civic & Institutional Building
36 39 11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan Townhouses
House
Two-Family Building
11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan 40 37 zoning districts.
Downtown
Intent. The Downtown is the historical commercial center of the City with the highest intensity of uses. The area is intended to foster continued improvements and redevelopment, while preserving the small-town character of the downtown. It is intended to be a physically compact, mixed use district that provides a diversity of products, services and experiences for residents and visitors.
Uses customarily found in the Downtown include municipal services, restaurants, banks (no drive thru), personal services, comparison retail, offices, public spaces, and multiple family residences. The continued maintenance of historic buildings and new buildings echoing the historic character of the downtown are essential within this area.
The designation plans for the following:
• Expand the Central Business District, selectively, into surrounding Village Commercial areas to open up additional redevelopment opportunities and improve the critical mass, density and walkability of the Downtown.
• Identify and redevelop brownfield sites in cooperation with the Washtenaw County Brownfield Redevelopment Authority.
• Utilize form-based code concepts for height, bulk and dimensional requirements in zoning to preserve the historic character of the Downtown.
• Require high quality site and building designs.
• Link public gathering spaces in the downtown by filling in gaps in the pedestrian/non-motorized system.
• Continue in the Urban County Program and Redevelopment Ready Communities Program to utilize State funding for Downtown redevelopment.
• Access grant opportunities, including crowdfunding match challenges, to implement placemaking efforts in the downtown, such as public art, streetscapes, park improvements, programs and events.
38 41 11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan Alpine Samuel
Dexter Pinckney
Huron River
Parkridge *
Broad Bridgeway Jessica * Mast ** * Pearl Glacier
Eastridge Fifth Westridge
Potts Katherine Figure 6. -Downtown Future Land Use Map Boulder Webster Sandhill
Jeffords Central McCormick Cedars Alley
Sandhill Main Island Hill Island Lake k Huron Webster Township Alpine Joy k Alpine Samuel k kkk k Central Huron River Scio Township Dexter Pinckney Broad Dover Broad Forest Ann Arbor Huron River Dexter Chelsea Parkridge Alley Dover * Main
Jeffords Hermania Fifth k Broad Bridgeway Third Jessica
Dexter Township * Dexter Township Mast * Broad * Baker * Pearl H u r o n R i v e r Alpine Glacier Samuel Fourth Eastridge Ann Arbor Grand Fifth
Westridge Dexter Pinckney Cottonwood
Edison Second Potts Grand Huron River k Katherine Boulder Forest Webster Parkridge k * Sandhill
Pineview Jeffords Central M i l l C r e e k Broad
PineView McCormick Bridgeway Cedars Jessica AlleyDowntown* Mast * Sandhill k Cushing * * k Pearl Main Island Hill Island Lake Glacier
Eastridge Fifth Westridge Quackenbush k Huron Hudson Potts City Boundary Research Development WebsterLake Township Katherine Webster Township Boulder Webster Huron View Alpine Sandhill Joy Ulrich Jeffords Village Residential - 1 CentralDexter - Ann Arbor Corridor
McCormick Inverness Cedars k York Meadow View Alley
Baker Sandhill k VillageMain Residential - 2 Baker Road Corridor Island Hill Island Lake k Huron River Wall View kk k Central ScioScio TownshipTownshipNoble k Huron WebsterYork TownshipView Suburban Residential Downtown Broad Dover Broad Alpine Kensington View Joy Forest Ann Arbor Oliver Palmer Multi Family Residential Public k Ulrich Dexter Chelsea Sandfield k Dexter-Ann Arbor Alley kDover Huron River Shaw Main kk k Central Scio Township Village Commercial Open Space Wilson
Jeffords Hermania Broad Dover Broad Taylor Fifth ForestLight Industrial Ann Arbor Dexter Chelsea k Alley Third Eaton Area under Property Boenaro Bent Tree Dover
Dexter Township Main Dexter Township Transfer Agreement Jeffords Hermania
Broad Fifth Baker k H u r o n R i v e r Ryan Third Wilson k Institutional or Office Building
Fourth Dexter Township Dexter Township Grand in Village Residential Ann Arbor Broad Cottonwood Dan Hoey H u r o n R iv e r Baker Fourth Edison Second Ann Arbor Grand
Grand k
Lima Township Scio Township
Dongara Cottonwood Lima Township ScioForest Township Edison Second Grandk k Forest Shield k Pineview M i l l C r e e k PineView Pineview Downtown M i l l C r e e k PineView Lexington Downtown k CushingMelbourne k Cushing k k FUTURE LAND USE Victoria Carrington Quackenbush Quackenbush Hudson Hudson City Boundary Research Development Lake City of Dexter Kurtland Lake City Boundary Research Development Cambridge Weber Huron View Mill Creek Huron View Ulrich Village Residential - 1 Dexter - Ann Arbor Corridor Inverness Ulrich Washtenaw County, Michigan York Meadow View Village Residential - 1 Dexter - Ann Arbor Corridor Inverness Baker Village Residential - 2 Baker Road Corridor Baker Heights York Meadow View Baker Wall View Noble Bristol Bishop Village Residential - 2 Baker Road Corridor
Parker Shagbark York View Suburban Residential Downtown Wall ViewPreston Noble Kingsley Kensington View MultiSuburban Family Residential Residential Public Downtown
Oliver Palmer Bristol York View SouthDowns Jananne Ulrich Sandfield Dexter-Ann Arbor Feet
Kensington View Shaw Forshee 0 500 1,000 Bristol Village Commercial Open Space ¯ Oliver Palmer Multi Family Residential Public WilsonWellingtonUlrich Sandfield Dexter-Ann Arbor Taylor Light Industrial Source: Washtenaw County Data Shaw Village Commercial Open Space Eaton Area under Property 10-13-2019 Boenaro Bent Tree Wilson Transfer Agreement Carlisle/Wortman Associates, Inc. Taylor Light Industrial Ann Arbor, Michigan Ryan Wilson k Institutional or Office Building Eaton inArea Village under Residential Property Boenaro Bent Tree
Dan Hoey Transfer Agreement
Lima Township Scio Township
Dongara Lima Township Scio Township Ryan Wilson k Institutional or Office Building 11/6/19 DRAFT Masterin Village PlanResidential 42 39 Shield Dan Hoey
Lexington
Melbourne
Lima Township Scio Township
Dongara Lima Township
Scio Township FUTURE LAND USE Victoria Carrington City of Dexter Shield Kurtland Cambridge Weber Mill Creek Washtenaw County, Michigan Lexington
Melbourne Baker Heights Bristol
Bishop
Parker Shagbark FUTURE LAND USE Victoria Preston Carrington
Kingsley
Jananne SouthDowns Bristol City ofFeet Dexter Kurtland Forshee 0 500 1,000 Cambridge Weber Mill Creek Bristol ¯ Wellington WashtenawSource: Washtenaw County, County Data Michigan 10-13-2019 Baker Heights Carlisle/Wortman Associates, Inc. Bristol
Bishop Ann Arbor, Michigan
Parker Shagbark Preston
Kingsley
Jananne SouthDowns Bristol Feet
Forshee 0 500 1,000 Bristol ¯ Wellington Source: Washtenaw County Data
10-13-2019 Carlisle/Wortman Associates, Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan Description: This designation is centered on the Main Street corridor between Jeffords and Dover with the Mill Creek as the western gateway into the City and includes the block on Central facing Monument Park, the block of Baker between Main Street and Forest, and blocks on Jeffords between Main Street and Forest Lawn Cemetery.
Appropriate Uses: • Retail stores, personal service establishments, restaurants, municipal facilities, and offices
• Off-street parking in appropriate locations
• Multiple-family uses by right on the upper floors and by special land use on the ground floor
• Parks, open space and public art
• Live/work units
• For all residential uses, the maximum density should be determined by height and bulk requirements
• Municipal offices and services
• Museums
• Libraries
• Theaters
Highway-oriented and convenience commercial uses which require high accessibility and visibility are incompatible with the character of the Downtown and should be not be allowed. Off-street parking areas should not front Main Street. Appropriate areas for bike parking should be designated.
Building Types: • Mansions (houses fronting Monument Park, no more than three and a half stories)
• Commercial mixed-use small (no more than three stories)
• Commercial mixed-use medium (no more than five stories)
• Civic and institutional buildings
Building type placement should take into consideration the size, scale and character of each block in the Downtown. Height, bulk and building placement
40 43 11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan should preserve public views and access to Mill Creek, Monument Park and other public places in the Downtown.
Compatible Zoning Districts: The Central Business District zoning category is compatible with the Downtown – Mixed Use future land use category. The Heritage Overlay District is also appropriate. An updated zoning ordinance should incorporate and strengthen the design regulations the Central Business District and the Heritage Overlay District into a single zoning district for the Downtown.
Dexter – Ann Arbor Road Corridor – Mixed Use
Intent: This designation is intended to provide a mix of commercial, office, high- tech research and design, service and residential uses as an entrance to the City as well as a transitional area between the originally platted Village area and the eastern portion of the City.
The designation also plans for the following:
1. Compact commercial center/node at Dan Hoey intersection with a less intensive mixture of commercial, office and multiple-family residential uses throughout the rest of the corridor.
2. Traditional neighborhood design standards for density, scale, setbacks, parks, landscaping, access management, and linkages.
3. Physical connections along to the corridor for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists between the Downtown, neighborhoods, schools and the gateway to the City.
4. Updated architectural standards that require quality but realistic building design in keeping with the established fabric of the corridor.
5. Flexibility in parking requirements, shared parking and shared parking access standards with the specific goal of minimizing access points (curb cuts) along Dexter-Ann Arbor Road, while minimizing impervious area.
Description: The Dexter-Ann Arbor Road Corridor is located along the Dexter- Ann Arbor Road from Kensington Street southeast to the City boundaries.
Appropriate Uses: • Multiple-family, no more than five stories
• Live/work units
• Office
• Commercial uses clustered at the Dan Hoey intersection
11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan 44 41 • Automobile oriented uses such as gasoline stations, drive-throughs and vehicle dealerships
• Municipal offices and services
Building Types: • Single-story single-use buildings
• Two-story office buildings
• Townhouses
• Multiple-family buildings
• Commercial mixed-use small (no more than three stories)
• Civic and institutional buildings
Compatible Zoning Districts: The Dexter-Ann Arbor Road Corridor Overlay zoning district is compatible with the Dexter-Ann Arbor Road Mixed Use future land use designation.
General Commercial zoning is appropriate at the commercial node at the intersection with Dan Hoey Road. An updated zoning ordinance should incorporate density and updated design standards in the Dexter-Ann Arbor Corridor Overlay District.
Baker Road Corridor - Mixed Use
Intent: This mixed-use designation is intended to be a walkable corridor that is a gateway between the downtown area and adjacent neighborhoods. The designation also plans for the following:
1. Mix of complementary land uses, including residential, office, high-tech research and design, and commercial uses, that is scaled, designed and landscaped to complement the corridor and enhance the adjacent properties.
2. Commercial development in nodes that complement the scale and character of the corridor.
3. Flexibility in parking requirements, allowance of shared on-street and off-street parking and the reduction of curb cuts.
4. Conversion of single-family homes into multiple-family, all types of live/work units and non-residential land uses.
42 45 11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan 5. A variety of housing types and higher densities for residential infill projects.
6. Architectural standards and controls that deliver high-quality yet realistic designs for new buildings as well as renovations.
7. Better pedestrian and bicycle circulation/parking and access from adjacent neighborhoods to the Baker Road Corridor, including the addition of and upgrades to pedestrian crossings in the corridor.
8. Redevelopment and infill development.
9. Design and installation of a streetscape throughout corridor, with landscaping, signage, and lighting, which includes elements of the streetscape in the downtown.
10. Public gathering spaces at key points of interest and entrances to intersections.
11. The roundabout at Dan Hoey, Shield and Baker Road as a gateway into the City.
12. A greenway connection between open space adjacent to the corridor and Mill Creek through collaboration with Dexter Community Schools for interconnection with their Outdoor Lab property.
Description: The Baker Road corridor is from the alley north of Grand Street to the border with the Dexter Community Schools property on Baker Road. All parcels abutting Baker Road are included within the designation, exclusive of the school property located at the southern end of the corridor.
Appropriate Uses: • Existing single-family housing
• Mixed use including assisted living
• Multiple-family residential uses (no more than three stories)
• Second story residential uses
• Live/work units
• Office uses and commercial uses that provide essential goods and services
• Activity and entertainment uses
Building Types: • Houses
• Two-family buildings
11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan 46 43 • Townhouses
• Single-story single-use buildings
• Two-story office buildings
• Multiple-family buildings (no more than three stories)
• Commercial Mixed-Use Small (no more than three stories)
Compatible Zoning Districts: The Baker Road Corridor – Mixed Use designation is compatible with the Baker Road Corridor Overlay District. An updated zoning ordinance should incorporate density and strengthen design regulations.
Village Commercial
Intent: The Village Commercial designation encompasses neighborhoods adjacent to the downtown, which are transitioning from single family to a mix of uses, primarily commercial, but which are complimentary to the transitioning neighborhoods. These areas have a compact development pattern, which sometimes contributes to insufficient land necessary to accommodate off-street parking. Uses typical of this designation include convenience retail, personal services, office, live-work, multiple family residences, and public spaces.
The designation also plans for the following:
• Adaptive re-use of existing buildings
• Transition between mixed use districts
• Live/Work Units
Description: This designation is located on the edge of the Downtown along Grand Street, at the entrance to the City at Mast Road and the railroad, the block on Huron Street just west of Broad Street, and the parcel on Dan Hoey near the entrance to the industrial park. The Village Commercial area planned on Grand Street is a transition between the Downtown and the Baker Road Corridor and could be primarily multiple-family or mixed-use buildings. The area at Mast Road is intended to preserve the unique businesses at that location, namely the Cider Mill and Dexter Mill, while allowing for neighborhood commercial shops or services. The area on Huron Street is to preserve long standing businesses while allowing office space for new enterprises. The area on Dan Hoey is to accomodate a pending mixed use development including housing, offices and a food pantry.
Appropriate Uses: • Commercial
• Office
• Live/work units
44 47 11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan • Multiple-family uses, 3-5 stories for new buildings and current building height for adaptive re-use
• Public open spaces
• Municipal offices and services
• Museums
• Libraries
• Theaters
Building Types: • Single-story single-use buildings
• Two-story office buildings
• Commercial mixed-use small
• Institutional or civic buildings
Compatible Zoning Districts: The Village Commercial future land use designation is compatible with the Village Commercial zoning district. An updated zoning ordinance should incorporate density regulations and strengthen design regulations.
Village Residential - 1
Intent: The intent of this category is to maintain the well- established character, scale and density of the traditional pattern of the neighborhoods in the original plat of the Village, while allowing uses other than single-family Street Structure of Village residential for adaptive re-use of public and institutional Residential-1 Neighborhoods buildings. The designation also plans for the following:
1. Update zoning regulations in Village Residential-1 neighborhoods to preserve and enhance the older, small town residential character of the City. The Zoning Plan in the Implementation Chapter provides more details.
2. Amend zoning ordinance to allow duplexes and accessory dwelling units in Village Residential neighborhoods, as well as adaptive re-use of public
11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan 48 45 and semi-public buildings. Live/work units could also be considered with zoning changes to the uses allowed in Village Residential-1.
3. Expand the Village Residential Zoning District to or to cover all neighborhoods planned as Village Residential-1, but currently zoned R1-B.
4. Explore zoning and land division ordinance changes to allow single-family uses with sole access to alleys, while maintaining the low-traffic nature of alleys.
5. Encourage continued maintenance of, and reinvestment in, residential structures to protect existing housing from deterioration or underutilization, and recognize that in order to maintain high quality housing, some deteriorated homes or residential areas may need to be redeveloped.
6. Consider programs and techniques to help maintain and improve neighborhoods and the condition of housing stock within the City, which may include improvements to the City’s building inspection practices and assisted housing rehabilitation
7. Maintain and improve pedestrian connections from neighborhoods to schools, parks, downtown, other community facilities, and other neighborhoods
8. Continue to allow office and retail uses if granted special use approval in the area between the railroad to the north, Central to the south, Fifth Street to the west and Third Street to the east.
Description: The Village Residential 1 is the located between the railroad to the north, Second and Third Streets to the east, Hudson to the south and the edge of the Downtown and Baker Road Corridor to the west. Parcels marked with an asterisk note buildings used for institutional or office uses that contribute to the character of the neighborhood and should be allowed to remain or be adaptively re-used.
Appropriate Uses: • Single-family dwellings
• Accessory dwelling units
• Two-family dwellings
• Live/work units
• Adaptive re-use of civic and institutional buildings such as churches and school buildings in the Village Residential neighborhoods. Uses could include offices, institutions or multiple-family or senior housing. The density should be limited by the existing height and bulk of the building and the capacity of the infrastructure - streets, sewer, water, etc.
46 49 11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan • Parks
• Civic or institutional uses
• Density of up to eight dwelling units per acre for greenfield developments
• Office and retail uses when appropriate in the area between the railroad to the north, Central to the south, Fifth Street to the west and Third Street to the east.
Building Types: • Houses
• Two-family buildings
• Mansions
• Civic or institutional buildings
Compatible Zoning Districts: The Village Residential (VR) zoning district is the only zoning classification currently compatible with the Village Residential future land use category. A single-family village residential zoning district with flexibility for adaptive re-use of buildings as well as retail and office uses under appropriate circumstances is anticipated in Street Structure of Village a zoning ordinance update. Residential-2 Neighborhoods Village Residential-2
Intent: The intent of this category is to maintain the well- established character, scale and density of the traditional pattern of the neighborhoods in the Village annex, while maintaining solely single-family neighborhoods. The designation also plans for the following:
Update the zoning regulations in Village Residential-2 neighborhoods to preserve and enhance the older, small town residential character of the City. The Zoning Plan in the Implementation Chapter provides more details.
1. Create a Village Residential Single-Family Zoning District to cover all neighborhoods planned as Village Residential-2 but currently zoned R1-B.
2. Examine whether accessory dwelling units and duplexes are appropriate in Village-Residential-2 neighborhoods.
11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan 50 47 3. Explore zoning and land division ordinance changes to allow single-family uses with sole access to alleys while maintaining the low-traffic nature of alleys.
4. Encourage continued maintenance of, and reinvestment in, residential structures to protect existing housing from deterioration, and recognize that in order to maintain high quality housing, some deteriorated homes or residential areas may need to be redeveloped.
5. Consider programs and techniques to help maintain and improve neighborhoods and the condition of housing stock within the City, which may include improvements to the City’s building inspection practices and assisted housing rehabilitation
6. Maintain and improve pedestrian connections from neighborhoods to schools, parks, downtown, other community facilities, and other neighborhoods
Description: The Village Residential 2 is located in two areas. One is between Hudson and Kensington and Grand and Second Streets. The other is on either side of Huron Street and the block on Mast between the Huron River and the railroad.
Appropriate Uses: • Single-family dwellings
• Accessory dwelling units
• Two-family dwellings
• Parks
• Civic or institutional uses
• Density of up to eight dwelling units per acre for greenfield developments
Building Types: • Houses
• Mansions
• Two-family buildings
Compatible Zoning Districts: The Village Residential (VR) zoning district is the only zoning classification currently compatible with the Village Residential-2 future land use category. A single-family village residential zoning district is anticipated in an update of the City Zoning Ordinance.
48 51 11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan Multiple-Family Residential
Intent: The intent of this category is to provide for a mix of multiple family uses at appropriate locations in the City. The designation also plans for the following:
1. Encourage continued maintenance of, and reinvestment in, residential structures to protect existing housing from deterioration, and recognize that in order to maintain high quality housing, some deteriorated homes or residential areas may need to be redeveloped.
2. Provide access to usable contiguous and convenient open space from multiple-family housing.
3. Create or maintain pedestrian connections from multiple-family areas to schools, parks, downtown, other community facilities, and neighborhoods.
4. Update zoning to require high standards for multiple-family housing design and construction.
Description: The Multiple Family Residential designation encompasses five areas within the City: northeast of the Downtown between Edison and Meadow View along the railroad; both sides of Huron View; both sides of Eaton; both sides of Grand between Broad and Baker; east side of Lexington bounded by Dan Hoey to the north; and south of Dan Hoey west of the Baker Road intersection. In addition to these larger areas of Multiple-Family Residential, there are smaller, single parcel areas designated multiple-family mixed within the Village Residential neighborhood west of the Downtown.
Appropriate Uses: • Townhouses, garden apartments, multiple-family, density determined by height and bulk regulations
• Parks
Building Types: • Two-family buildings
• Townhomes
• Multiple-family buildings with up to 3 stories
Compatible Zoning Districts: Zoning districts that are compatible with the Multiple- Family Residential land use classification include R-3, Multiple-Family Residential and MH, Mobile Home Park Residential.
11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan 52 49 Suburban Residential
Intent: The intent to maintain and create suburban-style residential neighborhoods outside of the Downtown, in a transitional manner still compatible with the existing traditional neighborhood development pattern. The existing street pattern is suburban in nature with curving roads, long blocks and cul-de-sacs.
The designation also plans for the following:
1. Provide access to usable contiguous and convenient open space from residential neighborhoods
2. Create or maintain pedestrian connections from neighborhoods Street Structure of Suburban Residential Neighborhoods to schools, parks, downtown, other community facilities, and other neighborhoods
3. Limit non-residential intrusions and separate intrusive commercial and industrial areas from residential areas with open space and other buffers.
4. Update zoning to require high standards for housing design and construction.
Description: The Suburban Residential designation is contained within four peripheral locations in the City, most of which have been developed as single-family housing primarily since 2000. The street pattern is suburban in nature with curving roads, long blocks and cul-de-sacs.
Appropriate Uses: • Single-family dwellings
• Parks and recreation
• Density of up to 6 dwelling units per acre for greenfield developments
Building Types: • Houses
• Civic or community buildings
Compatible Zoning Districts: Zoning districts compatible with the Suburban Residential future land use classification include R-1A and R-1B One-Family Residential. In the anticipated update to the Zoning Ordinance, a single zoning district is envisioned for properties shown as Suburban Residential.
50 53 11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan Research/Development
Intent: The Research/Development land use classification provides for a diverse range of high-tech industry, research facilities, laboratories, light fabrication operations, wholesale and parts assembly.
The designation also plans for the following:
1. Adequate setbacks for research/development operations, landscape buffers and greenbelts to minimize visual and environmental conflicts with adjoining land uses.
2. Minimization of negative impacts of research/development areas on adjacent areas and the environment.
3. Safe traffic flow for Research/Development uses.
4. Expansion of Dexter Business and Research Park, particularly for an additional access point.
5. Space for medium scale office and research and development uses.
6. Regulations that recognize the connection of groundwater and surface water, and include limitations that protect, and prevent pollution, impairment or diminishment of, the quantity and quality of available water resources, including aquifers, springs, rivers, creeks, ponds, and wetlands, for existing and future water needs for residential recreation, commercial, industrial, and for protection and preservation of water bodies and their natural resources and uses.
Description: The Future Land Use Map designates three (3) areas for Research/ Development use:
1. The Dexter Business and Research Park is located south of Dan Hoey Road and is a subdivided industrial park targeted toward research and development activities. All uses for this category are appropriate for this area.
2. This area is located between Second Street and the Railroad. In this area, the Research/Development designation is intended to allow the continued operation of its current uses and facilitate adaptive re-use of existing buildings for high tech businesses. These new businesses should be less intensive than research uses and compatible with the adjacent neighborhood.
3. This area is east of Mast Road, along Joy Road and Huron River Drive. Since it is buffered from residential uses, all uses listed below are appropriate.
11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan 54 51 Appropriate Uses: High-tech industry, light fabrication, wholesale and parts assembly operations that provide:
• Well-designed circulation systems
• Supportive facilities such as utilities
• Abundant landscaping, screening of services and loading areas
• Landscape buffering to protect adjacent residential uses
• Oil and gas exploration and development, and similar extractive activities, to the extent the activities and uses are: sufficiently setback from incompatible uses, such as residential, office, commercial, recreation/conservation, and environmentally sensitive areas and natural resources; and the ancillary activities and uses generating potential nuisance effects such as traffic, lights, vibration, and noise will not be incompatible with surrounding existing or planned uses
Compatible Zoning Districts: The RD, Research and Development, zoning district is compatible to the Research/Development future land use designation.
Light Industrial
Intent: This designation is intended to allow the continued operation of the current industrial uses or for areas planned for light industrial use outside of the City’s borders.
The designation also plans for the following:
1. Adequate setbacks for industrial operations, landscape buffers and greenbelts to minimize visual and environmental conflicts with adjoining land uses.
2. Minimization negative impacts of industrial areas on non-industrial areas and on the environment.
3. Safe traffic flow for industrial uses, separate from residential areas.
4. The location of industrial development away from conflicting land uses (i.e. residential areas).
5. Regulations that recognize the connection of groundwater and surface water, and include limitations that protect, and prevent pollution, impairment or diminishment of, the quantity and quality of available water resources, including aquifers, springs, rivers, creeks, ponds, and wetlands, for existing and future water needs for residential recreation, commercial, industrial, and for protection and preservation of water bodies and their natural resources and uses.
52 55 11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan Description: The Light Industrial area is located along Huron River Drive in the northern portions of the City, for the parcels where the City’s sewer plant and existing industrial buildings are located, as well as on the property along Mast Road north of the City’s boundaries, planned for industrial uses per agreements with Webster Township.
Appropriate Uses: • Light manufacturing, assembly, packaging, and testing facilities more intense than the fabrication uses in Research and Development that provide:
— Abundant landscaping
— Screening of services and loading areas
— Landscape buffering to protect adjacent residential uses
• Oil and gas exploration and development, and similar extractive activities, to the extent the activities and uses are: sufficiently setback from incompatible uses, such as residential, office, commercial, recreation/conservation, and environmentally sensitive areas and natural resources; and the ancillary activities and uses generating potential nuisance effects such as traffic, lights, vibration, and noise will not be incompatible with surrounding existing or planned uses
Land intensive industrial uses should not be permitted within the City limits due to the associated off-site impacts that have the potential to significantly detract from the quality of life in the City’s residential neighborhoods.
Compatible Zoning Districts: The I-1, Light Industrial zoning district is compatible to the Light Industrial future land use classification.
Open Space
Intent: Open Space areas are designated on the Future Land Use Map are either areas surrounding the Huron River and Mill Creek or land permanently designated for open space. The natural areas of the City and adjacent townships contain environmentally sensitive resources such as wetlands, woodlands, and sloped areas which are planned for preservation. Development should be recreational in nature, if not restricted.
The designation also plans for the following:
1. Maintenance, planning and development of the City’s system of parks, greenways, open space and recreation facilities.
2. Protect and preserve existing trees and wooded areas within the City.
11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan 56 53 3. Collaborate with other organizations to improve water quality in Mill Creek and the Huron River.
Description: Open space areas are designated in Mill Creek Park, along the Huron River throughout the City and in the land preserve off of Baker Road.
Relationship to Physical and Natural Features: Land in this use category generally includes environmentally sensitive areas where natural features need to be protected to preserve a balanced ecosystem.
Appropriate Uses: • Public or private conservation areas
• Active and passive recreational uses
Compatible Zoning Districts: The PP, Public Park, zoning district is compatible with the Open Space/Recreation future land use classification.
Public
Intent: The Future Land Use Map designates areas known to be in public use for the foreseeable future, such as schools, parks and municipal buildings.
The designation also plans for the following:
1. Coordination between the City of Dexter and Dexter Community Schools to link school properties into the City-wide path system.
2. Maintenance, planning and development of the City’s system of parks, greenways, open space and recreation facilities.
3. Locate municipal buildings, such as City Hall or the Fire Station, in places where they contribute to the sense of place.
Description: The public future land use category is located on the Dexter Community School campuses, the public parks and buildings in the Village areas, and cemeteries.
Appropriate Uses:
• Municipal buildings and facilities
• Parks
• Churches
• Cemeteries
• Public schools
54 57 11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan Compatible Zoning Districts: The PP, Public Park, zoning district is compatible with the Public future land use classification. School properties are compatible with R-1A Zoning.
Zoning Plan
Certain areas of the City have been designated for a land use classification in the Master Plan which conflicts with either existing zoning or existing land uses. These designations were developed in order to guide the desired development of these areas, which could be rezoned by the City or at the request of the land owner.
The City expects to update their Zoning Ordinance in the next five years, possibly to include form-based districts. The table below shows how future land use categories relate to current and anticipated zoning districts.
Planning for Properties Outside the Current City Limits
From time to time, and under mutual consent between the City of Dexter and adjacent townships, the municipal boundaries of the City may expand. Municipal expansion of the City boundaries will typically occur in relation to a corresponding
Table 2: Master Land Use + Zoning District Classification Comparison
Master Plan Land Use Current Zoning District Classifications Anticipated Zoning District Designations Classification Downtown Central Business District (CBD) Central Business District (CBD) Dexter Ann Arbor Dexter-Ann Arbor Road Corridor Dexter-Ann Road Corridor Overlay Baker Street Baker Road Corridor Overlay Baker Road Corridor Village Commercial Village Commercial (VC) Village Commercial (VC) Village Residential 1 R-1B, One Family Residential, Village Village Residential Residential Village Residential 2 R-1B, Two Family Residential Village Residential Two Family Multiple Family Multiple Family Residential (R-3) and Multiple Family Residential (R-3) Mobile Home Park Residential (MH) and Mobile Home Park Residential (MH) Suburban Residential R-1A & R-1B, One Family Residential Suburban Residential Research Research and Development (RD) Research and Development (RD) Development Industrial Limited Industrial (I-1) Limited Industrial (I-1) Open Space Public Park (PP) Public Park (PP) Public Public Park (PP) Public Park (PP)
11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan 58 55 extension of sewer and water facilities into underserved areas of adjacent Townships.
The City’s water and sewer systems were designed to serve City property within the present boundaries of the City. The City has made a significant investment in building the capacity, quality, and reliability of the water and sewer systems to serve existing areas of the City, but limited capacity is currently available. Due to the significant investment in these facilities, the City will carefully consider the following general guidelines in accepting potential municipal service expansions:
1. The City of Dexter is willing to work with surrounding communities in developing appropriate agreements that may include the extension of municipal sewer and water services. These agreements must be beneficial to the economic development of the City of Dexter and bring new tax base. Ideally, agreements would benefit the economic development of the surrounding community.
2. To promote an orderly growth from the City of Dexter into adjacent municipalities, any area proposed for inclusion in the City must be adjacent to and contiguous to the current city boundaries. The “leapfrogging” of Township areas to provide municipal services, creating an island within a Township, will not be considered by the City. Municipal services will only expand from one fully-developed area to the next adjacent area.
3. The City shall examine the environmental impacts of any municipal service expansion. The environmental impact assessment should include natural features such as woodlands, wetlands, floodplains, and water quality and wildlife in the Huron River and Mill Creek. The City of Dexter may decline extension of municipal services based on adverse environmental impacts.
4. The City shall consider effects on the transportation system, such as impacts on roadway capacity and condition in the City and the adjacent municipalities. Where roadway upgrades are needed to maintain a safe and efficient transportation system, the City may refuse to extend utilities or require developers to provide a negotiated monetary amount to offset the cost of needed improvements.
5. The City shall undertake and/or require studies to determine the estimated water and sewer demand of proposed areas to be included within the City’s border and the City’s ability to service such demand. Where expansion of facilities is proposed, the City may refuse to extend utilities or require developers to provide a negotiated monetary amount to offset the cost of the extension of water and sewer service as well as the cost of expanding and providing water treatment and distribution capacity and wastewater treatment capacity.
56 59 11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan 6. The extension of City utilities shall be with appropriate municipal agreements between the City and any adjacent municipality(ies). Several tools are available to allow such annexation agreements between communities including PA 425 – Transfer of Property, PA 8 – Transfer of Functions and Responsibilities Act, and PA 7 – Urban Cooperation Act. In addition to these tools, other types of agreements may be pursued if mutually beneficial between parties.
7. Any area to which City utilities are extended must be ultimately brought under the jurisdiction of the City of Dexter. This includes, but is not limited to, control of planning and zoning within the area. A Joint Planning Commission, permitted under P.A. 226 of 2003, may be established as part of the agreement.
8. To extend utilities, the area must be planned as part of a master plan amendment, under the Michigan Planning Enabling Act, PA 33 of 2008. The future land use category should have an urban street structure, such as Village Commercial and Village Residential, and the density range from existing levels to planned densities for Dexter-Ann Arbor Road and Village Commercial.
9. Zoning of areas would then follow the Master Plan amendment. Zoning will be established based in part upon an agreement between the City and the adjacent municipality.
11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan 60 57 This page intentionally left blank.
58 61 11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan Chapter 5: Mobility Plan
The City of Dexter lies near the I-94 and M-14 Corridors approximately seven (7) miles west of the City of Ann Arbor (connecting to I-94 at Zeeb Road), two (2) miles northeast of I-94 (connecting at Baker Road) and five (5) miles northeast of M-14 (connecting at Dexter-Ann Arbor Road). Two (2) minor arterials lead into and out of the City, Dexter-Ann Arbor Road from the east and Baker Road from the south. Main Street leads to Dexter-Pinkney Road, a minor arterial connecting to the northwest.
Within and surrounding the City, the most important roads include: Dexter-Ann Arbor Road (Main Street), Baker Road, Central Street, Huron River Drive, Island Lake Road, Dexter-Chelsea Road, Dexter-Pinckney Road, Mast Road and Joy Road. These roads provide access to the adjacent communities and the surrounding region. The remainder of the road system is composed of local roads.
Adequate roads are essential to the conduct of commerce and daily activities. The local grid street network provides convenient movement, linking the residential neighborhoods with the downtown business district. Alleys also provide secondary access to properties throughout Dexter. Public transit and non-motorized systems (sidewalks, trails and bicycle lanes) facilitate movement for people of all abilities, using a variety of modes of transportation.
11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan 62 59 National Functional Classifications
The road system and land use patterns have a strong inter-relationship. The type and pattern of land use strongly influences traffic volumes along a given road. Likewise, adequacy of roads may determine the type of adjacent land development that occurs. The Transportation Plan assists in establishing priorities for future transportation improvements, including non-motorized and transit, based on the function of roadway services.
Roads (shown in Figure 7 on the opposite page) are classified as follows:
• Interstate – Provides major “through traffic” between municipalities and states.
• Principal Arterial Roads – Primary function is to carry relatively long distance, through travel movements and/or to service important traffic generators, i.e. airports or regional shopping centers.
• Minor Arterial Roads – Similar to Principal Arterial Roads, with trips carried being shorter distances to lesser traffic generators.
• Collector Roads – Funnel traffic from residential or rural areas to arterials. Collector Roads also provide some access to property.
• Local Roads – Primary function is to provide access to property, i.e., residential neighborhoods or rural areas.
The above classifications correspond to the National Functional Classification Map for Washtenaw County used by the Michigan Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Planning. The road classification determines whether the road is eligible for federal aid. “Federal aid” roads include all principal arterials, all minor arterials, all urban collectors, and all rural major collectors.
The following describes all primary roads within and surrounding the City of Dexter along with their designations:
• Dexter-Ann Arbor Road (Main Street) – Minor Arterial
• Baker Road – Minor Arterial
• Central Street – Collector
• Huron River Drive – Collector
• Joy Road – Collector
• Mast Road - Collector
60 63 11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan Figure 7. - Existing and Planned Right-of-Ways
Parkridge Ct
Parkridge Dr Island Lake Dr
Katherine Way
McCormickPl Webster Dr Boulder Ct W Joy Rd Eastridge Dr
W Joy Rd Dexter Township Dexter Township Huron St Existing 66' ROW
Bridgeway Dr W Huron River Dr Webster Township Alpine St Existing 99' ROW Parkridge Ct Broad St Scio Township Planned 120' ROW Third St
Fifth St Central St Alley Main St Second St Urban Local Parkridge Dr Jeffords Fourth St Island Lake Dr Cottonwood Ln Minor Arterial Dover St Ann Arbor St Katherine Way Broad St Edison St Major Collector
McCormickPl Forest St Webster Dr Grand St H u r o n R iv e r Boulder Ct W Joy Rd Private Road
Eastridge Dr ! ! M i l l C r e e k Inverness St Not Improved
W Joy Rd Dexter Township Cushing Ct Dexter Township Huron St Hudson St Existing 66' ROW City Boundary Lake St Quackenbush Dr Bridgeway Dr W Huron River Dr Webster Township Alpine St Webster TownshipHuron View Ct Ulrich St Existing 99' ROW Broad St Scio Township Planned 120' ROW Third St Noble Dr ViewPalmer Dr St Central St York St Fifth St Baker Rd Wilson St Kensington St Dexter-AnnMeadow Arbor View Rd Dr Alley Main St Second St Eaton Ct Urban Local School Access Jeffords Ulrich St Fourth St Cottonwood Ln Ulrich CtMinor Arterial Dover St Ryan Dr Ann Arbor St Broad St Edison St Major Collector S Wilson Ct Wilson Dr Forest St Grand St H u r o n R iv e r
Dan Hoey Rd Private Road ! !
M i l l C r e e k Inverness St Not Improved
Lima Township Scio Township
BishopCir Lima Township Scio Township Dongara Dr Shield Rd Melbourne Ave Lexington Dr EXISTING AND PLANNED Hudson St Cushing Ct City Boundary Parkridge Ct Lake St Quackenbush Dr Victoria Dr Huron View Ct RIGHT-OF-WAYS Bishop Cir W Carrington Dr Ulrich St
Mill Creek Dr Cambridge Dr Lexington Ct City of Dexter South Downs Dr Washtenaw County, Michigan Noble Dr ViewPalmer Dr St Parkridge Dr York St
Baker Rd Wilson St Kensington St Dexter-AnnMeadow Arbor View Rd Dr Island Lake Dr Feet Eaton Ct Bishop Cir E ¯ 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Kingsley Ci School Access Bristol Dr Ulrich St Coventry Cir Katherine Way Wellington Dr Ulrich Ct Source: Washtenaw County Base Data Ryan Dr
McCormickPl Webster Dr June 27, 2019 Boulder Ct W Joy Rd Carlisle/Wortman Associates, Inc. Eastridge Dr Ann Arbor, Michigan S Wilson Ct Wilson Dr Dan Hoey Rd
W Joy Rd Dexter Township Dexter Township Huron St Existing 66' ROW
Bridgeway Dr W Huron River Dr Webster Township
Lima Township Scio Township
BishopCir Lima Township Scio Township Dongara Dr Alpine St Shield Rd Melbourne Ave Lexington Dr Existing 99' ROW EXISTING AND PLANNED Broad St Scio Township Victoria Dr RIGHT-OF-WAYS Bishop Cir W Planned 120' ROW Third St Carrington Dr
Fifth St Central St Cambridge Dr Lexington Ct City of Dexter Alley Main St Second St Mill Creek Dr Urban Local South Downs Dr Washtenaw County, Michigan Jeffords Fourth St Cottonwood Ln Minor Arterial Dover St Feet Ann Arbor St Bishop Cir E 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Broad St Edison St ¯ Kingsley Ci Bristol Dr Coventry Cir WellingtonMajor Dr Collector Forest St Source: Washtenaw County Base Data Grand St H u r o n R iv e r Private Road June 27, 2019
Carlisle/Wortman Associates, Inc. ! ! M i l l C r e e k Inverness St Not Improved Ann Arbor, Michigan Hudson St Cushing Ct City Boundary Lake St Quackenbush Dr Huron View Ct Ulrich St
Noble Dr View Dr York St Palmer St 64 61
Baker Rd Wilson St 11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan Kensington St Dexter-AnnMeadow Arbor View Rd Dr Eaton Ct School Access Ulrich St
Ulrich Ct Ryan Dr
S Wilson Ct Wilson Dr
Dan Hoey Rd
Lima Township Scio Township
BishopCir Lima Township Scio Township Dongara Dr Shield Rd Melbourne Ave Lexington Dr EXISTING AND PLANNED
Victoria Dr RIGHT-OF-WAYS Bishop Cir W Carrington Dr
Mill Creek Dr Cambridge Dr Lexington Ct City of Dexter South Downs Dr Washtenaw County, Michigan
Feet Bishop Cir E ¯ 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Kingsley Ci Bristol Dr Coventry Cir Wellington Dr Source: Washtenaw County Base Data
June 27, 2019 Carlisle/Wortman Associates, Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan The major transportation routes have experienced an increase in the amount of traffic passing over them each day due to large increases in City and regional population since 2000. The following roads carry over 6,000 vehicles on average daily according to traffic counts from the Southeastern Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG):
• Baker Road: Carries traffic to and from I-94; 12,050 vehicles from Shield to Dan Hoey Road in 2013
• Dexter-Ann Arbor Road: Carries traffic from townships to the west and from M-14 and the I-94 Zeeb Road exit and the City of Ann Arbor to east; 16,000 vehicles through the downtown daily
• Mast Road: Brings traffic from Webster Township to the north; 6,784 vehicles in 2000 at the railroad crossing,
Traffic from all of the above roads contribute to the congestion that the City of Dexter experiences on a daily basis.
In addition, Broad Street is a designated truck route through the City.
The City has ninety-nine (99)-foot wide right-of-ways in the original Village area. The City plans to retain the full rights-of-way. The City also plans to acquire additional road right-of-way along Baker, Dan Hoey, and Dexter-Ann Arbor Roads for 120-foot right-of-ways to accommodate bike lanes and sidewalks.
Traffic from the west side of the City (Main Street) currently passes under the historic railroad viaduct to the west of Downtown. The viaduct, at only 16 feet wide, is a choke point, as drivers stop to allow opposing traffic to proceed to avoid the perceived sideswipe risk. The viaduct is part of the most direct east-west route over the Huron River, but the lane width and 11’10” height limits freight mobility. This requires trucks to use indirect routes to access farms and communities north of Dexter. A separate study is needed to determine a design and transportation changes that could mitigate congestion, respecting existing limitations.
The Downtown Development Authority is taking the lead in implementing findings from the 2018 Parking Study. A parking deck is under consideration.
Public Transportation
The City of Dexter does not operate its own public transit but is serviced by the Western-Washtenaw Area Value Express (WAVE). The City of Dexter has several stops on the inter-urban express route between the City of Ann Arbor and the City of Chelsea for residents and visitors. The WAVE service runs Monday through Friday from 5:30 a.m. to 7:15 p.m., with service approximately once every two hours. In addition, City residents may utilize the WAVE lifeline van and door-to-door bus services Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
62 65 11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan The Ann Arbor Area Transit Authority (AAATA) has developed a county-wide transit Master Plan entitled Moving You Forward (2011). This plan provides a long-range vision for various forms of public transit throughout Washtenaw County for the next thirty (30) years.
Specifically, as demonstrated in Figure 8 on the map on the following page, the AAATA plans for the City of Dexter to be a local transit hub with commuter parking. Enhanced WAVE service to/from Chelsea and Ann Arbor, and a circulator is also proposed. In addition, extended hours of transit service, bus vehicle improvements, expansion of the bicycling network, improved walkability and integrated ticketing are all proposed to be undertaken as part of the county-wide transit assessment. AAATA is starting a new Community Investment Plan in 2019. Options for enhanced and expanded service are anticipated for consideration.
Non-Motorized Transportation
The City of Dexter continues to promote safe pedestrian circulation and a sense of community with the establishment of non-motorized transportation facilities.
In 2010, the City adopted a Complete Streets Policy and Ordinance to further the goal of coordinated development of non-motorized facilities. The Non-Motorized Transportation Pathways Map (Figure 9, pg. 66) demonstrates both current and planned expansions to sidewalks, bike lanes and shared-use pathways.
Dexter has collaborated with the Washtenaw County Parks on the Border-to- Border Trail program that spans across Washtenaw County, roughly following the Huron River. The pathway will connect communities, parks and educational facilities. At approximately thirty-five (35) miles in length, the trail will help to create a larger non-motorized transportation network in the County. The completed segment of the Border-to-Border Trail in the City of Dexter links Dexter-Huron Metro Park through Downtown Dexter to Mill Creek Park to Hudson Mills Metro Park.
The City is currently working with Washtenaw County and the Huron-Waterloo Pathways Initiative (HWPI) to connect the cities of Dexter and Chelsea and other nearby communities through non-motorized pathway initiatives.
The City also participates in the Huron River Watershed Council’s (HRWC) “River Up!” project and is one of five “Trail Towns” along the Huron River Water Trail. The HRWC is coordinating planning efforts the “Trail Towns” to create a 104-mile “trail” on and along the river with rest stop locations, restaurants, lodging, way-finding and historical markers educating visitors about the history of the Huron River.
11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan 66 63 Figure 8. - Washtenaw County Transit Plan
64 67 11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan The City of Dexter, along with several other Washtenaw County communities, belongs to, and supports, the efforts of the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS), an organization coordinating regional transportation planning. WATS is responsible for monitoring the conditions of county roads, bicycle and pedestrian paths, public transit systems, highways, and trail. WATS has been instrumental in complete streets programming and non-motorized plans throughout Washtenaw County.
The 2040 Long Range Transportation Update for Washtenaw County developed by WATS plans for future county-wide, transportation improvements including motorized, non-motorized, and transit.
The City and County’s individual non-motorized plans generally coincide with each other to further collective goals and objectives.
Access Management
To ensure safe management of traffic, several elements should be considered for new development, such as:
1. Limit the number of driveways and encourage alternative means of access.
2. Permit only one access or shared access per site unless the new development is a larger residential development, which may require additional emergency access as determined by the authorized Fire Code Official.
3. Place medians at appropriate locations to reduce conflicting movements and to direct traffic.
4. Space access points appropriately as they are related to both signalized and un-signalized locations.
5. Locate shared driveways on the property line, unless they are too close to signalized intersections.
6. Provide service drives at the rear of sites unless this is prevented by a shallow lot.
7. Consider new traffic signals for higher traffic-generating uses when they meet warrants.
8. Design driveways to support efficient and safe traffic operations.
9. Create mid-block pedestrian crossings, with consideration given to protected crossings.
11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan 68 65 Brass Creek Kestrel
Harris Brookside
Fox Sedge Bluebird Daly
Huron River City Boundary
Dexter Pinckney Shared Use Paths
Existing Shared Use Paths Samuel Planned Shared UseFigure Paths 9 – Non-Motorized Pathways Map Parkridge Sidewalks
Stoney Field Bridgeway
Brass Creek Jessica Kestrel HarrisExisting Sidewalks Brookside Glacier Mast Pearl Webster Township Fox Sedge Bluebird Daly
Eastridge Dexter TownshipWestridge Dexter Township Huron River Potts Planned by Developer City Boundary McCormick Katherine Webster Boulder Sandhill Scio Township Dexter Pinckney Shared Use Paths Cedars Crossing at Stop Sign Existing Shared Use Paths Island Lake Samuel Huron Crossing at Signal Planned Shared Use Paths
Alpine Joy Parkridge Sidewalks Stoney FieldUncontrolled Crossing Bridgeway Jessica Huron River Existing Sidewalks Sandhill Broad Glacier Mast Pearl Webster Township
Eastridge
Dexter TownshipWestridge Dexter Township Potts Planned by Developer Planned by CityMcCormick Katherine Webster Boulder Sandhill Central Scio Township Crossing at Stop Sign Dexter Chelsea Fifth Cedars Alley Main Bike Lanes Island Lake Huron Jeffords Hermania Crossing at Signal
Existing Bike Lanes Alpine Joy M i l l C r e e k Third Uncontrolled Crossing
IslandHill Dover Huron River Edison H u r o n R i v e r Sandhill Broad Broad Planned Bike Lanes Planned by City Fourth Central Dexter Chelsea Fifth Ann Arbor Bord er -to-Border Coun ty Trail Alley Main Bike Lanes Jeffords Hermania Second Cottonwood Existing Bike Lanes Shared Lanes M i l l C r e e k Third
Island Hill Dover Edison H u r o n R iv e r Forest Broad Planned Bike Lanes Grand Fourth Ann Arbor Bord er-to-Border Cou nty Trail Inverness Pineview Second Cottonwood Shared Lanes Parks and Destinations Forest Grand Cushing Inverness Pineview Parks and Destinations Cushing Hudson Quackenbush City of Dexter Parks & Cemetery Lake Hudson Quackenbush City of Dexter Parks & Cemetery Huron View Noble Lake Washtenaw County Parks & Preserves Huron View Noble Washtenaw County Parks & Preserves York Ulrich York Ulrich Meadow View Wall View Pine Meadow View View Huron-Clinton Metroparks
Wall ViewPine York View View Huron Clinton Metroparks Palmer Subdivision Open Spaces Kensington View Ulrich York View Sandfield Oliver Eaton Schools & Community Facilities Palmer Subdivision Open Spaces Shaw Kensington View Ulrich Taylor Sandfield Oliver Eaton Boenaro Shaw Schools & CommunityBent Tree Facilities
Ryan Wilson Figure 9 Taylor Dan Hoey
Boenaro Bent Tree
Dongara Shield NON-MOTORIZED Ryan
Wilson Melbourne Figure 9 Lexington Victoria Dan Hoey Carrington TRANSPORTATION Hillside Newlyn Weber Mill Creek Cambridge
Dongara FACILITIES Baker Heights Oxbow
Bishop Shield Brass Creek Kestrel Shagbark
NON-MOTORIZED Preston Morrison Lima Township
Scio Township Jananne Harris Lima Township Brookside Scio Township Kingsley City of Dexter Bristol Bristol Fox Sedge Bluebird Daly SouthDowns Melbourne Coventry
Lexington Forshee Huron River Wellington City Boundary Washtenaw County, Michigan
Victoria Parker Dexter-Ann Arbor Carrington Dexter Pinckney TRANSPORTATION Shared Use Paths Hillside Existing Shared Use Paths Feet Newlyn Samuel Weber ¯ 0 640 1,280 1,920 2,560 Mill Creek Cambridge Planned Shared Use Paths
Parkridge Sidewalks Loch Highland Stoney Field Bridgeway Sources: Washtenaw County Base Data and OHM
Jessica FACILITIES Baker Heights Existing Sidewalks Glacier Mast Pearl Oxbow Webster Township Eastridge
Bishop
Dexter TownshipWestridge Dexter Township Potts Baker Planned by Developer 10-13-2019 Shagbark McCormick Katherine Preston Morrison Webster Boulder
Sandhill Carlisle/Wortman Associates, Inc. Lima Township
Scio Township Jananne Lima Township
Scio Township Scio Township Kingsley Scio Township Crossing at Stop Sign Cedars City of Dexter Ann Arbor, Michigan Bristol Bristol Island Lake
Coventry South Downs Huron Crossing at Signal Forshee Alpine Joy Brass Creek Kestrel Uncontrolled Crossing Wellington Huron River Harris SandhillBrookside WashtenawBroad County, Michigan
Bluebird Planned by City Fox Sedge Daly Parker Dexter-Ann Arbor Central Fifth Dexter Chelsea Alley Bike Lanes Huron River Main City Boundary Jeffords Hermania Existing Bike Lanes Third Dexter Pinckney M i l l C r e e k
IslandHill Dover Edison H u r o n R iv e r Shared Use Paths Broad Feet Planned Bike Lanes Fourth Ann Arbor Bord er -to-Border Coun ty Trail Existing Shared Use Paths 0 640 1,280Second Cottonwood 1,920 2,560 Samuel ¯ Shared Lanes Forest Grand Planned Shared Use Paths
Inverness Pineview Parkridge Parks and Destinations Cushing Sidewalks Stoney Field Bridgeway JessicaLoch Highland Hudson Quackenbush Existing Sidewalks City of Dexter Parks & Cemetery Glacier Mast Sources: WashtenawPearl County Base DataLake and OHM WebsterHuron View Township
Eastridge Noble
Dexter TownshipWestridge Dexter Township Potts Planned by Developer Washtenaw County Parks & Preserves McCormick Katherine York Ulrich
Webster Boulder Sandhill Meadow View Wall ViewPine Huron Clinton Metroparks Scio Township View Crossing at Stop Sign Cedars York View Island Lake Palmer Subdivision Open Spaces Baker Kensington 6-19-2019 View Huron Ulrich Crossing at Signal Sandfield Oliver Eaton Alpine Shaw Schools & Community Facilities Carlisle/Wortman Associates,Joy Inc. Uncontrolled Crossing Taylor Sandhill Broad Huron River Ann Arbor, Michigan Boenaro Bent Tree Planned by City Central Dexter Chelsea Fifth Alley Main Ryan Wilson Bike Lanes Figure 9 Jeffords Hermania Dan Hoey Existing Bike Lanes M i l l C r e e k Third
IslandHill Dover Edison H u r o n R iv e r Broad Dongara Planned Bike Lanes Fourth Ann Arbor Bord er -to-Border Coun ty Trail Shield NON-MOTORIZED Second Cottonwood Shared Lanes
Melbourne Forest Lexington Grand Inverness Victoria Pineview Carrington TRANSPORTATION 66 Parks 69and DestinationsHillside Newlyn Cushing Weber Mill Creek Cambridge 11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan Hudson Quackenbush City of Dexter Parks & Cemetery Lake FACILITIES Huron View BakerNoble Heights Oxbow
Bishop Washtenaw County Parks & Preserves York Ulrich Shagbark Morrison
Meadow View Preston Lima Township
Scio Township Jananne Lima Township Scio Township Kingsley Wall ViewPine View Huron Clinton Metroparks City of Dexter Bristol Bristol
South Downs
York View Coventry Forshee Palmer Subdivision Open Spaces Kensington View Wellington Washtenaw County, Michigan Ulrich Sandfield Oliver Parker Eaton Dexter-Ann Arbor Shaw Schools & Community Facilities
Taylor Feet Boenaro 0 640 1,280 1,920 2,560 Bent Tree ¯
Ryan Wilson Figure 9 Loch Highland Sources: Washtenaw County Base Data and OHM Dan Hoey
Dongara Baker 6-19-2019 Carlisle/Wortman Associates, Inc. Shield NON-MOTORIZED Ann Arbor, Michigan
Melbourne Lexington
Victoria Carrington TRANSPORTATION Hillside Newlyn Weber Mill Creek Cambridge FACILITIES Baker Heights Oxbow
Bishop
Preston Shagbark Morrison Lima Township
Scio Township Jananne Lima Township Scio Township Kingsley City of Dexter Bristol Bristol
Coventry South Downs Forshee Wellington Washtenaw County, Michigan
Parker Dexter-Ann Arbor
Feet ¯ 0 640 1,280 1,920 2,560
Loch Highland Sources: Washtenaw County Base Data and OHM
Baker 6-19-2019 Carlisle/Wortman Associates, Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan Chapter 6: Background Studies
The review and analysis of background studies, including population and housing trends, in the Master Plan is done in part to help evaluate the character of the community and understand the trends of the past. This information is needed as a basis for a community to plan for their long-term goals. The evaluation of the data is used to help understand the changing trends in population, housing, employment, and economics. The data found is then evaluated to help support the long-term decisions recommended for the Master Plan.
This chapter has data on population, education, income, and housing characteristics from the 2015 American Community Survey by the U.S. Census Bureau, historical data from the U.S. Census Data and the 2040 Forecast from the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG).
11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan 70 67 Population
As documented in the Master Plan, the City’s population changed dramatically from 1990 through 2010, reversing a trend of declining population over the previous 30 years (see Table 3). The population of the City of Dexter and surrounding communities since 1960 has increased 203%, from 10,135 to 30,767.
Table 3. – Population Change 1960-2010
% Change Community 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2000-2010 City of Dexter 1,702 1,729 1,524 1,497 2,338 4,067 73.9% Dexter Township 1,698 2,238 3,872 4,407 5,248 6,042 15.1% Lima Township 995 1,281 2,124 2,132 2,224 3,307 48.6% Scio Township 4,454 5,476 6,505 9,580 15,759 20,081 27.4% Webster Township 1,286 1,981 2,760 3,235 5,198 6,784 30.5% Washtenaw County 172,440 234,103 264,748 282,937 322,895 344,791 6.8% State of Michigan 7,823,194 8,875,083 9,262,078 9,295,297 9,938,444 9,883,640 <-1% Source: 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 & 2010 U.S. Census
Between 2010 and 2015, the City’s population continued to outpace its neighbors. However, the City’s rate of population growth is not as rapid as in the 2000’s. Meanwhile, Washtenaw County, in which the City of Dexter is located, continued to grow in population. According to the American Community Survey, Washtenaw County gained the second most in population between 2015 and 2016 in Michigan, behind Kent County (Grand Rapids). The City of Ann Arbor continues to be a catalyst for growth in the region.
According to estimates by the Southeastern Michigan Council of Governments, the City of Dexter along with Dexter and Lima Townships will see slight population increases by 2040. Meanwhile, Scio and Webster Townships will lose population, mostly due to decreases in average household size.
The City of Dexter’s population growth is associated with an increase in the average number of persons per household, households and housing units. Other neighboring communities, such as Scio Township, have grown in population and household size, but have seen a decrease in the number of households (see Tables 3, 4 and 5). However, by 2040, the City of Dexter and all its neighboring communities are anticipated to see a decrease in the average persons per household.
68 71 11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan Table 4. - Population Change 2010 – 2015, Estimate in 2040
Change % Change Estimate in Community 2010 2015 2010-2015 2010-2015 2040 City of Dexter 4,067 4,700 633 15.56% 4,885 Dexter Township 6,042 6,299 257 4.25% 6,855 Lima Township 3,307 3,587 280 8.4% 4,304 Scio Township 20,081 20,918 837 4.1% 20,442 Webster Township 6,784 7,006 222 3.27% 5,918 Washtenaw County 344,791 354,092 9,301 2.70% 386,235 State of Michigan 9,883,640 9,900,571 16,931 0.17% N/A Source: 2010 U.S. Census and 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2040 estimates from Southeastern Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG)
Table 5. - Average Persons Per Household
% Change Community 2010 2015 2040 Estimate 2010-2015 City of Dexter 2.56 2.65 3.52% 2.41 Dexter Township 2.71 2.79 2.95% 2.45 Lima Township 2.76 2.67 -3.26% 2.34 Scio Township 2.55 2.71 6.27% 2.30 Webster Township 2.88 2.87 -0.35% 2.34 Washtenaw County 2.38 2.43 2.10% 2.23 State of Michigan 2.49 2.52 1.20% N/A Source: 2010 U.S. Census and 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2040 Estimate from SEMCOG
Table 6. - Total Households By Community
# Change % Change Community 2010 2015 2040 Estimate 2010-2015 2010 -2015 City of Dexter 1,590 1,765 175 11.01% 2,027 Dexter Township 2,225 2,252 27 1.21% 2,787 Lima Township 1,197 1,341 144 12.03% 1,836 Scio Township 7,857 7,704 -153 -1.95% 8,885 Webster Township 2,353 2,445 92 3.91% 2,531 Washtenaw County 137,193 138,067 874 0.64% 164,447 State of Michigan 3,872,508 3,841,148 -31,360 -0.81% N/A Source: 2010 U.S. Census and 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2040 Estimates from SEMCOG for Households (Occupied Units)
11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan 72 69 While the City is growing, it’s population is younger than the neighboring townships (see table 7). The younger population needs different services than older generations, such as schools and active recreation. However, according to SEMCOG estimates, the City’s population of residents 75 years or older will triple between now and 2040 (see figure 10).
Table 7. - Percent of Population by Age Group and Median Age, 2015
Dexter Lima Webster Washtenaw Age Group City of Dexter Scio Township Township Township Township County 0-4 8.0 3.8 8.1 6.3 3.8 5.3 5-9 12 6.7 5.1 9.2 7.1 5.4 10-14 9.9 7.7 8.8 8.7 10 5.7 15-19 4.9 6.8 6.5 6.8 7.9 8.8 20-24 3.5 3.6 1.9 3.7 4 12.8 35-34 11 9.8 10.8 10.6 7.3 14.1 35-44 19 12.9 13.8 13.1 10.5 11.9 44-54 9.1 16.5 14.4 14.1 19.4 12.9 55-59 3.7 7.3 11.2 7.8 9.1 6.2 60-64 6 9 7.5 7 8.1 5.5 65-74 5.4 11.7 7.1 8.2 8.5 6.8 75-84 5.6 3.3 4.5 3.1 3.5 3.2 85+ 1.8 0.7 0.5 1.4 0.9 1.5 Median Age 35.3 44.5 42.0 39.3 44.8 33.4 Source: 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Figure 10. Population by Age Group for City of Dexter
1,800 2015: 2011-2015 American 1,600 Community Survey 5-Year 1,400 Estimates
1,200 2025: SEMCOG 2040 1,000 Forecast produced in 2010
800
600 2040: SEMCOG 2040 400 Forecast produced in 2010
200
0 0-4 5-17 18-24 25-34 35-59 60-64 65-74 75+
70 73 11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan Education
The City of Dexter has a well-educated population, with over 60% holding a bachelor’s degree or higher (See figure 11). The level of educational attainment is greater than the State of Michigan, but similar to Washtenaw County overall.
Figure 11. – Educational Attainment Population over 25 years in 2015 City of Dexter, Washtenaw County & Michigan
Dexter
Washtenaw County
State of Michigan
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Less than 9th grade 9th to 12th grade, no diploma High school graduate Some college (no degree) Associate’s degree Bachelor’s degree Graduate or professional degree
Figure 12. – Income City of Dexter 2015 Income $200,000 or more 6% According to the American Less than $25,000 Community Survey 5-Year estimate 16% in 2015, the City of Dexter has a $100,000-$199,999 high median household income of 25% $70,852, compared to Washtenaw
County ($61,000) and Michigan $25,000 to $49,999 overall ($62,247). However, the city 18% has a diversity of incomes as shown in figure 12, at just over one-third of the population earning $50,000 or less.
$50,000 to $99,999 35%
11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan 74 71 Housing Characteristics
The housing stock within the City of Dexter increased dramatically between 1990 and 2010. During that time, the number housing units increased from 676 units in 1990 to 1,590 units in 2010. The growth was due to the annexation of 330 acres of land into the City in the early 1990s. Prior to the annexations, the City of Dexter had been built-out with little or no room to grow. Between 2010 and 2015, the City experienced an increase in total housing units, but all the surrounding townships, except for Scio Township, saw greater increases in terms of numbers of units (see Table 8). As the two subdivisions with remaining vacant lots, Westridge and Huron Farms, are built out, the City should expect the growth in housing units to slow.
Table 8. - Total Housing Units Available by Community
# Change % Change Community 2010 2015 2010-2015 2010 - 2015 City of Dexter 1,704 1,837 133 7.81% Dexter Township 2,612 2,788 176 6.74% Lima Township 1,250 1,402 152 12.16% Scio Township 8,251 8,151 -100 -1.21% Webster Township 2,479 2,693 214 8.63% Washtenaw County 147,573 149,09 1,525 1.03% Source: 2010 U.S. Census and 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
The City of Dexter has a low housing unit vacancy rate, just below four percent (see Table 9). The percentage of rental housing is just over 30 percent of the total units. Table 9. - Dwelling Unit Owner/Renter Composition by Community
Total Total Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Total Vacant Occupied Occupied Community Dwellings Dwellings Units % Units % Units % 2010 2015 City of Dexter 1,590 1,765 1,224 69.3 541 30.7 72 3.9 Dexter Township 2,225 2,252 2,060 91.5 192 8.5 536 19.2 Lima Township 1,197 1,341 1,265 94.3 76 5.7 61 4.4 Scio Township 7,857 7,704 5,989 77.7 1,715 22.3 447 5.5 Webster Township 2,353 2,445 2,332 95.1 113 4.6 248 9.2 Washtenaw County 137,193 138,067 82,525 59.8 55,542 40.2 11,031 7.4 Source: 2010 U.S. Census and 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
72 75 11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan Residential Target Market Analysis
The study defined market demand by types of housing units in the City of Dexter and market absorption. The study concluded that mid-rise buildings would not work well in Dexter but row houses, townhouses, and small and large multiplexes would. A market for smaller houses and accessory dwelling units was also identified. The study estimated in conservative and aggressive scenarios that the City could absorb between 420 and 960 attached housing units between 2015 and 2020. However, due to Dexter’s smaller market for attached units in larger buildings, the report recommended that only one large project (20 or more units) be approved per year in the upcoming five years. The study identified eight sites as examples of opportunities for missing middle housing.
Downtown Retail Market Study
The report defined the trade area for downtown Dexter as the Dexter School District geographic boundary. Based on population and economic trends, the report concluded that the trade area will see 900 households added to the trade area by 2021 and the growth of households and household incomes will result in an additional spending for retail goods and services in excess of $50,000,000 in the same time period. However, the retail leakage analysis showed that just less than 50% of household shopping for goods and services is done outside the retail market area, a proportion that will increase to 55% by 2021.
Factoring in the leakage, the market area could support 250,000 square feet in new retail floor area. However, the downtown enjoys a high building occupancy rate, which limits the ability to accommodate new building space. The report recommended planning for additional retail building space to expand and complement the current inventory of retail establishments within the downtown. The study also recommended downtown store types focus on “specialty retailers”; including furniture, home furnishings, clothing, with the most likely being unique multi-offering general merchandise stores. In addition, the report’s recommendations included increasing the desirability of downtown residential dwelling units, expanding placemaking efforts and enhancing walkability.
Property Values
Table 10, on the following page, provides a history of the SEV of all properties within the City, inclusive of the industrial facilities tax (IFT) which results from the additional tax levied on the properties within the industrial park. In 2016, the City has a slight decline in SEV due to personal property tax reform passed by the state legislature. Despite the reduction in industrial personal property tax, the current SEV has surpassed the total before the economic downturn in 2007.
11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan 76 73 Table 10. - City of Dexter SEV Plus IFT Growth
State Equalized Percent Change from Year Valuation plus IFT Previous Year 1997 $85,340,000 -- 1998 $99,059,000 16% 1999 $120,324,000 21% 2000 $127,594,000 6% 2001 $140,673,000 10% 2002 $157,519,700 12% 2003 $189,975,500 21% 2004 $225,291,700 15% 2005 $243,126,450 7% 2006 $265,561,051 9% 2007 $271,219,500 2% 2008 $253,951,400 -6% 2009 $236,440,400 -7% 2010 $216,955,400 -8% 2011 $210,206,300 -3% 2012 $203,784,936 -3% 2013 $214,723,470 5% 2014 $236,859,978 10% 2015 $265,361,250 12% 2016 $264,904,912 -0.2% 2017 $281,565,983 6% Source: City of Dexter
School Facilities
Dexter Community Schools are ranked in the top fifteen percent (15%) of schools within the State of Michigan. The Dexter Community School District campus size has increased since 2000 along with the population of its receiving area.
74 77 11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan Chapter 7: Implementation
The Master Plan is a statement of goals and objectives designed to accommodate future growth and redevelopment. It is the officially-adopted document that sets forth an agenda for the achievement of goals and policies. It is the basis upon which zoning and land use decisions are made.
The Plan forms the philosophical basis for the more technical and specific implementation measures. The Plan will have little effect upon future development unless adequate implementation programs are established. This section identifies actions and programs for plan implementation.
11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan 78 75 Zoning
Zoning is the development control that has been most closely associated with planning. Originally, zoning was intended to inhibit nuisances and protect property values. However, zoning can serve additional purposes such as:
• To promote orderly growth in a manner consistent with land use policies and the Master Plan.
• To preserve the City’s traditional neighborhood design.
• To promote attractiveness in the City’s physical environment by providing variation in lot sizes, architecture controls and appropriate land uses and building types.
• To accommodate special, complex or unique uses through mechanisms such as planned unit developments, and special land use permits.
• To guide development away from conflicting land uses (i.e. industrial uses adjacent to residential areas).
• To preserve and protect existing land uses, natural resources, air, land, water, and other significant natural features in accordance with the Master Plan.
• To promote the positive redevelopment of underutilized areas of the City.
• To balance the increased interest in activities and land uses related or ancillary to oil and gas exploration and development with other community goals to ensure the uses occur in a manner consistent with other existing and planned uses, and in a manner that protects the open space, natural resources, recreation, and other priorities in the City.
While the Master Plan is a statement of planning policy, and zoning implements policy. The City’s Zoning Ordinance has not undergone a significant update in over a decade.
In order to implement the Master Plan, the City’s zoning ordinance should be rewritten with the following:
• Update processes and procedures.
• Update of all zoning districts to allow the density, uses and building types outlined in the Future Land chapter of this Master Plan.
• Update access standards to reflect context of each Future Land Use category, as applicable.
76 79 11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan • Explore form-based regulations in the following areas to achieve listed goals:
o Downtown to ensure redevelopment, increased viability, adequate parking, walkability and the reuse of the upper floors of the existing structures.
o Baker Road Corridor to create a cohesive, walkable corridor.
o Dexter Ann Arbor Road Corridor to continue and improve character of the area and diversify residential uses.
o Village Commercial areas to preserve and enhance the character of the City.
o Village Residential neighborhoods to preserve and enhance the older, small town residential character of the City.
• Adjust zoning to implement Housing Task Force recommendations.
• Explore and update, when needed, regulations to protect natural features and the water quality of the Huron River and Mill Creek.
• Update zoning regulations for tree protection to create and support the urban forest.
• Adjust setbacks, landscape buffers and greenbelts for Research/Development area to allow for continued reinvestment in these areas while minimizing visual and environmental conflicts with adjoining land uses.
• Allow for new mobility options such as ride sharing services and autonomous vehicles.
• Explore and update, when needed, the noise, air and light standards of the Zoning Ordinance.
• Consider alternative energy systems at a scale that preserves the character of the community.
• Evaluate the likely potential effects of mineral, sand and gravel, and oil and gas exploration and development, on the public health, safety, and welfare; and review existing zoning and other police power ordinances to ensure they balance the need for those sues with their effects on other existing and planned uses in a manner that furthers and protects community goals and priorities, including land use, land preservation and the protection of natural resources and water quantity and quality, transportation, and safety and community facilities and services.
11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan 80 77 Regulations and Ordinances
The City has regulations and ordinances other than zoning that can implement the Master Plan. Those local laws and procedures should be updated as follows:
• Adopt or amend regulations to require the review and collection of data and information regarding the likely effects of land uses on the public health, safety, and welfare, including the effects on the City’s environmental and natural resources.
• Pursue a property maintenance ordinance.
Strategies
The following strategies, beyond zoning, should be continued or implemented.
Natural Resources:
• Continue to collaborate and strengthen partnerships with other organizations to improve water quality such as the Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority, Washtenaw County Water Resources, Huron Watershed Council, Trout Unlimited and Washtenaw County.
• Continue to coordinate with state and local agencies to ensure that contaminated sites are returned to an acceptable environmentally safe condition.
• Protect and preserve existing trees and wooded areas within the City.
• Continue to fund street tree planting to help preserve the urban forest.
• Continue to monitor and improve the City’s wastewater treatment and stormwater management systems to minimize negative impacts on City residents, the Huron River and Mill Creek.
• Utilize progressive stormwater management and erosion control techniques, per the latest federal and state guidelines, to ensure that development will not adversely impact natural resources and surrounding property.
• Implement Stormwater, Asset Management and Wastewater (SAW) grant recommendations.
• Monitor stormwater and wastewater regulations for adjacent communities, particularly those downstream, and suggest stricter regulations when appropriate.
78 81 11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan Neighborhoods:
• Analyze alleys to consider additional lot splits, abandonment by the City or other uses, while maintaining their low traffic nature.
• Consider programs and techniques to help maintain and improve neighborhoods and the condition of housing stock within the City, which may include improvements to the City’s building inspection practices and assisted housing rehabilitation.
• Maintain and improve pedestrian connections from neighborhoods to schools, parks, downtown, other community facilities, and other neighborhoods through implementation of the 2018-2023 Parks and Recreation Plan, this Master Plan and the Capital Improvement Program.
Parks and Recreation:
• Implement the 2018-2023 Parks and Recreation Plan.
• Meet present and future community needs by maintaining, planning and developing a system of parks, greenways, open space and recreation facilities.
• Encourage healthy lifestyles for City residents through recreation.
• Use sound planning, financial and operational management practices to ensure that the City’s parks and recreation assets remain available for enjoyment, now and in the future.
• Promote activities within the community and the broader service area to foster a community-wide sense of pride in, and support for, the parks and recreation program.
• Encourage the preservation of natural resources through collaboration with other public agencies and organizations, such as adjacent Townships, Washtenaw County Parks, Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority, Dexter Community Schools, Border-to-Border Trail, Huron Waterloo Pathways Initiative and other regional initiatives.
• Fund and expand year-round programs for seniors to meeting the growing, specialized needs of this population.
• Continue to support recreation opportunities for youth.
• Ensure that all parks and recreation assets are barrier-free and universally accessible.
11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan 82 79 • Continue to coordinate a City-wide path system that requires developers to construct a pathway and/or contribute to the system which links new residential developments to downtown, local parks and/or schools.
• Invest in sidewalks and pedestrians crossing to fill in gaps in the non-motorized network.
Economic Development:
• Analyze and develop sub-area plan for next-stage high-tech businesses, launching from incubator or micro-spaces to 2,000 to 15,000 square feet operations.
• Prepare for Fifth Generation Wireless (5G) and Sixth Generation Wireless (6G) network infrastructure in streets rights-of-way.
• Examine land uses, building types and streetscape on Second Street from Hudson to Central Street.
• Investigate installation and affordability of high-speed fiber connecting downtown with Industrial park.
• Grow destination businesses.
• Establish an Arts and Entertainment Technology Council stretching from Downtown through the Baker Road Corridor to the Dexter Business and Research Park.
• Minimize negative impacts of industrial areas on non-industrial areas and on the environment.
Business Retention and Attraction:
• Continue utilize and collaborate with the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC) and Ann Arbor SPARK for economic development assistance.
• Redevelop brownfield sites within the City and work with the Washtenaw County Brownfield Redevelopment Authority
• Explore additional access point for Dexter Business and Research Park.
• Strengthen school/business connection through industry and K-12 collaboration.
80 83 11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan Mobility:
• Encourage new streets to be designed in an interconnecting network with sidewalks and on street parking, similar to the existing street network.
• Develop a Baker Road Corridor Plan with a streetscape.
• Encourage the maintenance of and/or improvements to local streets and sidewalks to ensure safe access to the City’s residential neighborhoods, while discouraging extraneous non-residential traffic
• Develop open path connections for walkways, paths and greenways to connect outlying parks for recreational use, including installation of sidewalks on at least one (1) side of the street (with the long-term goal of installation of sidewalks on both sides of the street).
• Implement the recommendations of the annual Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) to expand walkability within the City by installing sidewalks on at least one (1) side of the street (with the long-term goal of installation on both sides of the street).
• Develop and improve sidewalks to link uses such as shopping, offices and residential areas to parks, open spaces and activity centers.
• Evaluate the impact of traffic generated by existing development and new or expanded land uses, including extractive uses, and work toward improvements, compatibility with other existing and planned uses, and safety concurrent with new development and uses.
• Utilize parking management strategies and explore smart parking applications to improve the parking availability in the Downtown.
• Continue to coordinate transportation improvements with the County Road Commission and state agencies, including participation in Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS).
• Support regional and county-wide efforts to maintain and improve public transit access in the City by:
o Continue to coordinate transportation options through the Western- Washtenaw Area Value Express (WAVE) to provide improved transit services to City residents.
o Provide senior citizen transportation options for City residents, including dial- a-ride or similar opportunities.
o Work with surrounding communities to consider forming a transit consortium to fund services for a growing older population to provide transit to life-line and leisure destinations.
11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan 84 81 o Support expansion of the County transportation system/network, particularly the efforts of the Ann Arbor Area Transit Authority (AAATA).
o Explore public transit funding including a millage.
o Lay ground work for commuter rail stop in planned for Dexter in 2028.
• Evaluate and plan for car and ride sharing services in the City.
• Evaluate at five-year Master Plan updates whether progress in autonomous vehicle technology warrants changes to City’ Mobility goals, objectives and strategies.
Community Facilities and Services:
• Continue to provide reliable, quality governmental services.
• Relocate City offices within the Downtown.
• Continue to work with Washtenaw County to provide area residents with high quality police services and facilities.
• Upgrade or relocate the Fire Station and Sherriff’s sub-station, based in part on response times.
• Continue to work with adjacent municipalities and Washtenaw County to provide area residents with high quality fire services and facilities.
• Monitor capacity and quality of underground water supply to plan for infrastructure improvements, if necessary.
Capital Improvement Program
The Michigan Planning Enabling Act (P.A. 33 of 2008, as amended) authorizes master plans and the creation of a Planning Commission. Once a Planning Commission has drafted and adopted a Master Plan, in whole or in part, the Act requires that all public works occurring within the municipality be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval of the project. This would include items such as sanitary sewers, water lines, road improvements, bridge improvements, etc. These public works and capital improvement projects must be coordinated and reviewed for consistency with the Master Plan.
The City of Dexter has a very active Capital Improvement Program (CIP) which outlines a schedule of public service expenditures over the ensuing six (6)-year period and beyond. The City of Dexter CIP does not address all the capital expenditures for the City, but provides for large, physical improvements that are permanent in nature, including the basic facilities, services and installations needed for the functioning of the community. These include transportation systems, utilities, municipal facilities and other miscellaneous projects.
82 85 11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan To qualify for inclusion into the CIP, a project must meet the following standards:
• Be consistent with either:
o An adopted or anticipated component of the City Master Plan;
o A State or Federal requirement; or
o A City Council approved policy; and
• Constitute permanent, physical or system improvements, or significant equipment purchases, with a minimum project cost of $10,000; and
• Add to the value or capacity of the infrastructure of the City.
Projects that are considered operational, maintenance or recurring are excluded, except when a limited duration project.
Preparation of the CIP is done under the authority of the Municipal Planning Commission Act (P.A. 33 of 2008, as amended). It is the City Planning Commission’s goal that the CIP be used as a tool to implement the City’s Master Plan and assist in the City’s financial planning.
The CIP proposes project funding relative to the anticipated availability of fiscal resources and the choice of specific improvements to be achieved throughout the six (6)-year plan.
Plan Education
Citizen involvement and support will be necessary as the Plan is implemented. Local officials should constantly strive to develop procedures that make citizens more aware of the planning and zoning process and the day-to-day decision making which affects implementation of the Plan. A continuous program of discussion, education, and participation will be extremely important as the City moves toward realization of the goals and objectives contained within the Master Plan.
Currently, the City utilizes various media outlets to keep residents informed. These include: a Facebook page, email updates, quarterly newsletter and City website.
Plan Updates
The Plan should not become a static document. The City Planning Commission should attempt to re-evaluate and update portions of it on a periodic basis. In accordance with Michigan Public Act 33 of 2008, as amended, the City is required to review the Plan every five (5) years to determine whether to commence the procedure to amend or adopt a new Plan. However, the Planning Commission should set goals for the review of various section of this Plan on a yearly basis.
11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan 86 83 The Master Plan should also be coordinated with the City Parks and Recreation Master Plan to provide proper long-range planning for parks and recreation improvements.
Project Implementation Table
The following table lists the implementation projects noted in this chapter with responsibilities and time frames.
Table 11. - Project Implementation Table
Project Responsibility Timeframe Update zoning ordinance Planning Commission & City Council 2019-2021 Evaluate and update ordinances to protect Staff & City Council 2020-2022 environmental and natural features Create property maintenance ordinance Staff & City Council 2020-2022 Fund street tree planting City Council Ongoing Implement SAW grant recommendations Staff 2020-2022 Evaluate and plan of lot split potential and alley Staff & Planning Commission 2020-2022 use in City overall Expand year-round programs for seniors Staff & City Council 2020-2030 Investigate high-speed fiber connecting Staff 2020-2022 downtown and the industrial park Develop Baker Road Corridor Plan with Staff & Planning Commission 2022-2024 streetscape Examine land uses, building types and streetscape on Second Street from Central to Staff & Planning Commission 2024-2030 Hudson Street Installation of sidewalks on both sides of street City Council 2019-2030 throughout the City Relocate City offices within Downtown City Council 2020-2030 Upgrade and/or relocate fire station and Sheriff’s City Council 2020-2030 sub-station Traffic study on alleviation of tunnel congestion Planning Commission & City Council 2020-2030
84 87 11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan Appendix 2011 Master Plan Update Survey
In early 2011, the City of Dexter began a comprehensive survey of its residents. Surveys are an important tool in obtaining the input of participants on many important issues facing the community. This input will assist the City’s elected and appointed officials in the process of preparing a Master Plan. The responses provided will help guide the City in the process of preparing land use and transportation, arts and culture, recreation and leisure activities and other City policies.
An on-line community survey was made available to residents in early 2011. A total of 162 people participated in the survey which concluded in spring 2011.
The survey included four (4) sub-topics of questions:
1. Demographics – inquired about age, gender, educational attainment, household income, employment status, etc.
2. Strengths and Weaknesses – these questions were primarily open-ended in nature. They asked respondents what they like best/least about the City of Dexter, what are the most/least important issues facing the City of Dexter, and what types of development would you like to see in the City.
3. Funding Options – discussed the possible funding of a light rail system to gauge community support if pursued.
4. Areas of Concern – These open-ended questions asked respondents to list specific concerns that they felt should be addressed.
11/6/19 DRAFT Master Plan 88 85 Baker Road Walking Tour Summary
The following notes are a summary of the comments and observations made on the walking tour of the Baker Road Corridor on October 26, 2017. Five elected or appointed City of Dexter officials participated. The Community Development Coordinator with a consultant from Carlisle Wortman Associates facilitated the event. The group walked from the Dexter Wellness Center to the intersection of Main Street and Baker Road.
The objective of the walking tour was to gather input on:
• What should the mixed use corridor be?
• Do the regulations in the overlay work?
• Is the zoning appropriate? Right now, has four zoning districts: One family residential small lot, Village Residential, Village Commercial and General Business
• What improvements need to be made to the street in order to create a walkable place?
Notes: The notes are organized by the objectives listed above:
What should the mixed use corridor be? The group agreed that the corridor lacked a clear vision. A Planning Commissioner said that it seemed to be a “front yard” street. The massing and scale of the buildings (1-2 stories, set back from the street with yards) seemed to be correct and the uses did not to seem to make as much impact. Also, the quality of maintenance of the building as well as the street (sidewalks and trees) was a factor. The group felt that the houses and small-scale buildings should be maintained and a variety of uses allowed encouraging re-use of buildings.
Do the regulations in the overlay work? The group agreed that the new buildings matched in size and scale, but a discussion of the details of the design regulations led to some concerns. The 70% requirement for transparent glass on the front façade had not been implemented consistently and was noted as a zoning item that warranted further examination, specifically reducing the percentage.
Parking was also discussed. North of Grand Street, on-street parking is present. The lots along the corridor are shallow. Without on-street parking, property owners must use part of their site for parking, further constraining the amount of buildable space.
The buildings where the tour stopped were all improvements to existing buildings. The Brouwer Building, a renovation of a former bowling alley, went through full site plan review with approval by City
89 City of Dexter - Baker Road Walking Tour Summary
Council. The building has an estimated 30% transparent glass on the front façade. The group felt this was an example of the type of development they would like to see in the corridor. The improvements to the Part Peddler and the chiropractor’s office warranted administrative review. The group discussed what improvements happened due to the regulations in the corridor.
Is the zoning appropriate? The corridor has four zoning districts: One family residential small lot, Village Residential, Village Commercial and Central Business District. Walking the corridor, it was not obvious when one zoning district started and another ended. The tour stopped at the block in between Grand and Forest, which has three zoning districts: One family residential small lot, Village Residential, and Village Commercial. The only noticeable difference between where the district met was the houses in one family residential small lot were poorly maintained, especially compared to the office uses on the same block.
The zoning on the west side of the street north of Forest is CBD. The group said that this was the point where the corridor transitioned to the entrance to downtown. The group discussed whether in the Master Plan the downtown, Baker Road and Dexter-Ann Arbor Road should be different designations on the Future Land Use Map, instead of a single color like on the current map.
What improvements need to be made to the street in order to create a walkable place? The corridor has only one striped pedestrian crossing located at Grand between the school campus and the termination of Baker Road in the downtown. The group discussed the need for additional crossings, specifically at Forest to accommodate the pedestrians going to Mill Creek Park from the neighborhoods to the east. There was some debate as to whether a mid-block crossing or a crossing at the intersection would be best.
Baker Road and most of the intersecting streets have 99-foot rights-of-way (ROWs). The wide ROWs affect the width of the road as well as sloped intersections. The width of the road and the intersection design can encourage speeding by motorists. Also, sometimes the alley entrances onto Baker look almost the same as the street intersections.
Until north of Forest, the group noted that the experience as a pedestrian was not always pleasant. Two factors seemed to contribute. First, the pedestrian is not always buffered from the street or the adjacent parking. On-street parking and well-maintained, consistently placed street trees acted as a buffer. However, on-street parking is only allowed north of Grand Street and some blocks had street trees in good condition, some had trees that were poorly maintained or other blocks had no street trees. In terms of parking lots, there were often lots that directly abutted the side walk with no dividing curb, wall or landscaping. Second, the sidewalk itself varied from well-maintained to cracked and hard to navigate.
2
90 Dexter-Ann Arbor Road Walking Tour Summary
The following notes are a summary of the comments and observations made on the walking tour of the Baker Road Corridor on October 28, 2017. The Community Development Coordinator with a consultant from Carlisle Wortman Associates participated. The group walked from Dexter Crossing to the cross walk on Dan Hoey Drive at the school campus to Peace Park and back to Dexter Crossing.
The objective of the walking tour was to gather input on:
• What should the design guidelines for the corridor be?
• Is the corridor safe for all types of transportation – pedestrians, cyclists and motorists?
Notes: The notes are organized by the objectives listed above:
What should the design guidelines for the corridor be? The commercial and office buildings constructed in the past 10 years used high-quality materials, usually brick. Generally, the parking was behind the buildings, with some exceptions. The street wall, the line formed by the front facades of the buildings, is inconsistent due to the variety in location of parking and the uses. The southwest side of the street has the middle school and a block of single-family homes with deep front yards. These houses are well-maintained and some have recent additions. It is seems unlikely that this area will convert in use in the near to medium term. Therefore, design guidelines or regulations for this part of the corridor are may not be effective.
The northwest side has two vacant parcels and a vacant building. If the design regulations are updated, they would have the most impact in this portion of the corridor.
Kensington Road divides the village portion of the City from the newer portion. The style of housing and the street layout is different from that in the newer subdivisions off of the corridor on the other side of Kensington.
Is the corridor safe for all types of transportation – pedestrians, cyclists and motorists? The corridor is generally a pleasant walk. The street trees are not consistent in spacing or maintenance. Bike lanes are on either side of the road between Dan Hoey and Kensington Roads. We saw a cyclist during the walk, despite the poor weather.
91 Downtown/Village Walking Tour Summary
The following notes are a summary of the comments and observations made on the walking tour of the downtown and Village area on October 28, 2017. Three appointed City of Dexter officials and a resident participated. The Community Development Coordinator with a consultant from Carlisle Wortman Associations facilitated the event. The group walked from the Farmer’s Market to the Dexter Cider Mill to Monument Park.
The objective of the walking tour was to gather input on:
• What in the downtown and village area should be preserved?
• How should buildings and land be re-used or redeveloped? The future land use map currently preserves what is on the ground now.
• How should alleys be used?
• What mix of housing should be in the Village (multiple-family, duplexes, accessory dwelling units, tiny houses)?
• Is the infrastructure for cyclists and pedestrians adequate?
Notes: The notes are organized by the objectives listed above:
What in the downtown and village area should be preserved? The general agreement was that the size, mix and use of buildings worked and should be preserved. Some specific challenges were noted:
• Some of the out buildings for the Dexter Mill are in the railroad right-of-way and would likely not be rebuilt in the same locations • There are no design requirements for single-family houses. However, almost all of the houses have a front door facing the street, detached or attached garages flush or set back from the front façade of the house and either a stoop or a front porch. • Adaptive re-use of older, institutional buildings can be challenging. Some have been redeveloped using a PUD, but others are vacant
The group noted that places like the Cider Mill, Mill Creek Park and the informal Huron River put-in at Huron River Drive and Central brought people to Dexter and create a unique sense of place but result in parking problems.
92 City of Dexter: Downtown/Village Walking Tour Summary
How should buildings and land be re-used or redeveloped? Overall, the group favored re-use of existing buildings, over demolition and new construction. The group identified the following areas that could likely change use and the City should have a plan or options for those properties:
• The convent and community building associated with St. Joseph church: The site is planned for public/semi-public use and zoned for R1-B. The zoning does not encourage adaptive re-use of those buildings and future land use limits to uses to a narrow list. • Copeland Auditorium: This building has the same planning and zoning designation as the buildings on the St. Joseph block. If the school district chooses the sell the property, the re-use will be limited or need to go through a PUD or rezoning process. • Industrial Properties on Second Street: The group felt that the properties, specifically any environmental hazards, should be looked at and evaluated as to whether the vision for these properties is something other than research and development. • Commercial/Office property at Alpine and Fifth Street: While this business should remain, this property might be better suited to another use in the future.
How should alleys be used? During the tour, the group walked several alleys: off of Fifth Street between Broad and Alpine, off of Fifth Street between Broad and the railroad tracks, and between Dover and Central from Third to Main Street). There seemed to be three types of alleys: alleys properties use for access, alleys not used by properties for access, alleys used for access and trash pick-up. Each type of alley had land-locked vacant properties, i.e. parcels with no street frontage but a property line on the alley. The alleys used for trash pick-up were the only street access for two occupied homes. The group discussed how and if regulations should be changed to allow for development of landlocked parcels as houses, accessory dwelling units or other uses. Green infrastructure for storm water control as well as vacating certain alleys were discussed.
What mix of housing should be in the Village (multiple-family, duplexes, accessory dwelling units, tiny houses)? Generally, the mix of housing was felt to be appropriate. A concern about big-foot houses was expressed. The tour walked Huron Street from Broad Street to Central Street. That block has single- family homes, a duplex and a multiple-family building. The group noted how the street was a pleasant walk and the mix of types of housing did not seem to impact the experience.
Is the infrastructure for cyclists and pedestrians adequate?
The group noted that the on-street connection of the border to border trail is not striped as a bike lane. The tour also saw bicycles and trucks sharing the same road. Suggestions were made for bike lanes to protect cyclists on Fifth Street and Alpine.
2
93 PRESERVE
Comment When I don't want anything to change - Love it! Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 I like Dexter the way it is Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Keep everything the same Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Keep it as is - 4-people family voting together Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Keep it as it is Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Like little towns Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Main St "small town" feel Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Old buildings Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Paint jobs Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Preserve different colors of downtown buildings Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Preserve downtown Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Main St Landscaping Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Monument park Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Small community of merchants Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Small town atmosphere Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Small town atmosphere and traditional buildings/architecture Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Small town feel, smaller school district, keep older buildings Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 I think that the small town atmosphere should be preserved for as long as possible Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Keep it small Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Preserve small town feel, limit new homes built so that traffic doesn't get crazy Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Can we keep it from getting any more populated Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 City seems nice Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Continue to preserve funding for Dexter Library Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Library and books Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 More newer duds in the library Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Creek shoreline (Mill Creek power sports location) Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Dairy queen Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Dairy queen Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Preserve DQ Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 DQ Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017
94 Comment When Dexter Bakery Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Dexter Bakery Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Dexter Bakery Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Dexter Cider Mill Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Dexter Creamery Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Preserve the Chuckwagon Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Dexter is a great community with a fantastic family value! Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Downtown Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Downtown Dexter is better than Chelsea - Chelsea resident Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Fun activities for families Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Great parks, great festivals! Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Green space such as the golf course Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Parks and green spaces Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Farmland Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Land Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Natural spaces Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Plants and animals Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Nature Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Preserve walking trails Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Semi-rural character of Dexter Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Small businesses Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Trees Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Trees Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Wildlife & trees Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 The bike trail Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Gordon Hall Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Free parking Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 I think they should keep the town square Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 No fast food Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 No fast food drive thrus Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017
95 IMPROVE
Comment When The roads Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Improve traffic Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Traffic Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Traffic Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 The traffic of Dexter Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Bridge Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Traffic under bridge Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Create some type of bypass so traffic is reduced in town. East bound on/off ramp at Parker Rd. Somehow connect Parker/Dexter-Chelsea to Island Lake/Dexter-Pinckney Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 The intersection at the Party Store - roundabout! Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Improve ability to turn out of Walkabout creek onto Baker Road @ 3:00 Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Improve how people know to use a turnaround Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Safer streets w/traffic Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Limited development with great discretion Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 If grow, parking is going to be an issue Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Walking from schools to playing fields Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 More walking trails Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 We need more sidewalks Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Improve # of handicapped parking spaces Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 More parking in town Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Parking Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Parking Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Main St. parking - low sight visibility Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Bike racks monument park and downtown Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Need a Kroger Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Better vegetarian food! Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Dairy queen bigger Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Dairy queen indoor seating larger Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Chipolte Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Indian restaurant Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Think food distinction - Diversity: Indian, Mexican, Etc. Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017
96 Comment When Variety of businesses downtown, more variety, more support from the chamber Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Mexican restaurant w/Margarita's Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 To make sure people take care of the environment Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 They should make the park bigger Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 More fish stocking in river Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 The river can have a "rock" sidewalk Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Add a community pool Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Cheaper housing Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 More sky scrapers Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Bigger playground Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Access to Huron River and boating, family activities Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Add a skate park Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017
97 CHANGE
Comment When Less homework for all Dexter Schools Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 No white vans trying to kidnap kids Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Make the watchtower a Kilwin's Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Overpopulated Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 4 way intersections are unsafe. Too much traffic moving through a small town Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Better traffic flow Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Make streets safer Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 The playgrounds so they are huge Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Bike trail from Island Lake Road to Downtown Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Trash on Huron River No-No Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Help homeless children Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Mess of traffic situation under bridge through Dexter Pinckney to downtown Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Park has some cement issues and "ugly parts" Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Drive up outgoing mail Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Larger recycle bins with wheels for convenience Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Widen and fix the train bridge into town Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 More DQ's Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017 Remove access cover in Monument Park Apple Daze Booth 10/7/2017
98 Results from October 29, 2018 Community Meeting Housing Options Station
Not What housing types would work What are your concerns or Question: Yes No Sure best (check all that apply)? Why or why not? suggestions? Lot Split Flexibility, Off-Alley Generally single family - Illusion of "low cost housing". All Should there Housing, Live/Work Units multi family may be out of housing built today will be be more context with "small scale expensive. x residential" housing Lot Split Flexibility, Off-Alley I want the current I want it to be easy for buildings to options? Housing, Live/Work Units, look/feel of housing change uses (ie: church to rental Duplex, Multi Family, Senior Dexter to stay housing/multi-family) rather than Living tearing it down. We do need more x affordable housing in Dexter. Lot Split Flexibility, Off-Alley Focusing on infill housing, finding Housing, Accessory Dwelling Unit, pockets for new/infill houses. Tri-plex - Certain areas, Multi Second street! @ adairs Family, Senior Living, Other: x Townhouse Board comments: Duplex: Don't want to look at garage doors. Multi-Family: Yes, but urban design. Accessory Dwelling Unit & Lot Split Flexibility: like options that maintain economic diversity.
No off-alley housing. Safety concerns. High utility of Dexter Crossing? Seems like underutilized space
No apts at the end of Monument Park
Like row-house idea for Baker Rd Corridor
Ok w/lot split flexibility. Ok w/off-alley housing. Multiple housing types is good. No decks to 2nd story on front. No single story apartment options There is an apartment in an accessory building on Grand - legal? Do we want that?
99 Results from October 29, 2018 Community Meeting Future Land Use Station
Questions: Yes No Not Sure Why or why not? They need to have a cohesive feel. Right now its quite different areas. Downtown should look different but Baker Do you agree with having three separate & Dexter-Ann Arbor Road need to have a more cohesive feel categories for the downtown, Dexter-Ann like you can tell its historic Dexter you are now entering. Arbor Corridor, and Baker Road Corridor? x Keep parks/open spaces/public use spaces. x x They are basically different places.
Yes - It is done to change codes to make it easy to re-use Do you agree with that there should be buildings for new purposes rather than tearing them down three neighborhood categories – Village x and rebuilding for a new purpose Residential 1, Village Residential 2 and x Suburban Residential? They are different. Huron Farms should be circulated into the city. Forcing it into a pocket off Dexter-Ann Arbor was a x monumental planning error.
Should the semi-public use category be I prefer considering each case individually as these are kept? embedded in neighborhoods with real implications for x residents. Re-use should be very influential. Consider creating land use category for land adjacent to Mill What are your concerns or suggestions for No multiple choice option for this Creek and Huron River. Should have very specific the Future Land-Use Map? question. considerations for natural resource protection and public access of water quality.
100 Results from Oct. 29, 2018 Community Meeting Other Issues Station
What other issues are you concerned about that can be addressed in the Master Plan? More bicycle parking downtown (bike racks to park your bikes)
Need safe road crossings at all schools: 1) Dexter-Ann Arbor needs flashers at Mill Creek & keep the crossing guard (serves Mill Creek, Wylie, Cornerstone). 2) Creekside + Bates needs flashing crosswalk and a crossing guard. 3) DHS needs a crossing guard where the flashing crosswalk is. We are trying to keep healthy communities & keep our kids active. We need to encourage them to safely walk/ride bikes to all schools. Preserve Downtown as "old Dexter" Expand Monument park to include WISD property Something nice to go @ former gun range site: community space-passive park, mirror of Mill Creek - replace trees. Yellow paint: All "bump out" curbs Pedestrian safety? Flashing crosswalks? (Ann Arbor St./Inverness) Ann Arbor/Kensington. Plans for future annexation/expansion? Speed limit signs on all alleys
Second street corridor - future residential? City/fire/police. Main st. through (rush hour) traffic No parking (signs) on street 15' from a stop sign! No annexations More bike parking downtown (we need bike racks) to park our bikes into Preserve & increase parks/open spaces Police/Fire City need new space - but don’t want to see decreased response times. Must improve safety of our kids walking/biking to work More crossing guards: 1) Baker for Creekside. 2) at the flashing crosswalk for the HS. 3) Put in flashing crosswalk @ Dexter-A2 for Mill Creek & the elementary schools) & keep the crossing guards. Mobility - Objective 1 "balances protection of ped/cycle w/ efficient movement". I think balance is the wrong word. It is not a balance. Pedestrians have the right of way. Keep pedestrians safe while having efficient flow of traffic. Better flow leads to more traffic/less traffic? Slow it down. People who only want to flow through will find alternative routes. Pedestrian lights Connect Huron Farms to b-to-b trail for easy pedestrian flow to downtown Special consideration of creek and river crridor properties. Unique development requirements and what is desirable from a water quality/natural resource standpoint & public access & aesthetic
101 Results from October 29, 2018 Community Meeting Re-Use of Semi-Public Buildings Station
Handle on case by case basis Government Multi- Senior (status None Buildings Office Retail Family Living quo) Not Sure Other
What uses would work best for semi- public buildings in neighborhoods x x x x x x (check all that apply)? x x x Mixed Use x x x
Why or Why Not? I'd like to see more affordable housing in Dexter. I like re-uses of any building Mixed use in neighborhoods can help reduce traffic (increase walking to destinations) and add to character of community uses should consider parking needs There are so few, it's easier to deal w/PUD + gives better control
Board Comments: Mix of uses makes the fabric more interesting, less suburban
[comment off of cons] This seems like a significant loss of control. Since there are not too many, is it better to maintain case by case consieration? I want the buildings kept. Make it easier t ochange the use (ie: church can now be a dentist office)
102 Results from October 29, 2018 Community Meeting Preserving Downtown Station
Current Zoning Form-Based Code Not Sure Other
What is the best mechanism to preserve the downtown?
x x - Certain zonings - CBD
Why or Why Not? FBC should only be considered where we are certain we want to see a specific form. Such as in CBD.
What are your concerns or suggestions? "Density" calls need to be revisited. "Public Benefit" in PUD needs review. Arch standards needs focus more on materials & gross.
Board Comments: More parking turnover Preserve present residential streets! Support form based code - preserve arch that maintains history & historical character Restore & better utilize second & third stories of buildings Central park is limited with the size & traffic on roads - could we turn central street to more park or pedestrian use? Like walkability, mixed use Traffic bypass I want to know more about this How do you expand what downtown can offer
103 Article XV
VC VILLAGE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
Section 15.01 INTENT
The intent of the Village Commercial District (VC) is to promote the orderly development, redevelopment, and continued maintenance of Dexter’s commercial district. This District is also intended to serve the comparison, convenience, and service needs of the Dexter Area. The VC district shall complement the CBD district with less intense office, service, and retail uses, all within a safe pedestrian environment and within convenient walking distance from the CBD district.
Proposed building and site design must be sensitive to the district’s historical significance. Additions or modifications to historic buildings should be harmonious with the original structure as well as the surrounding neighborhood. Additions or modifications should be designed and constructed so that the character defining features of the historical building are retained and enhanced by the new construction.
Because of the variety of uses permitted in the VC district, special attention must be focused on site layout, building design, vehicular circulation, and coordination of site features between adjoining sites. Off-street parking shall be located on the side or rear yard although participation in the public parking program is strongly encouraged. (Refer to section 5.1). Permitted uses should be complementary to each other, and should not have an adverse impact on street capacity, public utilities and services, or the overall image and function of the district. A mixture of uses within a building, such as retail, office and residential is encouraged.
Section 15.02 PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USES
A. Retail establishments for the sale of such products as art/supplies, hardware, books, stationary, flowers, clothing, shoes, music, sporting goods, painting and wallpaper supplies, drugs, and notions, gifts, and home entertainment supplies and rental, and similar specialty retail shops.
B. Personal service establishments such as barber shops, beauty salons, and dry cleaners; including repair shops for watches, bicycles, jewelry, and other such items.
C. Food establishments, retail up to 2,000 square feet of gross floor: such as for the sale of groceries, fruit, meat and fish; baked goods; and dairy products.
D. Restaurants, sit down which do or do not serve alcohol.
E. Banks, savings and loan institutions, and credit unions without drive up windows.
104
F. Business and professional offices such as administrative, legal, architecture, engineering, insurance, real estate, accounting, medical, dental, Computer and Internet Services and other similar offices.
G. Printing and photographic reproduction establishments.
H. Public buildings and offices, post offices, museums, libraries and community centers and Senior Centers.
I. Schools, commercial: such as dance, art, and music.
J. Theaters, cinemas.
K. Residential dwellings on upper floors only when commercial/retail and office uses are within a building.
L. Off-street parking and loading see Article V.
M. Signs subject to the provisions of Article VII.
N. Live/Work Units, subject to the regulations in Article III, Section 3.25.
Section 15.03 SPECIAL USES
The following uses may be permitted upon review by the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council in accordance with the general standards for all Special Land Uses listed in Section 8.03, and the standards for the specific uses listed in Section 8.11.
A. Food establishments, retail over 2,000 square feet of gross floor area but not to exceed 10,000 square feet of gross floor area: such as for the sale of groceries, fruit and meat; baked goods; and dairy products.
B. Restaurants, carryout.
C. Bars/Taverns/Lounges.
D. Vocational and technical training facilities.
E. Banks, savings and loan institutions, and credit unions with drive-up windows.
F. Service Establishments of an office/workshop/retail outlet or showroom nature, such as plumbing, electrician, interior decorating, dressmaking, tailoring, upholstering, hose appliance and similar establishments of similar character subject to the provision that not more than fifty (50) percent of the total useable floor area of the establishment shall be used for servicing, repairing, or processing activities.
105
G. Outdoor eating areas.
H. Small animal clinics
I. Private clubs, fraternal organizations, and lodge halls.
J. Bed and Breakfast Inns.
K. All buildings over 10,000 square feet gross floor area require a special use permit per Article 8.
L. Commercial outdoor recreational facilities, such as, but not limited to, canoe/kayak/liveries, concession stands, swimming pools; provided that any necessary facilities or accessory buildings, structures or uses are constructed and located so as to cause minimal encroachment and/or intrusion upon any natural resource area, and to minimize any negative effects on adjacent residential properties. The standards of Section 8.11, sub-section B.27 shall not apply to commercial outdoor recreation facilities in the VC Zoning District. (effective 2016- 12-28)
M. Multiple-Family Dwellings
Section 15.04 REQUIRED CONDITIONS
A. Architectural standards for approval include the following items: rooflines and cornices, fenestration and brackets, shape and style of windows, shape and style of lights within windows, colors and finish materials. Review of architectural concepts colors and materials will be part of site plan review. 1. New construction, additions and modifications to buildings shall be architecturally compatible with the historic scale and nature of other structures in the vicinity. Additions may be made to building facades not facing a street. Additions to a structure may be permitted except that additions to a structure’s façade (the front side of the building facing a street) may be made only when such addition adds to the historical or architectural value and significance of the structure. Items to be considered for site plan review include the following: a. Whether modifications are consistent with the existing architectural motif; b. Whether new exterior additions are constructed to minimize the loss of historical materials and so that character-defining features are not obscured, damaged, destroyed or covered; c. Whether attached exterior additions are located at the rear or on an inconspicuous side of a historic building and minimize, to the extent possible, its size and scale relative to the historic building; and
106 d. Whether new exterior additions are designed in a manner that makes clear what is historic and what is new while maintaining consistent design motifs from the historical building.
2. General architecture, front facade, and overall building appointments should be harmonious with the historic nature of other structures in the vicinity. Architectural concepts to be reviewed include the following items: rooflines and cornices, fenestration and brackets, shape and style of windows, colors and finish materials. Exterior building materials shall employ a variety of textures and colors and window and door details. Desirable materials include brick, stone (natural and cast), wood siding and glass. Exterior materials that should not be used on large applications, but can be used as detail material or as small applications include EIFS (exterior insulation finishing system), vinyl siding, asphalt or metal siding, composite fiberglass and reflective glass.
3. Surface Covering. Existing and proposed buildings may be painted or stained to be consistent with the majority of the established buildings in the area or which are consistent with a documented earlier or original condition of existing buildings. Surfaces which are currently covered by wood, vinyl or aluminum siding may be repaired with the same material as currently exists. Exterior color must be derived from a historical color palette and shall ordinarily be consistent with the majority of the established buildings. "Non-traditional" or “Non-historic” colors are not permitted. The use of paint to attract attention or advertise using geometric shapes and color or is other ways inconsistent with the surrounding architecture is prohibited.
4. The use of reflective/tinted glass on the first floor front, side and rear building windows requires Planning Commission approval.
B. No new mid-block curb cuts are permitted. Shared driveways are strongly encouraged. Access changes are permitted where drives can be consolidated or repositioned for sharing, improved safety, or more on-street parking can be provided.
C. All new buildings shall have at least one pedestrian entrance on the front. Rear or side entrances should be provided where parking is on the side or rear of the building.
D. All business establishments shall be retail or service establishments dealing directly with customers. All goods produced on the premises shall be sold at retail on premises where produced.
E. All business, servicing, or processing, except for off-street parking or loading, shall be conducted within a completely enclosed building.
107 F. Exterior walls facing public rights-of-way, customer parking areas, and adjoining property that is zoned or used for residential purposes shall have a finished appearance, using the same materials as used on the front of the building. Wherever possible, meter boxes, dumpsters, and mechanical equipment should be screened on a side of the building that faces residentially-zoned or used property, or mounted and screened on the roof.
G. The site design shall be sensitive to pedestrian and bicycle needs. Bicycle hoops are required per Section 5.03 of the Parking and Loading Standards.
108 Article XIX
PUD PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS
Section 19.01 PURPOSE AND INTENT
The Planned Unit Development (PUD) is provided as a design and planning option, intended to permit flexibility in the regulation of land development; to encourage innovative land use in terms of variety in design, layout, and type of structures constructed; to preserve significant natural features and open space; to promote efficient provision of public services and utilities; to encourage aesthetically pleasing development; to ensure compatibility of a proposed PUD with adjacent uses of land and to promote the use of land in a socially and environmentally desirable manner; minimize adverse traffic impacts, to provide adequate housing and employment; to encourage development of convenient recreational facilities; and to encourage the use and improvement of existing sites or buildings when the uniform regulations contained in other zoning districts alone do not provide adequate protection and safeguards for the site or its surrounding areas or flexibility to consider adaptive re-use of existing structures. Specifically, the PUD District regulations set forth herein are intended to achieve the following and a petitioner for a PUD must demonstrate all of the following as a condition for a PUD: A. A recognizable and material benefit to the ultimate users of the project and to the community, where such benefit would otherwise be unfeasible or unlikely to be achieved without application of the PUD regulations. 1. The applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Commission and City Council that the PUD provides at least three of the following site design elements that could not be attained through a project design under conventional zoning: a. Mixed-use development with residential and non-residential uses or a variety of housing types. b. Redevelopment of brownfield or grayfield sites. c. Pedestrian/transit-oriented design with buildings oriented to the sidewalk and parking to the side or rear of the site. d. High quality architectural design beyond the site plan requirements of this Ordinance.
109 e. Extensive landscaping beyond the site plan requirements of this Ordinance. f. Preservation, enhancement, or restoration of natural resources (e.g. trees, slopes, non-regulated wetland areas, views to Mill Creek and/or the Huron River). g. Preservation or restoration of historic resources. h. Provision of open space of public plazas or features. i. Efficient consolidation of poorly dimensioned parcels or property with difficult site conditions (e.g. topography, shape, etc.). j. Effective transition between higher and lower density uses, and/or between non-residential and residential uses; or allow incompatible adjacent land uses to be developed in a manner that is not possible using a conventional approach. k. Shared vehicular access between properties or uses. l. Mitigation of off-site impacts on public facilities such as road improvements. m. Significant use of sustainable building and site design features such as: water use reduction, water-efficient landscaping, innovative wastewater technologies, low-impact stormwater management, optimized energy performance, on-site renewable energy, passive solar heating, reused/recycled/renewable materials, indoor air quality, or other elements identified as sustainable by established groups such as the U.S. Green Building Council (LEED) or ANSI National Green Building Standards. B. Encourage innovation in land use and excellence in design, architecture, layout, type of structures constructed through the flexible application of land development regulations, and the preservation of natural resources. C. The PUD shall incorporate design elements that unify the site through landscaping, lighting, coordinated signage, pedestrian walks and pathways. D. Long term protection and preservation of natural resources and natural features of a significant quantity and/or quality, where such benefit would otherwise be unfeasible or unlikely to be achieved without application of the PUD regulations. The PUD emphasizes a planning approach, which identifies and integrates natural resources and features in the overall site design concept and encourages the provision of open space for active and passive use. E. Long term protection of historic structures or significant architecture worthy of preservation, if applicable.
110 F. Achieve economy and efficiency in the use of land, natural resources, energy and the provision for public services and utilities, provides adequate housing, employment and shopping opportunities particularly suited to the needs of the City residents, if applicable. G. The PUD shall be harmonious with public health, safety, and welfare of the City. H. The proposed PUD shall not result in an unreasonable negative environmental impact or loss of historic structure(s) on the subject site. I. The proposed planned unit development shall not result in an unreasonable negative economic impact upon surrounding properties. J. The proposed use or uses shall be of such location, size, density, and character as to be in harmony with the zoning district and City of Dexter Master Plan and shall not be detrimental to the adjoining districts. K. The proposed PUD shall be under single ownership and/or control such that there is a single person, corporation, or partnership having responsibility for completing the project in conformity with this ordinance. L. The PUD is not proposed in an attempt by the petitioner to circumvent the strict application of zoning standards.
Section 19.02 PUD REGULATIONS
A. A PUD may be applied in any zoning district. B. Any land use or mix of land uses authorized in the City of Dexter Zoning Ordinance may be considered for a PUD, subject to public health, safety, and welfare to ensure the compatibility of varied land uses both within and outside of the development and to the limitations of this Article. C. The location of all uses and buildings, all uses and mixtures thereof, all yards and transition strips, and all other information regarding uses of properties as shown on or as part of an approved final PUD site plan, shall have the full force and permanence of the zoning ordinance as though such regulations were specifically set forth in the zoning ordinance. D. Regulations shall be the continuing obligation of any subsequent interest in a PUD district or parts thereof and shall not be changed or altered except as approved through amendment or revision procedures as set forth in this Article XIX. The approved plan(s) and any conditions attached thereto shall control all subsequent planning or development. A parcel of land that has been approved as a PUD district shall not thereafter be developed or used except in accordance with the approved final PUD site plan.
111 E. No construction, grading, tree removal, soil stripping, or other site improvements or changes shall commence, and no permit shall be issued therefore, on a lot with, or under petition for, a PUD district classification, until the requirements of this article have been met.
Section 19.03 GENERAL PROVISIONS
All regulations within the City Zoning Ordinance applicable to setback, parking and loading, general provisions, and other requirements shall be met in relation to each respective land use in the PUD based upon the zoning districts in which the use is listed as Permitted Principle Uses. In all cases, the strictest provision shall apply. Notwithstanding the immediately preceding paragraph, deviations with respect to such regulation may be granted as part of the overall approval of the PUD, provided there are features or elements demonstrated by the petitioner and deemed adequate by the City Council, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission designed into the project plan for the purpose of achieving the objectives of this Section. For properties approved for PUD designation, the PUD standards provide the developer with flexibility in design and permit variation of the specific bulk, area, and in some situations, the density requirements of this Ordinance on the basis of the total PUD plan, subject to the approval of the PUD by the City Council, based on a recommendation of the Planning Commission, in accordance with the requirements set forth herein. The PUD standards shall not be sought primarily to avoid the imposition of standards and requirements of other zoning classifications rather than to achieve the stated purposes set forth in this Section. A. Residential Density. 1. Residential density shall not be greater than the maximum density permitted in the zoning district in which the property is situated immediately prior to classification under this Article. Provided, however, City Council may allow, based on a recommendation by the Planning Commission, up to a 25% density bonus upon a finding that: a. Additional density is consistent with the Master Plan and/or DDA Plan; and b. The project provides more than five recognizable and material benefits listed in Section 19.01 A.1. 2. Further, in the determination whether a project warrants additional density, the Planning Commission and City Council may also consider the following factors including, without limitation: innovative design; pedestrian or vehicular safety; long term aesthetic beauty; protection and preservation of natural resources and features; preservation of open space which avoids fragmentation of the resources base and contributes
112 to an area wide open space network; and improvements to the City’s infrastructure. 3. To determine density achievable with the underlying zoning for projects 20 acres or greater, the applicant shall submit a parallel plan, which is a conceptual subdivision layout based on the uses of land, dimensional requirements, access to public utilities, and density allowed by right in the district in which the land is located. Only the net buildable area of the residential portion of the site shall be considered. The “net buildable area” consists of the portion of the site that is not encumbered by regulated wetlands, steep slopes, existing rights- of-ways, easements that cannot be included in residential lots, and other site features that would prevent use of the site for residential purposes. The parallel plan shall be submitted as part of the preliminary PUD application. Projects less than 20 acres do not require a parallel plan. 4. If the parcel is not zoned for residential use immediately prior to classification under this Article, the City shall make a determination as to appropriate density based upon existing and planned residential densities in the surrounding area, the availability of utilities and services, and the natural features and resources of the subject parcel. 5. Where a PUD is proposed for a land area that includes multiple underlying zoning districts, density shall be determined separately for each respective zoning district then combined for a maximum permitted dwelling unit density for the overall project. Following the determination of density, residential dwelling unit types may be integrated within the overall design for the project and need not be segregated by the underlying zoning districts. The location and distribution of dwellings within the PUD shall be determined through design that meets the intent of this Article, preservation of natural features and compatibility with surrounding land uses. B. Mixed Use Projects. For planned unit development projects which contain a residential component, the City shall make a determination as to appropriate residential density based upon existing and planned residential densities in the surrounding area, the availability of utilities and service and the natural features and resource of the subject parcel. Where non-residential uses adjoin off-site residentially zoned or used property, noise reduction and visual screening mechanisms such as earthen and/or landscaping berms and/or decorative walls, shall be employed in accordance with Article VI. C. Open Space Regulations.
113 1. Buildings, parking lots, drives, and similar improvements may be permitted in open space areas if related and necessary to the functions of the open space. Other buildings and improvements shall be prohibited therein. 2. Open space areas shall be conveniently located in relation to dwelling units. 3. Open space areas shall have minimum dimensions, which are useable for the functions intended, which will be maintainable. 4. The City Council may require, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission, that natural amenities such as ravines, rock outcrops, wooded areas, tree or shrub specimens, unique wildlife habitat, ponds, streams and marshes be preserved as part of the open space system. 5. Landscaping shall be preserved and/or provided to ensure that the proposed uses will be adequately buffered from one another and from surrounding public and private property. 6. Efforts shall be made to preserve natural, historical, and architectural features and the integrity of the land, including MDEQ regulated and non- MDEQ regulated wetlands or floodplains. 7. When completed, the PUD shall have significant areas devoted to open space, which shall remain in its natural state and/or be restricted for use for active and/or passive recreation purposes harmonious with peaceful single-family residential uses in and surrounding the development. Priority shall be on preserving the most important natural features on the site, as identified by a site analysis. The amount of open space, including the area and percentage of the site, shall be specified on the site plan. 8. In addition to preservation of natural features, additional open space shall be, where possible, located and designed to achieve the following: provide areas for active recreation, provide areas for informal recreation and pathways convenient to the majority of the residents within the development connect into adjacent open space, parks, bike paths, and provide natural greenbelts between land uses. 9. Areas not considered open space. a. The area within a public street right-of-way or private road access easements or other easements that include roads or drives. b. The area located below the ordinary high water mark of an inland lake, river or stream, or any pond with standing water year round. c. The area within any manmade storm water detention or retention pond.
114 d. The required yard (setbacks) area around buildings, which are not located on an individual lot or condominium site. D. Preservation of Natural Resources and Natural Features. Taking into consideration the criteria set forth in Sections 19.01 and 19.03, the City shall evaluate the proposed PUD to determine the following: 1. Natural resources will be preserved to the maximum extent feasible. 2. The proposed PUD respects the natural topography and minimizes the cutting, filling, and grading required. 3. The proposed PUD will not detrimentally affect or destroy natural features such as lakes, ponds, streams, wetlands, steep slopes and woodlands and will preserve and incorporate such features into the development’s site design. 4. The proposed PUD will not cause off-site soil erosion or sedimentation problems. 5. The conveyance and storage of storm water will enhance the aesthetics of the site.
Section 19.04 – DESIGN STANDARDS
A. Generally. The proposed development shall be consistent with the general principles and objectives of the adopted Master Plan, the subdivision ordinance, and all applicable building codes. B. Setbacks in the PUD Project. All regulations applicable to front, side and rear yard setbacks, shall be met in relation to each respective land use in the PUD upon zoning district regulations in which the proposed use is listed as a Permitted Principle Use or Special Land Use. C. Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation. 1. Vehicular circulation shall be designed in a manner, which provides safe and convenient access to all portions of the site, promotes safety, contributes to coherence of site design, and adapts to site topography. The City encourages vehicular circulation to be modeled after the grid system or a modified grid system and traditional neighborhood design (TND) guidelines. 2. Walkways shall be provided in a manner, which promotes pedestrian safety and circulation. Walkways should be separated from vehicular traffic except where roadway crossings are necessary. The plan shall provide pedestrian and bicycle access to, between or through all open space areas, and to appropriate off-site amenities. Informal trails may be
115 constructed of gravel or other similar material, however, the City may require the construction of a pathway of up to eight feet in width be constructed of concrete or asphalt through portions of the development or along any public right-of-way abutting the development. The pedestrian circulation system, and its related walkways and safety paths, shall be separated from vehicular thoroughfares and ways. 3. Physical design techniques, known as traffic calming are encouraged. These techniques are intended to alter driver behavior to reduce speed and cut-through traffic, improve vehicular safety, and improve conditions for non-motorized traffic. Traffic calming techniques may include but are not limited to the following, pedestrian refuge islands, central islands, chicanes, roundabouts, chokers, curb extensions and/or raised pedestrian crossings. 4. Locations for school bus stops and mailboxes shall be shown on the site plan. 5. Each lot or principal building shall have vehicular access from a public street or private street or alley approved by the City Council and recommended by the Planning Commission. 6. Each lot or principal building shall have pedestrian access from a public or private sidewalk where deemed necessary by the City Council, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission, as part of the preliminary and final site plans. All parts of a PUD district shall be interconnected by a sidewalk system with design and materials acceptable to City Council, which will provide necessary, safe, and convenient movement of pedestrians. 7. Standards of design and construction for public and private streets may be modified to adequately provide the service required. Right-of-way standards may also be modified, especially where the preliminary and final site plans provide for separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and adequate, off-street parking facilities. Modification of proposed public streets shall first be reviewed by the City Engineer. 8. Public and private streets shall be designed and constructed according to established standards for public streets, except that such standards may be modified as provided in Section 19.03.A.3. If private streets are to be dedicated to a public agency in the future, the petitioner shall first agree to bear the full expense of making the street suitable for public acceptance. 9. An individual dwelling unit in any single-family, two-family, townhouse, mobile home, or similar residential structure shall not have direct access to a collector or arterial street.
116 10. Thoroughfare, drainage, and utility design shall meet and exceed standards otherwise applicable in connection with each of the respective types of uses served. D. Parking and Loading Regulations. 1. The parking and loading requirements set forth in Article V, herein, shall apply except that the number of spaces required may be reduced if approved by the City Council, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission, as part of the preliminary and final site plans. Such reduction shall be based upon specific findings and further based on the provisions in Article V. 2. Parking areas within the PUD shall meet the minimum requirements of City Ordinances, unless modified by the Planning Commission and City Council. E. Utilities. 1. Each principal building shall be connected to public water and sanitary sewer lines. 2. Each site shall be provided with adequate storm drainage. Open drainage courses and storm water retention/detention ponds may be permitted. 3. There shall be underground installation of utilities, including but not limited to, electrical, telephone, and cable television lines, provided, however, that distribution lines may be placed overhead if approved by the City Council. Surface mounted equipment for underground wires shall be shown on the final site plan and shall be screened from view. 4. The uses proposed in the PUD shall not adversely affect the existing public utilities and circulation system, surrounding properties, or the environment. F. Storm water Drainage/Erosion Control. All storm water drainage and erosion control plans shall meet the standards adopted by the City for design and construction and shall to the minimum extent feasible, utilize non-structural control techniques, including but not limited to: 1. Limitation of land disturbance and grading; 2. Maintenance of vegetated buffers and natural vegetation; 3. Minimization of impervious surfaces; 4. Use of terraces, contoured landscapes, runoff spreaders, grass, vegetated, or rock-lined swales; use of infiltration devices, including but not limited to rain gardens, native landscaping, and bio-retention swales.
117 G. Design Elements. It is the intent of this article to promote excellence and innovation in design. Signage, lighting, landscaping, architecture and building materials for the exterior of all structures, and other features of the project, shall be designed and completed with the objective of achieving an integrated and controlled development, consistent with the character and the community, surrounding developments, and natural features of the area. Residential projects shall be designed to complement the visual context of the natural area. Techniques such as architectural design, site design, the use of native landscaping and choice of colors and building materials shall be utilized in such manner that the scenic views across or through the site are protected and that the residential development is buffered from different land uses. Non-residential and/or mixed use projects shall contribute to the enhancement of community and public spaces by providing at least two of the following: patio/seating area, pedestrian plaza with benches, transportation center, window shopping walkway, outdoor playground area, kiosk area, water feature, clock tower or other such deliberately shaped area and/or focal feature or amenity that, in the judgment of the City Council, as recommended by the Planning Commission, adequately enhances such community and public spaces. Any such areas shall have direct access to the public sidewalk network and such features shall not be constructed of materials that are inferior to the principle materials of the building and landscape.
Section 19.05 - APPLICATION AND PROCESSING PROCEDURES
A. Pre-Application Meeting (Optional). An optional pre-application meeting with the Zoning Administrator may be requested by the applicant, and may include the Fire Inspector, other City department heads, and the City’s engineer and planning consultants, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. The intent of the Pre- Application meeting is to discuss the appropriateness for the PUD concept, solicit feedback, and receive requests for additional materials supporting the proposal. A generalized site plan may be presented by the prospective applicant for consideration of the overall idea of the development. Statements made during the pre-application meeting shall not be legally binding commitments. B. Conceptual Review. All Planned Unit Development (PUD) projects are required to undergo a conceptual review process, in order to facilitate a complete and thorough review prior to approval. This requirement is deemed necessary because PUD projects are generally complex projects with potentially higher intensity development that could have a major impact on surrounding land uses and significantly affect the health, safety, and general welfare of City residents. 1. Conceptual Review Procedure. Conceptual review shall be undertaken first by the Planning Commission and then by the City Council at public meetings held pursuant to all applicable notice requirements. At this stage,
118 complete details of landscaping, site grading, drainage, and utilities, etc. are not essential. Basic questions of use, density, design, architecture, integration with existing development in the area and impacts on and the availability of public infrastructure are generally discussed. No formal action shall be taken on a plan submitted for conceptual review. Statements made during conceptual review shall not be legally binding commitments. 2. Information Required for Conceptual Review. The following information shall be required for conceptual review and shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator at least 30 days prior to a Planning Commission or City Council meeting, as appropriate. If complete and accurate plans and documents are submitted, the case will be eligible to be placed on the meeting agenda (although placement on an agenda may be delayed due to other scheduling priorities). a. An application, in a form provided by the Zoning Administrator, along with the applicable fee, as set forth by resolution of the City Council. b. A conceptual plan for the proposed PUD, drawn to an engineer’s scale of not less than one inch = 20 feet for property less than three acres, or one inch = 100 feet for property three acres or more in size, that includes all of the following: i. Title block with sheet number/title; name, address and telephone number of the applicant and firm or individual who prepared the plans; and date(s) of submission and any revisions. ii. Scale and northpoint; iii. Location map drawn to a separate scale; iv. A legal description of the property ; v. Zoning classification of site and all abutting parcels; vi. Net acreage (minus rights-of-ways) and total acreage. For parcels less than one acre, square footage must be provided. vii. Adjacent land uses; viii. Existing lot lines, building lines, structures, parking areas, and other improvements on the site and within 100 feet of the site; ix. Location, type, and land area of each proposed land use; type of dwelling units, if residential use is proposed, along with the number of units and proposed density; x. Proposed lot lines, lot dimensions, property liens, setback dimensions, and other improvements;
119 xi. Location and height of all proposed buildings and structures; xii. Location of existing and proposed roads, driveways, parking lots, sidewalks, and pathways on or within 250 feet of the site; xiii. Proposed off-street parking lots and number of spaces; xiv. Conceptual landscape plan; xv. The general location of existing plant material; xvi. Location of existing drainage courses, floodplains, rivers, and MDEQ regulated wetlands; xvii. Location of existing and proposed sanitary sewers; xviii. Location of existing and proposed water mains; xix. Stormwater retention and detention pond locations and existing, or proposed storm sewers; xx. Number and location of residential units; xxi. Density calculation by type of residential unit; and xxii. Location and size of recreation and open space areas. c. Documentation indicating how the criteria for qualifications for a PUD have been met (as outlined in Section 19.01). d. A table which details all deviations from the established zoning district uses; area, height, and setback requirements; off-street parking regulations; general provisions; or subdivision regulations which would otherwise be applicable to the uses and development proposed in the absence of this PUD article. This table shall clearly identify the allowed regulation in comparison to the requested deviation. e. Any additional information requested by the Planning Commission and City Council to better assist in the determination of PUD qualification such as, but not limited to: market studies, fiscal impact analysis, traffic impact studies, and environmental impact assessments.
C. Preliminary PUD Application – Submission and Content. Following the Conceptual Review with the Planning Commission and City Council, 16 hard-paper copies and one electronic PDF copy of the application and all required materials for Preliminary PUD Plan shall be submitted. The submission shall be made to the Zoning Administrator for distribution to applicable reviewing parties and agencies. The Preliminary PUD Plan shall be accompanied by an application form and fee as
120 determined by the City Council. The Preliminary PUD Plan shall contain the following information: 1. All information required for Preliminary Site Plan Review in accordance with Section 21.08, Data Required for Preliminary and Final Site Plans. 2. A narrative describing: a. The nature of the project, projected phases, and timetable. b. The proposed density, number, and types of dwelling units if a residential PUD. c. A statement describing how the proposed project meets the intent of the PUD District pursuant to Section 19.01. d. A statement from a registered engineer describing how the proposed project will be served by public water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage. e. Proof of ownership or legal interest in property. D. Public Hearing – Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing and give notice in accordance with Section 22.08, Public Notice. If at any time after the public hearing the Preliminary PUD becomes inactive (no new information or plans submitted) for a period of six months, the Preliminary PUD submittal shall become null and void. One extension may be granted at the discretion of the Zoning Administrator upon written request by the applicant to the Zoning Administrator with additional information provided for a period of six months. The Zoning Administrator will notify the Planning Commission and the City Council of the extension. E. Preliminary PUD Plan – Planning Commission Review and Recommendation. The Planning Commission shall review the Preliminary PUD Plan according to the provisions found in Sections 19.03 through 19.05. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall recommend to the City Council either approval, denial, or approval with conditions of the Preliminary PUD Plan. In making its recommendation, the Planning Commission shall find that the proposed PUD meets the intent of the PUD district and the following standards: 1. In relation to the underlying zoning, the proposed type and density of use shall not result in a material increase in the need for public services, facilities, and utilities and shall not place a material burden upon the subject or surrounding land or property owners and occupants or the natural environment. 2. The proposed development shall be compatible with the Master Plan and shall be consistent with the intent and spirit of this Article.
121 3. The PUD shall not change the essential character of the surrounding area. 4. Proposed phases and timetable. 5. The proposed PUD shall be under single-ownership or control such that there is a single person or entity having responsibility for completing the project in conformity with this Article. This provision shall not prohibit transfer of ownership or control which must be requested in writing to the Zoning Administrator and shall require approval of City Council. F. Preliminary PUD Plan – City Council Review and Determination. After receiving the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the City Council shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions the Preliminary PUD Plan in accordance with the standards for approval and conditions for a PUD noted in Subsection E. above. G. Preliminary PUD Plan – Effect of Approval. Approval of the Preliminary PUD Plan that is required to accompany a PUD application does not constitute Final PUD Plan or rezoning approval, but only bestows the right on the applicant to proceed to the Final PUD Plan stage. The application for Final PUD consideration shall be submitted within 12 months of receiving Preliminary PUD approval or the application shall be null and void. H. Final PUD Application – Submission and Content. Following Preliminary PUD Plan approval, copies of the application for Final PUD Plan shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator. The Final PUD Plan shall be accompanied by an application form and fee as determined by the City Council. The Final PUD Plan shall contain the same information required for the Preliminary PUD Plan in subsection C. above along with the following information and any information specifically requested by the Planning Commission and/or City Council in their review of the Preliminary PUD Plan: 1. All information required for Final Site Plan Review in accordance with Section 21.08, Data Required for Preliminary and Final Site Plans. 2. Detailed construction and engineering plans in accordance with 21.10. 3. PUD Agreement. The applicant shall submit a Development Agreement in accordance with Section 22.12. I. Final PUD Plan and Rezoning – Planning Commission Review and Recommendation. After receiving approval of the Preliminary PUD Plan from the City Council, the Planning Commission shall review the Final PUD Site Plan and rezoning application and shall recommend to the City Council either approval, denial, or approval with conditions. In making its recommendation, the Planning Commission shall find that the proposed Final PUD Plan is in substantial compliance with the approved Preliminary PUD Plan and still meets the intent of the
122 PUD District in addition to all development standards outlined in Sections 19.03 through 19.05. J. Final PUD Plan and Rezoning – City Council Review and Determination. After receiving the recommendation of the Planning Commission and considering the comments of the public, the City Council shall prepare a report stating its conclusions, its decision, the basis for its decision, and any conditions imposed on an affirmative decision. K. Final PUD Plan and Rezoning – Effect of Approval. The Final PUD Plan, the narrative and all conditions imposed, if any, shall constitute the land use authorization for the property. All uses not specifically listed in the Final PUD Plan are disallowed and not permitted on the property. All improvements and uses shall be in conformity with this zoning amendment to PUD. The applicant shall record an affidavit with the Washtenaw County Register of Deeds, which shall contain the following: 1. Information Related to the Condominium Development. The following information shall be provided with the final site plan for a condominium development a. Condominium documents, including the proposed master deed, restrictive covenants, and condominium bylaws. b. Condominium subdivision plan requirements, as specified in Section 66 of Public Act 59 of 1978, as amended, and Rule 401 of the Condominium Rules promulgated by the Michigan Department of Commerce, Corporation and Securities Bureau. 2. Legal description of the property. 3. Legal description of the required open space and/or common space along with a plan stating how the open space and/or common space is to be maintained. 4. A statement that the property will be developed in accordance with the approved Final PUD Plan and any conditions imposed by the City Council or Planning Commission unless an amendment is duly approved by the City upon the request of the applicant or applicant’s transferees and/or assigns. This statement shall also include the duration of approval and action for non- compliance.
123 Section 19.06 RESOLUTION OF AMBIGUITIES AND CHAPTER DEVIATIONS
A. The City Council, based upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission, shall resolve all ambiguities as to applicable regulations using this Zoning Chapter, the Master Plan, and other City standards and/or polices as a guide. B. Deviations with respect to such regulations may be granted as part of the overall approval of the PUD provided there are features or elements demonstrated by the applicant, and deemed adequate by the City Council upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission, designed into the PUD for the purpose of achieving the intent and objectives of this Article.
Section 19.07 PUD CONDITIONS
A. Reasonable conditions may be required by the City Council, upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission before approval of a PUD, to the extent authorized by law. Conditions may be included which are deemed necessary to ensure that existing public services and facilities affected by a proposed land use or activity will be capable of accommodating increased service and facility loads caused by the land use or activity; protecting the natural environment and conserving natural resources and energy; ensuring compatibility with adjacent land uses; and promoting the use of land in a socially and economically desirable manner consistent with the Master Plan. B. Conditions imposed shall be designed to protect natural resources and the public health, safety and welfare of individuals within the project and those immediately adjacent, and the community as a whole; necessary to meet the intent and purpose of this Ordinance; and be related to the objective of ensuring compliance with the standards of this Ordinance. All conditions imposed shall be made part of the record of the approved PUD which shall include a Final PUD plan and development agreement signed by the City and the petitioner.
Section 19.08 PHASING AND COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION
A. Phasing. 1. Where a project is proposed for construction in phases, upon completion, each phase shall be capable of standing on its own in terms of the presence of safe and convenient vehicular and pedestrian access, adequate utility services and facilities; recreation facilities and open space. Each phase shall contain all 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, including sidewalk connections and
124 roadway improvements. In addition, each phase of the development which includes residential and non-residential uses shall provide the relative mix of uses and the scheduled completion of construction shall be disclosed and determined to be reasonable at the discretion of the City Council after recommendation from the Planning Commission. 2. The City Council, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission, may require that development be phased so that property tax revenues resulting from such development will generally balance the expenditures required by public agencies to properly service the development; so that serious overloading of utility services and community facilities will not result; and so that the various amenities and services necessary to provide a safe, convenient, and healthful residential environment will be available upon completion of any one phase. The Planning Commission may require the petitioner to provide housing and commercial market analyses, traffic studies, and other information necessary for the Planning Commission to properly and adequately analyze a PUD district request for recommendation to the City Council. 3. The Planning Commission may require, as part of a Final PUD Plan review of a development phase, that land shown as open space on the approved Preliminary PUD Plan be held in reserve as part of the phase to be developed, in order to guarantee that density limits for the entire approved PUD will not be exceeded when the subject phase is completed. Such reserved land may be included in the development of subsequent phases if the density limits will not be exceeded upon completion of that phase or if other land is similarly held in reserve. B. Commencement and Completion of Construction. Construction shall be commenced within one year following Final PUD Plan approval and shall proceed substantially in conformance with the schedule set forth by the applicant, as approved by the City. If construction is not commenced within such time, any approval of a Final PUD Plan shall expire and be null and void, provided, an extension for a one-year period may be granted by the City Council upon good cause shown if such request is made to the City Council prior to the expiration of the initial period. In the event a Final PUD plan has expired, the City Council, based on a recommendation from the Planning Commission, shall be authorized to rezone the property in any reasonable manner, and, if the property remains classified as PUD, a new PUD or zoning application shall be required, and shall be reviewed in light of the existing and applicable law and Ordinance provisions prior to any construction. Extensions on Final PUD Plan approvals are limited to two, one-year extension periods. C. No construction, grading, tree removal, soil stripping, or other site improvements or changes shall commence, and no permit shall be issued for a PUD until the requirements of this Article have been met.
125 Section 19.09 AS-BUILT DRAWINGS
As-built drawings shall be provided in accordance with Section 21.13, herein.
Section 19.10 PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE
Performance guarantees shall be provided in accordance with Section 21.16 herein.
Section 19.11 MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED PUD PLAN
A. A developer may request a change in an approved Preliminary PUD Plan, or an approved Final PUD Plan. A change which is determined by the Zoning Administrator to be a major change shall require an amendment to the approved Preliminary and/or Final PUD Plans. All amendments shall follow the procedures and conditions herein required for the original submittal, review, and approval, including a public hearing and notification. A change, which results only in a minor change as determined by the Zoning Administrator, shall only require a revision to the approved Preliminary PUD Plan and/or Final PUD Plan, and may be approved by the City Zoning Administrator after notification to the Planning Commission and City Council provided the minor change will not significantly alter the PUD as approved by the City Council, including the appearance of the development. B. A request for an amendment shall be made in writing to the Zoning Administrator and shall clearly state the reasons for all proposed amendments. Such reasons shall be based upon considerations such as changing social or economic conditions; potential improvements in layout or design features; unforeseen difficulties; or advantages mutually affecting the interest of City of Dexter and the developer, such as: technical causes, site conditions, state or federal projects and installations, and statutory revisions. Following payment of the appropriate fee, the developer shall submit the required information to the Zoning Administrator for review. C. The following changes shall be considered major: 1. A change in concept of the development. 2. A change in use or character of the development. 3. Changes in type(s) of dwelling units. 4. A change in the number of dwelling units (density). 5. Changes in non-residential floor area of over five percent. 6. Changes in lot coverage and/ or floor area ratio of the entire development greater than one percent.
126 7. The rearrangement of lots, blocks, and building tracts. 8. A change in the character or function of any street. 9. A reduction in land area set aside for common open space or the relocations of such area(s). 10. Horizontal and/or vertical elevation changes of five percent or more.
D. Minor changes shall include the following: 1. A change in residential floor area. 2. A change in non-residential floor area of five percent or less. 3. Horizontal and/or vertical elevation changes of five percent or less. 4. An increase in designated “areas not to be disturbed” or open space. 5. Plantings approved in the Final PUD Landscape Plan may be replaced by similar types of landscaping on a one-to-one or greater basis. 6. Changes to approved building materials to higher quality materials. 7. Changes floor plans which do not alter the character of the use. 8. Slight modifications of sign placement or reduction of size. 9. Minor variations in layout which do not constitute major changes. 10. An increase in gross floor area or floor area ratio of the entire development of one percent or less. E. The Zoning Administrator shall have authority to determine whether a requested change is major or minor, in accordance with this Section. The burden shall be on the applicant to show good cause for any requested change. Upon approval of a minor change, revised drawings shall each be signed by the petitioner, the owner(s) of record, and/or the legal representative(s) of said owner(s) and submitted for the record.
Section 19.12 VIOLATIONS
A. A violation of an approved Preliminary PUD Plan, and/or a Final PUD Plan, shall be grounds for the City Council to order that all construction be stopped, and that building permits and certificates of occupancy be withheld until the violation is removed or adequate guarantee of such removal is provided to the City Council.
127 B. Violations of any plan approved under this Article, or failure to comply with any requirement of this Article, including agreements and conditions attached to an approved plan, shall be considered a violation of the City Ordinance as provided in Section 21.11.
128 Proposed Article 19 Planned Unit Development Process
Pre -application meeting (Optional, but strongly encouraged)
Submit letter of request and application for Conceptual PUD Plan Review
Submit petition/application Review and discussion by and Preliminary/Final PUD Planning Commission, Site Plan and Development and then City Council Agreement
No action taken on Conceptual PUD Plan, but Public Hearing and Review of Review of Final Site Plan and applicant receives Preliminary Site Plan and valuable input and Development Agreement by Development Agreement by Planning Commission direction from PC and CC, Planning Commission staff and consultants.
Action by Planning If Plan is tabled by PC, it Commission: may be revised & Recommendation to City resubmitted for Council reconsideration by PC.
Preliminary/Final Site Plan and Development Agreement
reviewed by City Council If Plan is denied by CC, Plan may be revised & resubmitted for PC review/action.
Action by City Council
If Plan is by CC, it may tabled be revised & resubmitted for reconsideration by CC. Approval of Final PUD Plan and Development Agreement by City Council is followed by the execution and recording of the development agreement.
129 Samuel
Dexter Pinckney Heritage Overlay
Parkridge Parkridge Huron River R-1A Baker Road Corridor Overlay
Mast Dexter-Ann Arbor Road Corridor Overlay
Pearl
Island Lake Glacier Eastridge Westridge R-1B Sandhill Zoning Boulder Bridgeway 11 Katherine R1A One Family Residential - Large Lot
Webster McCormick Cedars VR R1B One Family Residential - Small Lot
Sandhill Huron Dexter Township Dexter Township I-1 10 R3 Multiple Family Residential Broad Huron Webster Township k Alpine Central VR Village Residential RD Joy VR VC Scio Township C1 General Business Broad 9 C-1 Huron River Central k VC Village Commercial
Jeffords Dexter Chelsea CBD CBD Central Business District 13 First Main I-1 Hermania Dover Fifth PP Third PB Professional Business Fourth Hudson Broad Second RD Research Development
Cottonwood Forest VC H u r o n R iv e r I-1 Limited Industrial Edison R-1B PP Public Park
Grand Hudson Inverness VR Pineview 5 Pine View PUD Planned Urban Development
Ann Arbor Cushing M i l l C r e e k 12 k Properties with Conditional Zoning
Quackenbush
Lake Lake Noble
Meadow View Inverness 6 8 Ulrich PUD Properties VR York 1 Dexter Crossing
Wall PB View 2 Dexter Commerce Center View York 3 Orchard Hills Kensington C-1 View Oliver 4 Huron Farm 7 Palmer Ulrich Sandfield Shaw 4 5 Huron Commons 3 6 Huron View PB Taylor Wilson 7 Eaton Court
Bent Tree PP 8 Bluewater Boenaro R-1A Baker Wilson Millview R-3 9 Central Street Ryan Wilson 10 3515 Broad St. 2 C-1 11 Cedars of Dexter
Dan Hoey Arrow 12 Grandview Commons
Dongara Kookaburra 13 150 Jeffords
Lexington Parker
Shield R-3
Weber
Bridgewood Hills
Scio Township Scio Township
Lima Township Melbourne ZONING DISTRICTS MAP
Lima Township 1 Carrington Victoria
Bishop Circle East City of Dexter
Cambridge Kurtland RD Mill Creek Carrington Washtenaw County, Michigan
Baker Heights BishopCircle West
South Downs South Feet Bristol Shagbark Wellington 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Preston
Kingsley Dexter-Ann Arbor
Oxbow
Jananne Coventry Forshee Source: Washtenaw County Data
Wellington Effective Date: 4-25-2019 Print Date: 6-5-2019
Morrison Carlisle/Wortman Associates, Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan 130 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Housing Affordability and Economic Equity - Analysis Washtenaw County, Michigan ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! czb Report Prepared for the Office of Community and Economic Development Washtenaw County !January 2015
131 The imbalance in income, education and opportunity between the jurisdictions along with the segregation that goes with it will hamper the regional economic growth potential of the area. Regions that experience strong and more stable growth are typically more equitable, have less segregation and better balanced workforce skills within them.
This report was commissioned by the Washtenaw County Office of Community and Economic Development, and was funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the City of Ann Arbor, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, and Washtenaw County. The goal of this analysis is to provide a snapshot of housing market conditions and corresponding goals to improve affordability across a wide spectrum of households in Washtenaw County’s urban core communities. In support of these goals, the report identifies tools intended to guide the allocation of resources and policy decisions toward a regionally balanced housing market in order to maximize opportunity for lower and middle class households. This supports the development of a more equitable community, with corresponding economic, environmental, and other quality of life benefits for all residents.!
czb is an Alexandria, Virginia - based community planning practice specializing in econometric analysis, community engagement, and strategy and comprehensive planning
www.czb.org
132 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 2 of 55 !EXECUTIVE SUMMARY While real challenges require attention, the overall housing market in Moreover, the deeper truth is not just that the City of Ann Arbor (and Ann Washtenaw County is basically healthy. Arbor Township) is strong, but that both and Pittsfield are getting stronger, ! and their rate of growing strength is likely to increase. Despite foreclosure and resulting - and troubling - tenure shifts in Ypsilanti ! Township, the countywide market has stabilized to where most homes in And, correspondingly, that the City of Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township have most jurisdictions have recovered at least 85% of their 2005 value. And, at not kept pace, and neither are well positioned to keep pace, and are the county level, the “housing ladder” is balanced, with a wide range of thereby at real risk of falling even further behind. options for renters and buyers. Though more than 90% of renter ! households with annual incomes below $20,000 are cost burdened, the In sum, Ann Arbor and those with Ann Arbor addresses are at one end of overall market is affordable. Value to income ratios throughout most of the the spectrum where property values are increasing and that appears likely county are between 2.67 (Ypsilanti Township) and 4.34 (Ann Arbor), making to continue, while Ypsilanti (City and Township) is at the other and in real home ownership possible. Plus, renter household incomes to median rent trouble. At this unblended scale, these are two markets going in ratios range from 2.4 to 3.4, meaning that all but the most challenged can opposite directions with three very probable outcomes, barring a find an affordable apartment in the county without a significant commute. significant change in policy at the local jurisdictional or countywide ! level. However, this is not a complete picture. The fuller story is that while ! Washtenaw County’s housing market today is basically healthy, it won’t be • First, Ann Arbor will become more costly, and less affordable, especially for long, as it is likely to become considerably out of balance. And while to non student renters in the short run and eventually, to aspiring the county is fundamentally affordable today, housing cost increases are buyers as well. The driver for higher costs is a combination of high going to so outpace income gains that affordability will be a real challenge livability and quality of life, great public schools, resulting sustained in the future as regards both housing and transportation expense. demand by households with discretionary income, and resulting ! expectations of stable and continually rising property values. The reality is that Washtenaw County has two distinct housing ! markets. • Second, Ypsilanti will become more distressed and thus more ! affordable, especially to at-risk households. The reasons include One is fundamentally strong - anchored by the City of Ann Arbor. The other unstable and falling property values and the impacts of - the City of Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township - is fundamentally weak and in disproportionate concentrations of struggling families (crime, lower !some respects in abject distress. ! levels of property maintenance, fiscal stress). The former has a high quality of life and excellent public schools. The latter • Third, as housing costs in the Ann Arbor market outpace the incomes faces real challenges. The former does not have a perception problem of working families employed in Ann Arbor but not able to afford to live when it comes to safety and housing equity, the latter does. there, those families will commute to housing they can, particularly on ! key corridors. This will increase congestion, compromising Ann Arbor - and its central driver, the University of Michigan - is a magnet environmental quality and market appeal. And since more and more of for highly educated households with upward mobility and significant the area’s very low income families (working, as well as unemployed) disposable income. With some exceptions, Ypsilanti (City and Township) - will locate to the City of Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township for pricing and their challenge of being overloaded by a disproportionate number of at advantages, those markets will be at increased risk for even higher risk households and homes with negative equity - is where the most concentrations of struggling households. In turn this will further affordable options exist. weaken those jurisdiction’s fiscal capacity.
133 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 3 of 55 The result will be a county decreasingly affordable and out of balance and, As pointed out by PolicyLink, this contributes to a $1.43B opportunity cost eventually, unsustainable, as some parts of the county possibly degrade in lost potential regional GDP resulting from racial gaps in income. For beyond a point of no return, and others grow in value beyond a point that’s Washtenaw County, this means persistent (if not worsening) gaps in the !ever again affordable. !conditions that lead to income disparity and lost economic output. The imbalance in income, education and opportunity between the Why? With very few exceptions - parts of Appalachia and the Ozarks jurisdictions along with the socioeconomic segregation that goes with it will where white poverty is significant - race and class are near perfect proxies hamper the regional economic growth potential of the area. Regions that for one another in America today. experience strong and more stable growth are typically more equitable, ! have less segregation and better balanced workforce skills within them. 1 To be in the 90th percentile (income) in Washtenaw County is to be white, ! !and to be in the 10th percentile is to not be white. In the Ann Arbor Metro Area, households in the 90th percentile (income) Any concentration of households in the 90th percentile in one location is a have experienced an 18.8% gain since 1979 while wages have decreased de facto guarantee of a concentration of households in the 10th percentile by 14.4% for those in the 10th percentile. in another. If the former results in demand for housing that so outpaces ! supply that values rise at a greater rate than do the incomes for anyone This is important because racial below the 90th percentile, housing becomes decreasingly affordable for all “The rise in inequality in the gaps in income correlate with but those at the top. In other words, when the rate of return on capital United States over the last three educational attainment and (principally in the form of real estate investments in Ann Arbor by those at decades has reached the point projected job education the top) is greater than the rate of economic growth (principally as a that inequality in incomes is requirements. The National function of the wages of everyone else), the result is a concentration of causing an unhealthy division in Equity Atlas shows that in the wealth that by definition will trigger instability if not curtail growth.3 opportunities, and is a threat to Ann Arbor Metro Area, 43.6% of ! our economic growth. Restoring all jobs require at least two year’s These problems can be addressed, and Washtenaw County is not unique; a greater degree of fairness to of college. Education gaps for many jurisdictions across the country are facing similar challenges, but hard the U.S. job market would be Black (36.9%) and Latino choices will be required. good for businesses, good for (40.6%) households translate ! the economy, and good for the into wage gaps which translate • Right now, the City of Ann Arbor focuses much of its attention on the country.” - Alan Kreuger into racial gaps in income which housing problems for the poorest households. Increasingly however, turn translates into lost GDP.2 another critical housing dilemma in Ann Arbor will be for affordable non-
1 Aghion and Caroli asked in 1999 in their seminal Inequality and Economic Growth, “can the negative impact of inequality on growth be reduced by redistribution?” They (and others - Persson and Tabellini) concluded that inequality may have a direct negative effect on growth because inequality reduces investment opportunities, b) worsens borrower incentives, and c) generates volatility. See also: ‣ America’s Tomorrow: Equity is the Superior Growth Model by PolicyLink (2011) ‣ The Rise and Consequences of Inequality in the United States by Alan Kreuger (2012) ‣ Equality of Opportunity by Richard Reeves and Isabell Sawhill (2014) ‣ Neighborhoods, Cities, and Economic Mobility (Draft) by Patrick Sharkey (2014)
2 National Equity Atlas; PolicyLink (2013)
3 Capital in the 21st Century by Thomas Piketty, President and Fellows of Harvard College, 2014; p 353
134 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 4 of 55 student rentals. Where will they go? Who will develop them? In what ! ratio to market rate units? • Right now, throughout the Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti corridor, in each ! jurisdiction, significant stretches of valuable land provide extensive • Right now, vastly disproportionate numbers of subsidized housing units redevelopment opportunities that can produce large amounts of both are in Ypsilanti. Land is less expensive there, as are rents. Greater market and below-market rate housing, especially in Ann Arbor and numbers of cost-burdened households can be housed in Ypsilanti than in Pittsfield. These areas can act as powerful receiving areas to absorb Ann Arbor or Pittsfield. directed growth, contribute to regional balance, reduce congestion in the • If these trends are not reversed, or worse are continued, the overall long run, and add to multi-jurisdictional stability by taking the pressure off Ypsilanti market and the fiscal stability of the city itself will be in further the weaker Ypsilanti markets to absorb more than their fair share of low jeopardy. income households. But this requires putting sustainable policies in place • It is in no one’s best interest for Ypsilanti (city or township) to fail, as that actively aim for regional balance. failure brings on a whole host of increased service costs that invariably ! become constraints (such as police and public safety, prolonged Housing Affordability and Transportation Expense demand for housing subsidies, insurance, et.al.) • But if subsidized low income households are not housed in Ypsilanti, This report focuses on the urbanized area for Washtenaw County. where else in the county will they go? This is not to conclude that there are no affordability or ! neighborhood stabilization challenges throughout the remaining Put another way, there are always going to be those in Washtenaw geography of Washtenaw County. Significantly, the urbanized area County who earn significant incomes, those who earn very little, and jurisdictions include 64% of the County’s population and 66% of those in between. The more that those who earn very little are the County’s housing stock. These areas also have the greatest segregated and concentrated, the more those jurisdictions will be in fiscal access to public transportation, non-motorized networks, and distress, and the more those jurisdictions are in fiscal distress, the more higher instances of transportation choice. the costs of segregation reverberate throughout the county in costly ways - air quality reductions through congestion, business attraction and This is important as transportation is usually the second largest retention challenges, safety compromises through concentrations of household expense for families, after housing costs. This impacts poverty, reduced real estate values through falling demand and prices. the housing market in Washtenaw County in many ways. In one regard, housing that is close to job centers can make land and ! housing more valuable. These location-based amenities are valued • Right now, the market is doing an adequate job of addressing significant portions of the rental housing needs of working families. But families with by the market, enabling households to reduce transportation costs poor credit and work histories, disabilities, or other challenges are not through non-motorized trips, utilization of public transit, and shorter being served by the market, and there is limited public and nonprofit trip distances. In these areas, the same community characteristics sector capacity to handle the balance, irrespective of where housing that drive value upward result in a reduced transportation burden might be found or developed. Addressing this will not be inexpensive. for the average household. Conversely, land is often cheaper Who is going to pay for these costs? further away from job and economic centers. On one hand this is appealing, as land cost is a significant determinant in housing ! development value and cost. When housing units are moved • Right now, Ypsilanti Township is at risk of entering a point of no return in its downward spiral, as the domino effect of foreclosures roots ever more significantly outside the job center however, any savings in land deeply. Turning this around will require expensive cost gaps to be closed, value are quickly redirected to increased transportation costs. This and most likely, a clawback process relying on rental households in the occurs through more trips requiring automobile access, at greater short run to achieve stability before a future home ownership strategy can distances. work. This will require patience and financing. By no means is it too late. But the current array of policies and practices require revision.
135 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 5 of 55 Therefore, it makes sense to focus the development of affordable units in areas with transportation choices, which are typically close to job centers and other services, to maximize the long term sustainability of households in these units. As commuting expenses as a percentage of income are reduced, either by less costly transportation options or reduced spatial mismatches between jobs and housing, more will be available for housing, food, education, and health care.
The bottom line is that the greater the degree to which Ann Arbor invests in affordable housing for those working in Ann Arbor, and Ypsilanti makes progress towards growing demand by investing in livability, the less the commuting pressures - and resulting congestion - along Washtenaw Avenue and other key corridors will occur.
136 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 6 of 55 ! ! ! ! ! ! PART 1 Qualitative Analysis ! !
137 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 7 of 55 !QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS : INTERVIEWS + SURVEYS czb met and held telephone calls with over 33 elected officials, community coordinated between the jurisdictions. It will take work, but the civic leaders, and staff to discuss issues around affordability in Washtenaw and community ingredients are there to create a state and perhaps County during June, July, and August 2014. From those discussions we national model. People clearly see the value of a regional policy have identified a number of themes regarding people’s views about framework to help guide the future of housing in the county. affordable housing in the region. We also conducted a survey of 489 ! people to gauge their views and ideas about affordable housing. The 4. Quality of life is the biggest driver - and divider - of value in the survey responses contain significant information about respondent’s region. This is a double edged sword as higher quality of life in one affordable housing priorities, preferred policy options, and community area can cause that area to leapfrog other places quickly and create concerns. greater imbalance around housing affordability. Ann Arbor is on this ! trajectory now. If not checked, Ann Arbor will turn into an exclusive ! enclave with little alignment between jobs and housing and greater Respondent Input and czb Comment transportation and environmental impacts as a result. ! ! 1. The sky isn’t falling. Yet. As many pointed out, the county has a ! range of housing options and smart government policies like the new transit system will afford even more opportunities. We agree, but think Washtenaw County can do much better. There is broad agreement that the jurisdictions can do a better job of addressing affordable housing needs. There are clearly growing concerns about the ability of current residents to continue to afford to live in their community and the long- ! term sustainability of affordable housing prices. 2. The big challenge is balance. As many pointed out, there is growing inequity. Some used the word “segregation” to describe gaps between jurisdictions. Many concerns were raised about the creation of luxury units in Ann Arbor at the expense of middle class housing. Over time, that imbalance is going to harm the economic potential of the county. It will also continue to conflict with the strong desire for racial and ! socio-economic equity in the county expressed repeatedly by many. 3. There is good news. Fortunately, the region is well equipped to develop and manage a balanced affordable housing policy that can be !
138 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 8 of 55 ! ! equally strong agreement about the need to limit sprawl and protect 5. Vocabulary. Affordable Housing is a complex term in Washtenaw agricultural and open space areas. It would be unfortunate to not County that different people understand differently. The region would capitalize on the convergence of opinion and market reality. benefit from a shared understanding and language about affordable ! housing, its relationship to jobs, to development and growth and to 8. Transportation, commuting, jobs, and housing. People want housing planning. There isn’t a consistent framework for discussing or choices to exist throughout the region and believe they should be, evaluating these issues, and there needs to be one. ideally, close to jobs. This came up over and over; the issue of housing ! near jobs, or workforce housing, was a strong thread in interviews and 6. Image and perception matter greatly. Respondents expressed the survey. This can become the undergirding for a regional housing concerns about how subsidized housing in Washtenaw County looks, policy. and about the general safety of the community that is implied by how ! well or poorly a place is taken care of. They say they want their region 9. Concentrated poverty is a problem that isn’t going away. People to be integrated; they also want it to look nice and they want to feel understand that it isn’t economically healthy for any community to have safe in their neighborhood. These issues need to be addressed in the a disproportionate share of low-income housing. It isn’t sustainable for context of any housing effort, with safety being the number one issue one area to essentially send low income residents and the resulting for quality of life. service needs to communities that are not able to afford the services ! needed to give the residents the best chance at success. This 7. Agreement. There is strong regional agreement about the value of imbalance is one of the most striking and hardest issues that needs to mixed-use, mixed-income development along transit corridors and be addressed.
139 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 9 of 55 10. Focus. There is a strong desire to focus on homelessness in Ann stakeholders was powerful thread through most discussions. The Arbor. While appropriate and well-meaning, has taken energy away desire for a diverse community is a strength that can be built on. from workforce housing preservation and creation, which is the more ! significant issue at hand. 16. Wages. There is some awareness, especially in the survey, that jobs ! and wages are one of the policy arenas that should be focused on. We 11. Government resources and priorities. To the extent current strongly encourage housing policy discussion to be connected to wage government funds are spent, we think the needs to preserve public issues for there to be any chance for sustainable outcomes. housing, subsidize low-income housing and that addressing the service ! needs of these residents should take precedence. Strong civic support 17. Schools. Schools. Schools. The fact that some areas of the region for these efforts is healthy and should be fostered. It is important have access to Ann Arbor schools and others don’t creates an inherent though, that they be better balanced geographically in terms of how economic challenge for the value of housing outside of the Ann Arbor and where these funds are spent. school district. Poor performing schools are an issue that will handcuff ! any weak market’s capacity to recover, so school quality differential 12. Market forces. There is a need to look at market solutions, and land- requires attention. use incentives, for workforce housing needs and as something in the ! survey suggested, there is clear value in evaluating a funding stream to 18. Capacity. The capacity and ideas to address these issues are within ensure the preservation of workforce housing for the long-term. Like the County. Between the survey’s and the interviews, it is clear to us the difficulty of addressing concentrations of poverty (which require that a policy framework to address the housing issues can be diffusion in a county where few are going to come forward and developed and that champions exist to help develop and support it volunteer to absorb their fair share), the only value market forces over time. We are impressed with the breath and depth of civic interest provide is the value the community extracts through policy. and passion around this issue. There is a healthy range of viewpoints ! and ideas to create something that can last for the long term. But 13. Nominal history of serious collaborative output. We have been experience also tells us that the ability to craft sustainability policies can surprised that there isn’t greater collaboration or policies around the vary wildly based on willingness. No progress is likely without risks development community to address these issues. The opportunity for being taken, issue literacy being elevated, innovation occurring, and public-private partnerships, especially around workforce housing, is not multi-jurisdictional collaboration at the center. being taken advantage of. This needs to be explored in more detail. ! We see opportunities to both educate the development community and 19. Positioning. The county is well positioned to play a leading role residents about what could be possible, such as development rights helping to address its housing and market strength imbalances and to transfer programs. support quality economic development and balanced growth ! throughout the region, at the center of which are looming affordability 14. Weakness and Imbalance. The lack of balance in the housing mix of challenges given Ann Arbor’s high and increasing quality of life. People each jurisdiction has weakened both the overall economic prospects in the county understand that there should be a planning relationship for the region as well as the ability to give all residents of the region an between jobs, housing, and transit. The challenge is developing a equal chance to move forward successfully. There’s a discernible gap policy framework for the region to work within that also respects the between viewpoint and rhetoric and nominal collaborative output to unique differences of each jurisdiction as well as the different economic address equity issues. Focusing on this is essential and hard. capacities of each jurisdiction, and then takes those differences into ! account. 15. Housing ladder. While housing for families and people starting out was emphasized, people understand the need to provide housing for all life- stages from people starting out to seniors as well as people with unique health needs. The view of “community” as being driven by the
140 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 10 of 55 RECOMMENDED! NEXT STEPS Building on past, successful regional collaborations, we suggest the • The focus should be on bringing the group to a common creation of multi-jurisdictional housing policy working group. understanding of the following:
• Terms/Vocabulary of Affordable Housing • The group would be responsible for distilling the qualitative and quantitative information collected and analyzed by czb about housing • Drivers for generating or undermining demand, and thus in the county and then to develop a set of housing goals & strategies, triggering price change as well as metrics and action steps to pursue. • Relationships of housing to job locations and wages to housing cost burdens • The importance of reshaping the county into an equitable community • Link between livability and demand and price and across jurisdictions cannot be overstated. Segregation of any sort - affordability racial, economic, other - is also a two way street. It is never mathematically possible for one area to become segregated unless • Role of land in determining value and in addressing other areas as oppositely comprised. The more segregated into a imbalances high income area Ann Arbor becomes, the more segregated Ypsilanti • Agreement should be pursued on the following: will be. This group should be responsible for educating the • Baseline conditions community on equity issues. • Trajectory
• Specifically: • Metrics From this foundation, the working group may subsequently be in a • A working group from multiple jurisdictions should be impaneled position to collaborate on multi-jurisdictional responses to the two • The group should receive a detailed briefing on the housing looming challenges that the county faces: equity imbalance and issues in the county !affordability for low and moderate income working households. ! !
141 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 11 of 55
!POLICY OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONSIDERATION FROM INTERVIEWS AND SURVEYS The interviews and surveys exposed a broad range of policy ideas to of the region's total population) or an "impact fee" approximation of consider. Below is just a list of the most frequently mentioned concepts. A such a system, in which units that don't provide housing units plan development process would include a process to identify more ideas provide financial support to those who do. to consider. • Consider metrics between a jurisdictions workforce needs and ! available housing and set goals for the relationship of the two. • Push for higher density, mixed-use projects along transit corridors. • Consider ways to reduce waiting list for affordable housing (vouchers, • Re-visit parking requirements to ensure they are encouraging transit etc.) and not driving up housing prices. • Evaluate something like the Twin Cities Fiscal Disparity Act / tax-base • Consider multi-jurisdictional tax-districts to support the growth of sharing -- in part, approximates a per-community payment-in-lieu fair mixed-use development areas. share housing system; regional shift in property tax revenues from • Push for new state rules regarding property taxes for seniors. communities with high taxable value per capita to those with low, so Current rules may discourage seniors to move to smaller, more that cities hosting more low-income residents (and low taxable-value manageable homes and essentially “lock-up” larger homes thereby housing) can address the service needs they have. limiting family housing choices. • Consider creating a local land trusts to hold land to help with • Consider ways to develop zoning or other rules that approximate affordability. inclusionary zoning or ask the state for new powers. • Consider increasing local housing trust funds and/or creating a • Consider ways for zoning to encourage smaller starter homes, family county trust fund. sized units and to add some workforce options to existing • Consider approaches to discouraged or prevent over-concentration neighborhoods. of low income housing. • Consider changes to zoning and/or policy to encourage development • Consider policies to ensure public services are available in areas with of mixed-income housing in targeted areas. greatest need. • Consider ways to ensure property owners don’t set unfair • Consider policies to give tenants greater opportunities to purchase requirements for renters and essentially limit choices for low income units or stay in units after sale. residents. • Consider changes/update to plan to end homelessness in Ann Arbor • Identify infill opportunities for new affordable housing projects. • Explore ways to encourage more co-ops. • Consider the use of public lands to help develop affordable housing • Explore ways to encourage co-housing options. projects. ! • Consider a "fair share" housing provision (each local unit provides a ! percentage of the region's affordable housing equal to its percentage ! ! ! !
142 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 12 of 55 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! PART 2 Quantitative Analysis ! !
143 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 13 of 55 What affordability challenges are faced by Washtenaw costs) increased by 5,078 households; again, roughly half of this County owners and potential buyers? increase occurred in the target area (where the number of owners ! with very unaffordable housing costs doubled between 2000 and Throughout the target area (as well as in the portions of the county 2012). outside the target area), the number of owners facing unaffordable ! housing costs (in excess of 30% of income) increased substantially By 2012, nearly three out of every ten owners in the county (and in between 2000 (pre-recession) and 2012 (post-recession).4 the target area) paid too much for housing, up from two out of Countywide, the number of owners paying more than 30% of their every ten owners in 2000. The largest percentages of owners had income on housing costs increased by 12,438 households unaffordable costs (>30% of income) in Census tracts in western between 2000 and 2012; just under half of this increase (5,358 out and southern Ann Arbor city, parts of Pittsfield township, southern of 12,438) was in the target area (Table 1). The number of Ypsilanti city, and parts of Ypsilanti township (see map on following Washtenaw County owners paying more than 50% of their income page). on housing costs (those considered to have very unaffordable ! !
TABLE 1 :: UNAFFORDABLE HOUSING COSTS, WASHTENAW COUNTY VS. TARGET AREA
Washtenaw County Target Area
2000 2012 Change % Change 2000 2012 Change % Change
Unaffordable (>30% of Income) Housing 11,397 23,835 12,438 109% 7,288 12,646 5,358 74% Costs
Very Unaffordable (>50% of Income) 3,428 8,506 5,078 148% 2,200 4,404 2,204 100% Housing Costs
% Unaffordable 19% 29% 10% 19% 28% 9%
% Very Unaffordable 6% 10% 5% 6% 10% 4%
source: US Census (2000); 2012 ACS 5 Year Estimates; czb
! !
4 For the purposes of this analysis, the “target area includes Pittsfield, Ann Arbor City, Ann Arbor Township, Ypsilanti City, and Ypsilanti Township.
144 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 14 of 55 ! ! !
145 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 15 of 55 Consistent Affordability for Others – Great Housing Values for in Ann Arbor township; in Ypsilanti city and Ypsilanti township, in contrast, Buyers roughly three in five units (60% and 64%, respectively) were valued below ! $150,000. Yet, on the whole, for-sale housing is fairly affordable in Washtenaw County. ! Countywide, half of all units are valued below $200,000 (according to the This variety not only creates vastly different housing markets (for both 2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates); just 25% were owner-occupied housing and for rentals) across the target area, but has put valued at $300,000 or higher (Graph 1). This breakdown varies greatly, different communities and neighborhoods on different trajectories, as some though, between local municipalities: in Ann Arbor city, nearly two-thirds of have quickly recovered from the recent recession and others have not. all owner-occupied units were valued over $200,000, as were almost 90% ! !
GRAPH 1 :: BREAKDOWN OF OWNER VALUES IN WASHTENAW CO. SUBDIVISIONS, 2012 1% 1% 100% 2% 6% 4% 7% 9% 8% 9%
18% 24% 21%
75% 29% 22%
25%
32% 32% $500,000 or More 50% 28% $300,000 to 499,999 28% $200,000 to $299,999 $150,000 to $199,999 19% $100,000 to $149,999 Less than $100,000
19% 17% 25% 14%
36% 32% 10% 12% 17% 9% 9% 0% Washtenaw Co. Ann Arbor City Pittsfield Ypsilanti City Ypsilanti Twp. !
146 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 16 of 55 How do housing market conditions vary across its share of owner units valued in the $300,000s, and four times its Washtenaw County Target Area municipalities? share of owner units valued over $500,000). In contrast, both ! Ypsilanti city and Ypsilanti township had twice their share of owner For the Washtenaw County Target Area analysis, we analyzed a range of units valued below $150,000.5 people- and place-based data from the 2000 and 2010 Decennial Census ! and the 2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. We also To further understand these market dynamics, czb utilized sales data received data from the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) on for-sale properties (collected from the multiple listing service (MLS)) to generate average sale and rentals made available through the system and sold or rented between. prices at the Census tract level based on single-family home sales in 2012, These MLS records included 16,570 sales between 2000 and 2014 (with 2013, and 2014. Based on these averages, czb divided Washtenaw the bulk sold after 2004) and 1,866 apartments rented between 2003 and County Target Area Census Tracts (those within Ann Arbor city, Ann Arbor 2014 (with the bulk rented after 2006). To complement these MLS records, township, Pittsfield, Ypsilanti city, and Ypsilanti township) into 6 market czb compiled an inventory of all rental properties in the target area, which types – from “very weak” to “hot.” “Very Weak” market Census tracts were included the number, characteristics, and costs of apartments at each those with average sale prices between roughly $25,000 and $75,000 location. between 2012 and 2014, or had averages more than one standard ! deviation away from the target area average sale price during that time. As of 2012 (according to the 2012 American Community Survey 5- The average sale price and Z Scores (or how many standard deviation units Year Estimates), the county’s higher-cost owner-occupied housing each average stood from the overall average) are listed in the table below units were concentrated in Ann Arbor City and Pittsfield (which (Table 2); the market strength for each target area Census tract are shown both had more than their share of housing units valued over in the map on the following page. $200,000) and particularly Ann Arbor township (which had two ! times its share of owner units valued in the $200,000s, three times ! TABLE 2 :: SALE PRICE RELATIVE TO MARKET TYPE
Average Sale Price Z Score Range
Low High
Very Weak $26,613 to $75,492 Less than -1.00
Weaker $94,086 to $186,061 -0.99 to -0.25
Moderate $199,050 to $262,408 -0.24 to 0.24
Strong $271,577 to $357,699 0.25 to 0.99
Very Strong $393,360 to $463,355 1.00 to 1.74
Hot $498,139 to $622,393 1.75 or More
5 Figures presented in this paragraph are explained further on page x, under the heading “Washtenaw County - Catch Up and Keep Up”.
147 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 17 of 55 !
!
148 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 18 of 55 GRAPH 2 :: AVERAGE SALE PRICE OF SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES IN WASHTENAW COUNTY TARGET AREA CENSUS TRACTS BY MARKET ! STRENGTH, 2005-2014 $700,000 Across all market types, the average sale price of a single-family home was up in 2005 (during the housing boom) and declined during the recession, hitting lows $525,000 Very Weak Weaker between 2008 and 2011, before recovering Moderate in the years since (Graph 2, Table 3). Strong Very Strong What this table illustrates is that the gap in $350,000 Hot value between the strongest and weakest submarkets in Washtenaw is growing, and all signs indicate a further widening. $175,000 ! !
$0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
TABLE 3 :: AVERAGE SALE PRICE OF SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES IN WASHTENAW CO. TARGET AREA CENSUS TRACTS BY MARKET STRENGTH 2005-2014
Average Sale Price
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Very Weak $127,797 $117,990 $92,635 $51,599 $34,053 $37,608 $35,294 $40,932 $50,021 $59,587
Weaker $206,180 $197,902 $178,225 $151,559 $115,894 $116,146 $116,629 $122,925 $158,037 $164,727
Moderate $267,618 $252,775 $231,820 $211,547 $186,609 $187,891 $199,818 $212,538 $239,908 $239,997
Strong $327,626 $305,656 $280,968 $256,689 $255,048 $263,556 $278,612 $290,768 $320,132 $317,318
Very Strong $480,256 $425,502 $392,830 $359,223 $373,484 $370,635 $342,762 $367,490 $455,815 $453,071
Hot $567,486 $624,889 $509,958 $520,733 $530,523 $502,209 $556,091 $530,312 $585,900 $610,267
149 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 19 of 55 Interestingly, though, while the average sale price of a single-family home was higher in 2014 than it had been in 2005 in “Hot” markets (suggesting a full recovery), the 2014 average sale price in “weaker” markets was equivalent to 80% of the 2005 average sale price; in “very weak” markets, the 2014 average !sale price was equal to just 47% of the 2005 average (suggesting far from a full recovery in these areas) (Graph 3). These still-struggling markets bore the brunt, to a certain extent, of the housing market meltdown: according to Neighborhood Stabilization Program Data released by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Census tracts within and surrounding Ypsilanti city had the areas highest foreclosure rates and vacancy rates in the midst of the crisis.
GRAPH 3 :: AVERAGE SALE PRICE (2014) ÷ AVERAGE SALE PRICE (2005) FOR TARGET AREA CENSUS TRACKS BY MARKET STRENGTH 110% 107.5%
96.9% 94.3% 89.7%
82.5% 79.9%
55% 46.6%
27.5%
0% Very Weak Weaker Moderate Strong Very Strong Hot
150 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 20 of 55 ! ! ! What affordability challenges are faced by Washtenaw College undergraduate and graduate students, whose incomes tend to be County renters and potential renters? very low (if not $0), as well as higher rents, are driving these numbers in ! Ann Arbor city; lower-income non-student renters are doing so in Ypsilanti Renters are far more likely than owners to have excessive housing costs in city and Ypsilanti township. Washtenaw County. In the Census tracts in Central Ann Arbor city (near ! the University of Michigan), as well as those in far northern and southern According to data from the Multiple Listing Service, the average lease price Ypsilanti city and throughout much of Ypsilanti township, in excess of 60% for units listed on the MLS was lowest in Ypsilanti city and Ypsilanti of renters pay more than 30% of their income on housing (see map below). township (and in a few scattered Census tracts in Ann Arbor city), and highest throughout much of Ann Arbor city and Ann Arbor township (and in a few scattered Census tracts in Pittsfield and Ypsilanti township).
151 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 21 of 55 ! ! ! ! ! Pressure on the market from student renters certainly plays a role in driving up rents in Ann Arbor city and Ann Arbor township. Both communities have more than their share of rentals with rents over $1,000 (according to data from the 2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates), including those with rents over $1,500. In contrast, Pittsfield and Ypsilanti township both have more than their share of rentals with rents between $500 and $999, and Ypsilanti city has far more than its share of rentals with rents below $750. !
!
152 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 22 of 55 A czb review of the county’s rental inventory further highlighted the variety At the same time, far more subsidized and public housing, as well as of the target area’s rental market: almost exclusively buildings with average Section 8 vouchers, was concentrated on the eastern side of the target rents per bedroom below $750 on the eastern side of the target area and area as well (see map on following page). primarily buildings with average rents per bedroom of $750 or more on the !western side of the target area (see map above).
153 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 23 of 55 154 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 24 of 55
!
155 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 25 of 55 Such different rent levels mean that unaffordability reaches higher up the Differences in the price of rental units as well as differences in overall income ladder in some municipalities than others. For example, across in market vitality and amenities – in neighborhood quality of life – contributes all target area municipalities, nearly all (94% or more) renter households to two very distinct rental markets in the Washtenaw County target area. with incomes below $20,000 pay more than 30% of their income on Across nearly all Census tracts on the western side of the target area, the housing (Graph 4). Most renter households with incomes between $20,000 percentage of renter household heads with a high school degree or less and $34,999 also paid too much for housing – ranging from 65% of these and the percentage of renting families who have incomes below 30% of the households in Ypsilanti city to 87% of these households in Ann Arbor city. Area Median Income (AMI) are very low, while the reverse is true on the And while affordability was not really an issue for households with incomes eastern half of the target area. In contrast, across nearly all Census tracts between $35,000 and $49,999 in Ypsilanti city and Ypsilanti township on the western side of the target area, the percentage of renter household (where just 23% and 20%, respectively, faced unaffordable costs), it heads with a Bachelor’s degree or more education and the percentage of remained a serious issue for renter households at this income level in Ann renting families who have incomes above 120% AMI are very high, while Arbor city (where nearly half (45%) faced unaffordable costs). the reverse is true on the eastern half of the target area (see maps on ! following page).
GRAPH 4 :: % OF RENTER HOUSEHOLDS PAYING >30% OF INCOME ON RENT BY INCOME LEVEL ! AND LOCATION, 2012 98% 100% 96% 95% 94% 94%
87%
80% 75% 75% 74%
65%
50% 45%
39% 38%
25% 23% 20%
13% 13% 11% 6% 5% 4% 5% 4% 0% Washtenaw Co. Ann Arbor City Pittsfield Ypsilanti City Ypsilanti Twp.
<$20,000 $20,000-$34,999 $35,000-$49,999 $50,000-$74,999 $75,000+
156 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 26 of 55 In a third example, while 2.6% of Ann Arbor township households GRAPH 5 :: % RECEIVING PUBLIC ASSISTANCE AND/OR SNAP BENEFITS and 7.5% of Ann Arbor city households received public assistance 30% income or food stamp (SNAP) benefits in 2012, roughly one-fourth 28.4% of Ypsilanti city (28.4%) and Ypsilanti township (23.2%) households !did so (Graph 5). As evidenced by neighborhoods’ varied recovery rates following 23.2% the recent housing market meltdown and municipalities’ varied 22.5% severity of affordability challenges, such disparities between target !area municipalities is not sustainable. Such trends point to the need for regional cooperation going forward.
15%
9.4%
7.5% 7.5%
2.6%
0% Ann Arbor City Ann Arbor Twp. Pittsfield Ypsilanti City Ypsilanti Twp.
157 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 27 of 55 The target area is increasingly splitting into winning municipalities and losing municipalities, and, as time goes by, the gap between the two is only widening. An analysis of the residential choices made by Eastern Michigan University faculty and staff, Washtenaw County employees and University of Michigan graduate students all show the same thing: households with choice (higher incomes and more mobility) are concentrating in Ann Arbor city and Ann Arbor township and pricing out everyone else; those beat out for housing in these communities are concentrating in Ypsilanti city !and Ypsilanti township (see surrounding maps). - UM graduate should be taking advantage of the locational and pricing opportunities that Ypsilanti offers; yet aren’t. Why? Because the affordability advantages Ypsilanti can provide are offset by the livability disadvantages that push UM graduate students away. - Pittsfield is filling a middle ground, although is heavily influenced by the adjacent markets, both positively and otherwise.
158 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 28 of 55 Washtenaw County Catch Up and Keep Up While housing cost burdens are less common among renter households ! with incomes between $35,000 and $49,999 (or between 40% and 60% of Most renters with household incomes below $35,000 (or below roughly Area Median Income), unaffordable rents remain an issue for two-fifths of 40% of HUD’s Area Median Income) in Washtenaw County generally, and renters in this income bracket – and for 45% of renters in this income the target area in particular, face housing cost burdens. In fact, over 90% bracket in Ann Arbor city. (Rents are more affordable for households in this of renter households with incomes below $20,000 pay more than 30% of income bracket in Ypsilanti city and Ypsilanti township, where only about their income on rent; roughly three-quarters of households with incomes one-fifth of households with incomes between $35,000 and $49,999 pay !between $20,000 and $34,999 do so (Graph 6). more than 30% of income on rent.)
GRAPH 6 :: % OF RENTER HOUSEHOLDS PAYING >30% OF INCOME ON RENT BY INCOME LEVEL AND LOCATION, 2012 100% 98% 96% 95% 94% 94%
87%
80% 75% 75% 74%
65%
50% 45%
39% 38%
25% 23% 20%
13% 13% 11% 6% 5% 4% 5% 4%
0% Washtenaw County Ann Arbor City Pittsfield Ypsilanti City Ypsilanti Twp
<$20,000 $20,000-$34,999 $35,000-$49,999 $50,000-$74,999 $75,000+
159 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 29 of 55 Housing costs make the Ann Arbor rental market harder to access In Ann Arbor city, fully 58% of renter householders has a Bachelor’s for lower-income households; so does the intense competition for degree or more; just 13% have a high school degree or less. The rental housing from 30,000+ undergraduate and graduate breakdown of renters by educational attainment is far different in students, not to mention hundreds of recent graduates choosing to Ypsilanti city and Ypsilanti township, where far more renters have a stay in town, also seeking apartments. As a result, just a small high school degree or less (25% and 34%, respectively) and far fraction of Ann Arbor renters have a high school degree or less; the fewer have Bachelor’s degrees or more (22% and 18%, reverse is the case in Ypsilanti city and township, where only a respectively). small fraction have a bachelor’s degree or more (see maps below).
!
160 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 30 of 55 ! ! GRAPH 7 :: BREAKDOWN OF RENTERS BY EDUCATION ATTAINMENT AND ! LOCATION, 2012 In other words, while Ann Arbor city is home to 48% of the 120% county’s renter households, it is where just 30% of the county’s renters with a high school degree/GED or less live (Graph 7, Table 4). To instead house 48% of the county’s renters with a high school degree/GED or less (or the city’s equitable proportion), Ann Arbor would need to accommodate nearly 2,000 more of them (1,948) (Table 5). 90% 22% 18% Similarly, while Ann Arbor city is home to 48% of the county’s renter households, it is where just 38% of the county’s renters with some college or an Associate’s degree live. To instead 42% 43% house 48% of the county’s renters with some college or an 58% Associate’s degree (or the city’s “fair share” of these renters), Ann Arbor would need to accommodate nearly 2,000 more of them (1,925). City officials could think of this as a strategy 60% requiring 2,000 new units for households at 0-40% AMI and 48% another 2,000 new units for households at 40%-60% AMI. 54% (At the other side of the spectrum, to house its equitable proportion of renters with a Bachelor’s degree or more, Ypsilanti city would need to add just over 1,000 units for 37% 39% these renters (1,030) and Ypsilanti township would need to 30% add more than 2,000 units for them (2,174).) 30% ! ! 34% 25% 20% 18% 13%
0% Washtenaw Co. Ann Arbor City Pittsfield Ypsilanti City Ypsilanti Twp
Bachelor's Degree or More Some College or Associate's Degree High School Degree/GED or Less
161 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 31 of 55 TABLE 4 :: BREAKDOWN OF RENTERS BY EDUCATION ATTAINMENT AND LOCATION, 2012
Washtenaw County Ann Arbor City Pittsfield Ypsilanti City Ypsilanti Twp
All Rental Units: 51,945 24,905 5,922 5,001 8,785
Up to High School/GED 10,608 3,138 1,069 1,226 3,001
Some College/Associate's 19,340 7,348 2,318 2,687 4,238
Bachelor's or More 21,997 14,419 2,535 1,088 1,546 All Rental Units: 100% 48% 11% 10% 17% Up to High School/GED 100% 30% 10% 12% 28% Some College/Associate's 100% 38% 12% 14% 22% Bachelor's or More 100% 66% 12% 5% 7% All Rental Units: 100% 48% 11% 10% 17% ! ! TABLE 5 :: “FAIR SHARE” DISTRIBUTION OF RENTERS BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT AND LOCATION, 2012
Ann Arbor City Pittsfield Ypsilanti City Ypsilanti Twp Fair Fair Fair Fair Current # Difference Current # Difference Current # Difference Current # Difference Share # Share # Share # Share # High School Degree/GED or 3,138 5,086 1,948 1,069 1,209 140 1,226 1,021 -205 3,001 1,794 -1,207 Less
Some College or 7,348 9,273 1,925 2,318 2,205 -113 2,687 1,862 -825 4,238 3,271 -967 Associate's Degree
Bachelor's Degree 14,419 10,546 -3,873 2,535 2,508 -27 1,088 2,118 1,030 1,546 3,720 2,174 or More
162 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 32 of 55 WASHTENAW COUNTY % of County AFFORDABILITY GAPS - OWNER-OCCUPIED Ann Arbor City Ann Arbor Twp. Pittsfield Ypsilanti City Ypsilanti Twp. Total: 33.9% 1.3% 10.3% 5.7% 15.8% Owner-occupied housing units:* 25.1% 1.5% 9.5% 3.2% 15.2%
Less than high school graduate 8.5% 0.2% 8.2% 5.8% 32.7% High school graduate (including 10.3% 0.6% 5.8% 3.4% 23.7% equivalency) Some college or associate's degree 14.8% 0.7% 6.8% 3.2% 19.1%
Bachelor's degree or higher 34.3% 2.1% 11.7% 3.0% 10.1%
Current Share
Ann Arbor City Ann Arbor Twp. Pittsfield Ypsilanti City Ypsilanti Twp.
Less than high school graduate 0.339 0.127 0.855 1.804 2.154 High school graduate (including 0.410 0.406 0.603 1.060 1.562 equivalency) Some college or associate's degree 0.589 0.448 0.713 0.999 1.261
Bachelor's degree or higher 1.370 1.448 1.230 0.922 0.662 !
163 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 33 of 55 2012 Totals
Washtenaw County Ann Arbor City Ann Arbor Twp. Pittsfield Ypsilanti City Ypsilanti Twp.
Owner-occupied housing units: 82,938 20,799 1,214 7,912 2,677 12,588
Less than high school graduate 3,778 321 7 308 220 1,235 High school graduate (including 11,284 1,159 67 649 386 2,676 equivalency) Some college or associate's degree 20,415 3,018 134 1,388 658 3,907
Bachelor's degree or higher 47,461 16,301 1,006 5,567 1,413 4,770
2035 Goal if Move to Fair Share Distribution
Washtenaw County Ann Arbor City Ann Arbor Twp. Pittsfield Ypsilanti City Ypsilanti Twp.
Owner-occupied housing units: 96,790 24,273 1,417 9,233 3,124 14,690
Less than high school graduate 4,409 1,106 65 421 142 669 High school graduate (including 13,169 3,302 193 1,256 425 1,999 equivalency) Some college or associate's degree 23,825 5,975 349 2,273 769 3,616
Bachelor's degree or higher 55,388 13,890 811 5,284 1,788 8,407
Difference between 2012 and 2035 Goal
Washtenaw County Ann Arbor City Ann Arbor Twp. Pittsfield Ypsilanti City Ypsilanti Twp.
Owner-occupied housing units: 13,852 3,474 203 1,321 447 2,102
Less than high school graduate 631 785 58 113 -78 -566 High school graduate (including 1,885 2,143 126 607 39 -677 equivalency) Some college or associate's degree 3,410 2,957 215 885 111 -291
Bachelor's degree or higher 7,927 -2,411 -195 -283 375 3,637 ! !
164 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 34 of 55 WASHTENAW COUNTY % of County AFFORDABILITY GAPS - RENTER - OCCUPIED Ann Arbor City Ann Arbor Twp. Pittsfield Ypsilanti City Ypsilanti Twp.
Renter-occupied housing units:* 47.9% 1.0% 11.4% 9.6% 16.9%
Less than high school graduate 29.3% 0.9% 8.6% 14.3% 34.3% High school graduate (including 29.7% 0.2% 10.7% 10.4% 25.7% equivalency) Some college or associate's degree 38.0% 0.6% 12.0% 13.9% 21.9%
Bachelor's degree or higher 65.5% 1.7% 11.5% 4.9% 7.0%
Current Share
Ann Arbor City Ann Arbor Twp. Pittsfield Ypsilanti City Ypsilanti Twp.
Less than high school graduate 0.611 0.858 0.754 1.488 2.031 High school graduate (including 0.619 0.241 0.939 1.080 1.522 equivalency) Some college or associate's degree 0.792 0.558 1.051 1.443 1.296
Bachelor's degree or higher 1.367 1.667 1.011 0.514 0.416
165 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 35 of 55 2012 Totals
Washtenaw County Ann Arbor City Ann Arbor Twp. Pittsfield Ypsilanti City Ypsilanti Twp.
Renter-occupied housing units: 51,945 24,905 520 5,922 5,001 8,785
Less than high school graduate 3,142 921 27 270 450 1,079 High school graduate (including 7,466 2,217 18 799 776 1,922 equivalency) Some college or associate's degree 19,340 7,348 108 2,318 2,687 4,238
Bachelor's degree or higher 21,997 14,419 367 2,535 1,088 1,546
2035 Goal if Move to Fair Share Distribution
Washtenaw County Ann Arbor City Ann Arbor Twp. Pittsfield Ypsilanti City Ypsilanti Twp.
Renter-occupied housing units: 60,621 29,065 607 6,911 5,836 10,252
Less than high school graduate 3,667 1,758 37 418 353 620 High school graduate (including 8,713 4,177 87 993 839 1,474 equivalency) Some college or associate's degree 22,570 10,821 226 2,573 2,173 3,817
Bachelor's degree or higher 25,671 12,308 257 2,927 2,471 4,341
Difference between 2012 and 2035 Goal
Washtenaw County Ann Arbor City Ann Arbor Twp. Pittsfield Ypsilanti City Ypsilanti Twp.
Renter-occupied housing units: 8,676 4,160 87 989 835 1,467
Less than high school graduate 525 837 10 148 -97 -459 High school graduate (including 1,247 1,960 69 194 63 -448 equivalency) Some college or associate's degree 3,230 3,473 118 255 -514 -421
Bachelor's degree or higher 3,674 -2,111 -110 392 1,383 2,795
166 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 36 of 55 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! PART 3 Implementation
167 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 37 of 55 General Ann Arbor needs to focus its attention on the preservation and production of affordable non student rental housing for low and moderate-income workers who are helping to keep so much of the Ann Arbor economy vibrant. ! Pittsfield also needs to focus its efforts on existing and future demand for affordable non student rental housing for low and moderate-income workers. ! Meanwhile: ! Ypsilanti cannot remain the de facto affordable housing policy for Ann Arbor and Pittsfield; continuation of this default way of operating will ensure further decline of property values and fiscal stability. ! Ypsilanti must find partners to intervene in the destabilizing cycle of foreclosure, disinvestment, abandonment, flipping, and distress. ! ! Ann Arbor and Pittsfield Ypsilanti (City and Township) Add 3,139 Grow demand by 4,178 non student affordable rentals next 20 years college educated HHs next 20 years
168 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 38 of 55 TASK GROW THE SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE NON-STUDENT RENTAL HOUSING IN ANN ARBOR AND PITTSFIELD
GOALS Annual By 2035
Ann Arbor 140 2797
Pittsfield 17 342
Regional Equity and Fair Share Balance (skills, education, housing) OBJECTIVE to help ensure the County is creating an environment that is best prepared for economic growth.
METRICS Additional Affordable Supply on an Annual Basis As Noted Above
Inclusionary Incentive Based Need Based Housing Development TOOLS Zoning Zoning Calculations Trust Fund Review
POTENTIAL HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH IMPACT
ACTIONS 1. Work with legislative partners to 1. In high demand areas, 1. Develop a ratio that equates the 1. The sale of all public land will 1. In high cost markets, evaluate create framework by which high development zoning premiums development of commercial donate a portion of the opportunity to reduce demand communities can or other incentive-based floor area or market rate provides to the trust fund. development fees and/or implement inclusionary zoning approaches to add to affordable housing floor area to a certain 2. Explore millage, bonds and/or streamline process to promote provisions (i.e. amend State and workforce housing number of units of affordable other methods of assembling affordable units through enabling legislation to enable inventory. Evaluate planned unit housing required to support the adequate resources to meet reduced time and/or cost of communities to require % of development ordinances in new development. (i.e. the affordable housing unit targets development review process. residential units be maintained urbanized areas to recommend number of low income or based on history of unit 2. Along major development affordable). methods of incorporating workforce jobs that would be support and projected costs corridors that span multiple 2. Work with the City of Ann Arbor affordable and/or workforce needed to support a particular of future development. jurisdictions, develop common to develop an Inclusionary housing component to public development equate to a • Seattle developer procedures to help zoning ordinance. benefit evaluation. certain number of units to • Austin streamline and simplify 3. Work with the Pittsfield house those employees). 3. Leverage DDA funds for developers working on cross- Township to develop an 2. Develop a ratio that equates the affordable housing inventory. jurisdictional projects or on Inclusionary zoning ordinance. addition of new high-end jobs 4. Establish a Land Trust to multiple projects within the to a community with the service acquire costly land (at current corridor. sector job needed to support prices) that can be later leased the growing workforce. Use this to developers as a tool for framework to help establish and achieving affordability. update annual housing targets. Traditional Land Trust activities 3. Develop a ratio for rental can also be accomplished by housing stock that relates a Land Bank with suitable current and proposed jobs in statutory language in the the jurisdiction/county to organization’s enabling available/needed rental housing. charter. Use this ratio to establish goals for new rental housing as well as affordable home ownership programs.
169 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 39 of 55 TASK GROW THE SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE NON-STUDENT RENTAL HOUSING IN ANN ARBOR AND PITTSFIELD
GOALS Annual By 2035 Ann Arbor 140 2,797 Pittsfield 17 342
Regional Equity and Fair Share Balance (skills, education, housing) OBJECTIVE to help ensure the County is creating an environment that is best prepared for economic growth.
METRICS Additional Affordable Supply on an Annual Basis As Noted Above
TOOLS ADUs Choice Voichers Brownfields Tax Foreclosures Tax Exemption 108 Financing
POTENTIAL LOW - MODERATE LOW - MODERATE LOW - MODERATE LOW - MODERATE LOW - MODERATE LOW - MODERATE IMPACT
ACTIONS Encourage zoning Work with housing choice Amend policy and Work with County Treasurer Maximize use of Public Act Evaluate methods of utilizing amendments across voucher administrators to implementation of Brownfield and municipalities to 216 of 2006 to provide tax Section 108 loan guarantees communities to provide maximize utility of vouchers incentives to require determine methods of exemptions for non-profit to support affordable and/or additional housing unit by utilizing tiered structure (i.e. affordable housing units maximizing the availability of ownership housing; Utilize workforce housing opportunities (e.g. granny higher voucher limits in higher component to any supported appropriate tax foreclosed PILOTs to reduce development. flats, small accessory market areas, lower in areas residential project in the target parcels to increase affordable development and operational apartments). of concentrated poverty). areas; Establish thresholds for housing inventory. cost of affordable housing implementation. developments consistent with Act 346 of 196.
170 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 40 of 55 TASK GROW DEMAND BY WORKING AND COLLEGE-EDUCATED HOUSEHOLDS TO LIVE AND REINVEST IN YPSILANTI
GOALS Annual By 2035
City 69 1,383
Township 140 2,795 Regional Equity and Fair Share Balance (skills, education, housing) OBJECTIVE to help ensure the County is creating an environment that is best prepared for economic growth.
1. Housing Values That Rise at Rates > the Regional Average METRICS 2. Poverty Rates That Are Falling Towards a Target Rate of < the Regional Average
Invest in Regulatory Transportation Educational Neighborhood Limit Additional TOOLS Q/L Amenities Updates Options Policy Stabilization Affordable Housing
POTENTIAL HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH IMPACT
ACTIONS 1. Create a capital 1. Update zoning 1. Develop more robust 1. Create a unified Ann 1. Focus capital 1. Work with housing improvements plan that is ordinance to allow for transit options including Arbor, Ypsilanti School improvement on choice voucher geared towards urban higher density expanded bus services District amenities that improved administrators to amenities such as parks, development along and potential BRT or 2. Develop / Expand quality of life, such as maximize utility of plazas, transportation transit routes. Require light rail on major programs to provide parks, and trails. vouchers by utilizing amenities including high quality urban corridors as well as the continuing education to Prioritize projects based tiered structure (i.e. pedestrian facilities, bike design in key areas. creation of a complete existing workforce in the on greatest impact. higher voucher limits in lanes, new transit stops, 2. Curtail network of walking and community. Set goals 2. Create the desire for higher market areas, etc. apartmentalization of biking facilities. for skill growth in the private investment in lower in areas of 2. Explore millage, bonds large, single family 2. Ensure that public community each year. local/neighborhood concentrated poverty) and/or other methods of homes incentives and commercial areas by 2. Ensure any investments assembling adequate 3. Establish mandatory investments in public investment in in affordable and/or resources to implement rental property affordable and/or roads and street scape workforce housing meet capital improvements registration and workforce housing are in order to make them or exceed the median 3. Develop county-wide inspection program made only in instances attractive to developers cost of housing in the grant program for 4. Alternatively deploy where housing is and business owners. jurisdiction. targeted for community code enforcement effectively linked with 3. In areas of 3. Tie any investments in enhancements. (focus on code public transit, non- concentrated poverty, affordable or workforce compliance in middle motorized networks, target investments and housing to meaningful market sub areas and and other transportation incentives to projects quality of life code enforcement in choices. that stabilize improvements. most troubled areas) neighborhoods and/or 4. Work with County improve market Treasurer and demand/price point as municipalities to a means of de- determine methods to concentrating poverty. identify available tax foreclosed parcels and try to get them into the hands of programs like Habitat and avoid additional absentee land lords in order to stabilized/increase demand.
171 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 41 of 55 TASK GROW DEMAND BY WORKING AND COLLEGE-EDUCATED HOUSEHOLDS TO LIVE AND REINVEST IN YPSILANTI
GOALS Annual By 2035
City 69 1,383
Township 140 2,795
Regional Equity and Fair Share Balance (skills, education, housing) OBJECTIVE to help ensure the County is creating an environment that is best prepared for economic growth.
1. Housing Values That Rise at Rates > the Regional Average METRICS 2. Poverty Rates That Are Falling Towards a Target Rate of < the Regional Average
Balance S-D to Home Purchase Tax Increment Development Control Energy TOOLS Stabilize Prices Assistance Financing Review Land*** Efficiency
POTENTIAL MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE IMPACT
ACTIONS 1. Acquire and demolish 1. Target first time buyer 1. Develop TIF districts 1. In weaker markets, 1. Use County wide trust 1. Develop long term obsolete pre 1930 wood programs to highly along key corridors or evaluate opportunity to funds to acquire vacant quality products that framed houses qualified working and other methods to move reduce development parcels; where possible use best available throughout the Township professional households, value creation between fees and/or streamline assemble large blocks technology. Create long 2. Intervene in foreclosure 2. Expand on successful jurisdiction into most process to promote of land by connecting term sustainability that process for post 1960 efforts such as LiveYpsi regionally impactful market rate land purchases to focuses on the health of brick ranch homes areas. development through demolition of obsolete occupants and lowers throughout Township 2. Strategically invest TIF reduced time and/or pre 1930s housing energy costs. using an acquisition- funds into infrastructure cost of development stocks. rehab-sale process, and and amenities that review process. • Start with those in target finished product promote a sense of foreclosure pricing above market place, and quality of life. process. 3. Provide incentive and 2. Downzone and place in grants to Township and conservation easement City owner occupants for to reduce excess land exterior upgrades supply 4. Provide incentive loans to 3. Establish a Land Bank Township and City owner to acquire fallow land occupants for interior (at current prices) that upgrades can be managed and, eventually, assembled for development as market rate housing on the demand side of the equation. !
172 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 42 of 55 Best Practices for Addressing Affordability Shortages in High Cost Markets (such as Ann Arbor) Inclusionary Zoning Incentive Zoning Need Based Housing Trust Fund/Levy/Bond Madison, WI Puget Sound Aspen, CO Boston, MA http://www.cityofmadison.com/ http://www.psrc.org/growth/ http://www.aspenpitkin.com/ masshousing.com cdbg/iz/ housing/hip/alltools/incent-zoning/ Departments/Housing-for- Workforce/
Boulder, CO Seattle, WA Austin, TX https://bouldercolorado.gov/ http://www.seattle.gov/housing/ http://www.austintexas.gov/ housing/inclusionary-housing incentives/LandUseCode.htm !2013bond tdhca.state.tx.us/htf Montgomery County, MD New York City, NY Seattle, WA http://montgomerycountymd.gov/ http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/ http://www.seattle.gov/housing/ dhca/resources/files/director/ zone/zh_zoning_tools.shtml levy/ housing_policy/ ! housingpolicy2012_draft.pdf housing.ocd.wa.gov Sacramento, CA Cambridge, MA http://www.shra.org/ http://www.cambridgema.gov/ LinkClick.aspx? CDD/housing/ fileticket=XZQq8ExTDCU fordevelopersandpropmanagers/ %3d&tabid=143&mid=418 incentivezoning.aspx Barnstable, MA http://ecode360.com/6556730
New York City, NY http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/ zone/zh_inclu_housing.shtml Seattle, WA http://clerk.seattle.gov/%7Escripts/ nph-brs.exe? s1=&s3=31551&s2=&s4=&Sect4= AND&l=20&Sect5=RESNY&Sect6= HITOFF&d=RESF&p=1&u=%2F %7Epublic%2Fresny.htm&r=1&f=G
173 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 43 of 55 Best Practices for Addressing Demand Problems in Weak Markets (such as Ypsilanti - City + Township) Use of Vacant Parcels Healthy Neighborhoods Using Major Institutions Historic Preservation Scaled Redevelopment Pittsburgh, PA Baltimore, MD Philadelphia, PA Frederick, MD Denver, CO (LoDo) https://gtechstrategies.org/ http:// https:// http:// http://urbanland.uli.org/ wp-content/uploads/ www.healthyneighborhoods www.fels.upenn.edu/news/ www.downtownfrederick.or development-business/ 2013/10/ .org new-report-urban- g/downtown-history from-skid-row-to-lodo- VacanttoVibrant.pdf revitalization-1 historic-preservation-s-role- in-denver-s-revitalization/ Louisville, KY Milwaukee, WI Durham, NC Baltimore, MD (EBDI) http:// http://city.milwaukee.gov/ http://durhamnc.gov/ich/ http://www.ebdi.org www.metropolitanhousing.o HealthyNeighborhoods#.VK cb/cdd/Pages/ rg/get-involved/louisville- b-sIuppFI ssd_revit.aspx vacant-properties- campaign/ Jamestown, NY Oakland, CA http:// http:// jamestownrenaissance.org/ www.downtownoakland.org neighborhoods/
Battle Creek, MI http://www.nibc.org/ #&panel1-1
Chattanooga, TN http:// choosechattanooga.com/ neighborhoods/ Oswego, NY http:// www.oswegonyonline.com !
174 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 44 of 55 ! ! ! ! ! APPENDIX Survey and Interviews ! ! ! !
175 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 45 of 55 !ADDITIONAL QUALITATIVE FINDINGS FROM INTERVIEWS Significant feedback was obtained from a large volume of interviews. There around policing and others that indicate an ability for the region to was widespread agreement that the community overall faces some hard cooperate. choices. Likewise there was general agreement that the issues facing one 8. Mass transit is seen an important part of regional housing, community - while connected - are not the same as those facing others. development and economic planning. There was consensus that Ann Arbor is a strong market with an acute affordability challenge; and agreement that Ypsilanti is a weak market with 9. When talking about affordable housing, people emphasize the need to equally acute challenges, but of a different nature. An additional common encourage people to live near where they work and the goal of giving recognition was the acknowledgment of the limited capacity of the residents a range of housing choices. This idea of workforce housing nonprofit development sector. was regularly identified as a priority. ! 10. Preserving workforce units - especially as prices are rising and older 1. While most believe the region values the need for affordable housing, low income tax credit projects age - may not be getting the focus it there is a sense that the region lacks a common definition or deserves, given that the public has focused on, especially in Ann Arbor, understanding of what affordable housing is. the housing options for the very lowest income households. 2. There is a strong interest in addressing affordable housing needs in the 11. There is considerable civic and policy focus on people under 30% of region in a balanced, thoughtful way. AMI, especially the homeless, and especially in Ann Arbor. Many 3. There is some confusion about what affordable housing is (meaning); commented that public money should focus on helping those under we were told that some residents have been critical of people that may 30% of AMI. live in affordable housing even when the new residents would have the 12. Still, generous supportive services for people under 30% of AMI (area same income as the current residents. median income) in Ann Arbor have attracted people from outside the 4. Some have indicated that issues of race and ethnicity play into where county to Ann Arbor. This has raised concerns about the sustainability the community wants to put and have affordable housing, but that of these programs. these issues are not often discussed in public. This contrasts with 13. The fact that most of Ann Arbor’s housing vouchers are used outside many public statements about the value of diversity. The question the city has created a services imbalance as other communities, often appears to be how that value is supported and implemented through with fewer resources than Ann Arbor, are pressed to provide supportive planning and services. services to high concentrations of voucher residents. 5. Racial and ethnic diversity is a value shared throughout the 14. There is a struggle between housing advocates that want to build in jurisdictions. But it is a spoken value not revealed in objective data lower cost jurisdictions to maximize their investments and people in regarding settlement patterns, market values, school district those jurisdictions concerned about the pressure on their local budgets boundaries, and livability. Residential segregation analysis by both the and overall economic prospects from over concentration of any one Brookings Institution and the Institute for Social Research at the type of housing or a lack of alignment between housing and jobs. University of Michigan Social Science Data Analysis Network) speaks 15. Existing zoning (density, parking, height, design) can make it hard to clearly to this issue. provide under 30% AMI housing as well as other levels of affordable 6. Most people say they don’t want rising housing values to push their housing. neighbors out of their community. 16. Some in Ann Arbor have suggested local zoning and land-use could be 7. The recent regional mass transit plan is an example of multi- modified to encourage transit, discourage cars, and provide for more jurisdictional collaboration. There have been other regional efforts affordability, as well since providing parking spaces for cars. But this costs extra money. It was raised a few times that changing city parking
176 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 46 of 55 requirements away from a minimum parking requirement would open be. It was suggested a few times that the local development up more options for mixed use, transit projects that support a range of community needs to be augmented by outside developers with housing prices. experience in mixed-use-mixed-income projects. 17. While the student population is not growing very fast, there are 24. A number expressed frustration about lack of inclusionary zoning concerns (completely validated by quantitative analysis) that new powers due to state law, though many suggested zoning could still be student housing is driving up the cost of housing in Ann Arbor as used to encourage a range of price points. developers focus much of their attention on high-end student housing. 25. There may be an opportunity to work more closely with developers to 18. People want to make sure seniors can age in place and/or live in the provide workforce housing options in the area. Public-private community for the long term. Many have criticized the state policy that partnerships to create affordable housing have not been as common as pushes seniors to stay in their current home at a lower tax level some believe they should be. Most said that there is limited because it functions as a disincentive from moving into a smaller and collaboration with developers today. Many suggested that there are more manageable home. not enough market-driven developer projects to generate a lot of 19. Some suggested that more assisted living, co-housing, rooming and/or affordable housing and that more pro-active efforts using publicly co-operative housing options for seniors would be helpful. These owned land and, perhaps even publicly purchased land, would be housing approaches could be a beneficial tool to support regional needed. affordable housing goals. 26. It can be hard to get private land-lords and apartment companies to 20. A number suggested greater density in urban areas would help the accept vouchers or ex-felons. Both policies make providing affordable region provide a range of housing prices and affordability. Jurisdictions housing for especially lower income populations hard. in the region clearly understand the benefit of mixed-use, higher density 27. There is natural civic tension between doing what is needed to respond development clusters in areas with appropriate transit services and to the housing market so that a community can provide a range of their master plans reflect this. But recent development projects, where affordable housing options and community concerns about change developers built less than they otherwise could due to concerns about and density. Many indicated that people in the community are market demand, parking, neighborhood concerns, demonstrate that concerned about the scale of buildings created obstacles to building achieving this development vision can be difficult. Some believe the affordable housing. We also heard clearly that there are many that government should be stronger about enforcing master plans and the associate their community’s charm, sustainability and social equity as calls for mixed income, mixed use development. coming from the diversity and types of people that can live there. But 21. Urban infill, government owned land and the Washtenaw Avenue what we heard varies. (The sentiment in Ann Arbor is not the same as Corridor regularly come up as the best opportunities for bringing a the view in Ypsilanti.) The perspective in Ypsilanti Township is not range of housing options to the area. Also, Reimagine Washtenaw shared by everyone else, and vice versa. Markets with different came up repeatedly as an important regional project that can help strengths produce people with different viewpoints. foster the collaboration and regionalism needed to also address a 28. There is concern from some that taking a don’t change, low density balance of affordable housing options. But it was stressed that this approach will essentially drive up home values, create sprawl, project can’t address all the affordability issues. exasperate traffic and lead to a less balanced region. 22. Where possible, the jurisdictions want to protect rural areas and 29. Carrot Way came up a number of times as a good model for an prevent sprawl. This is important for environmental, quality of life and affordable housing project with people suggesting it should be infrastructure reasons. It was not generally acknowledged that such replicated. aims increase the cost of housing. 30. Many believe that there is a lot of interest and value in using areas 23. There is a sense that area developers are not as committed to outside Ann Arbor as the affordable housing for the region because affordable housing or mixed-income/mixed-use housing as they could they are less expensive and government subsidies can go further. This
177 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 47 of 55 is tempered by the fact that people outside of Ann Arbor are worried be a balance of housing options. No one jurisdiction should have all the about over concentration of low income housing and the overall high income or the lower income housing, but there are different views balance of housing options in their communities. about what balance and regionalism mean with some saying it means 31. Outside of Ann Arbor there is concern about the amount of rental somebody else takes more and few saying it means they should take housing. They have a desire to see more affordable home ownership more affordable housing. Everyone generally agrees that affordable options. Since the recession, some areas have seen a substantial housing is important, as long as it is located someplace else. change from home ownership to rental. 35. Sustainability is integrated into area master plans, transportation, 32. As already stated, housing vouchers for Ann Arbor are most often used energy and civic planning, but generally speaking is not directly outside of Ann Arbor and are creating concentrations of vouchers in a associated with housing affordability. There are some current efforts to few limited areas. This creates demand for supportive services (jobs, make affordable housing more energy efficient. There is a sense that mental health, public safety, etc.) that these communities can’t afford. sustainability could be more clearly aligned with affordable housing as Prisoner re-entry programs often send people to the same the two go hand in hand. communities and these residents (as well as those exiting 36. Schools play a significant role in how people think about where they live homelessness) have similar needs for support services. It also creates and the value of the housing. Communities that are a part of the Ann anger and frustration in the receiving jurisdictions. Arbor school district have a clear real estate advantage; This does 33. Some expressed concern that the region may lack the staff resources impact the balance of housing choices in the region. and capacity to support a truly collaborative approach to affordable 37. There is a sense that more focused political leadership would help housing. Others suggested that the County is well positioned to help affordable housing issues and that the area lacks clear metrics or coordinate and catalyze regional collaboration through the goals. Past efforts with specific numerical goals failed, so some have management of grants as well as staff support. also suggested that the focus should be on projects instead. 34. There is general agreement that residents of each jurisdiction should ! ! have multiple choices about where they can live and that there should
178 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 48 of 55 !SURVEY REVIEW 1/3 of homeowners surveyed (321) are concerned (119) that they couldn’t homelessness is a major goal. 37% said helping seniors age in place was a buy their own home if they tried to do it today. top goal. 37% said helping people live near their jobs was an important ! goal. 64% of survey respondents are pretty happy about where they are living ! now. 20% ready to move if they can afford it. The top purposes identified for affordable housing are: 69% housing for ! working families; 56% entry level rental options; 52% Homeless housing 80% of those contemplating moving in the future are focused on quality of options; 51% senior housing, first time home buyer and general home life and cost. Some mentioned work, changes in relationship status, a ownership options. desire for something new (e.g. warmer weather, country living) as driving ! their desire to move. 84% believe that affordable housing is an important issue and 86% believe ! it is important that people living in their community now can continue to live Safety (19%), Affordability (16%), Schools (15%), and Employment options/ there into the future. jobs (11%) are seen as the top public priorities. ! ! 46% of respondents think others in their community are worried that 40% live where they are due to quality of life, 31% for cost/affordability affordable housing will hurt their home values. 36% think their neighbors reasons, and 28% because it is close to work. Others indicated they live believe affordable housing should be somewhere else. where they do so they can live near family and friends; the need for a larger ! or smaller house; a change in their relationship status (married, single, etc.); 31% of respondents think others in their community want to live in a place retirement; eviction; safety; a desire for something different (e.g. rural living); with a range of housing options. needing a place for dogs; needing a place for kids, and; that their previous ! rental building had been sold. 31% of respondents think there is modest interest in affordable housing ! issues amongst their neighbors. 80% see community sustainability as an important value, including making ! sure a broad range of people can live in a community (50%), a sense of 34% are concerned that lost affordability will make it harder to fill jobs in the social justice (44%), protecting community assets (36%), ensuring people community and that grow up in the community can live there (36%) and about 33% ! identifying clean water and mass transit as important for sustainability. 32% are concerned that lost affordability will contribute to increased traffic ! and congestion. Others, when asked about lost affordability, brought up concerns about ! gentrification, increased foreclosures, increased homelessness, 49% believe families with children need the most help with affordable segregation, and longer commutes. housing. 45% say the homeless. 39% say entry-level workers. 37% say ! seniors. ! ! Feedback on Purpose and Value of Affordable Housing Why is affordable housing important? ! !(summary of written responses) The top goal identified for affordable housing was making sure people have • It is needed to attract and keep community diversity and talent; we choices about where they live (62%). 48% said affordable housing is need housing for people that work in and contribute to our necessary to help their community thrive. 41% said the ending community.
179 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 49 of 55 • It is important to have options for people to buy housing so they can Why is it important for people to be able to continue to live in their put down roots and become a part of the community. current community? • Important to attract and retain young people who contribute to (summary of written responses) workforce and put down roots. ! • People shouldn’t have to be homeless. • A stable community should have a mix of people, talent, • People should be able to live near where they work. backgrounds. • It is an important part of dealing with congestion and sprawl. • Family and community stability require people to have the ability to • Because many of us could need a different housing option at some live in their community for a long time. point. • To prevent/slow gentrification. • Housing is critical to a person’s ability to work and get ahead. • The residents are the character and most valuable assets of a • People should have housing choices. community. • To attract new families to an area and to create safe places for • Contributes to strong neighborhoods; long term residents are more children to grow up. civically active. • Single parents need affordable places to raise their families. • If people don’t think they can keep living in a place, they are less • So our children can move back and live where they grew up. likely to help improve it or to participate in civic life. • It is a human right. Social justice is a core community value. • I want to stay in my community. • It helped me. • Helps promote pride in the community; community roots get stronger • People deserve a safe, clean place to live. the longer somebody lives in a place. • A strong community should not exclude low-income people. • People should be able to stay in a community they enjoy. • A strong community has people from all backgrounds and economic • Fairness. levels. • Contributes to community balance and sustainability; community is • People with developmental disabilities and mental illness should have based on long-term relationships and shared experiences. places to live in a community. • Stability helps contribute to economic base of a community. • The new housing being built is too expensive. • A true community should support people at every stage in their life; • People shouldn’t be priced out of their communities/homes/ Aging in place is important. apartments. ! • It is very hard to find a place to live (especially in Ann Arbor). What is quality of life? • Ownership opportunities are too limited for folks; there are not (summary of written responses) enough affordable choices. ! • People shouldn’t have to choose between food and rent. • A safe and well maintained neighborhood. • It is hard to save to buy a home if you can barely afford your own • A place you can safely walk around; the ability to walk places. rent. This makes it hard to climb the economic ladder. • Quiet. • We don’t have enough options for seniors to live in. • Access to parks & green space. Trees and grass. • Affordable housing in Ann Arbor would increase access to good • Neighborhood with kids & sense of community. schools. • Great neighbors. ! • Civic pride. ! • Grocery stores. ! • Access to arts and culture and entertainment. ! • Transportation options (walking, biking, transit). ! • Access to health care. ! • Access to friends. • Access to farmer’s markets and local food choices and local farmers.
180 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 50 of 55 • Access to libraries. • Affordable housing needs to include ownership options, not just • Good schools nearby. rental. • Diversity. • Ownership is important. Co-ops could be a good form of ownership • Time to spend with friends and family. to encourage. • Quality landlords that are available and provide good customer • Rental and purchase options mixed together. service. • Opportunity for long-term living to put down roots in the community. • Access to restaurants. • Should encourage personal responsibility, growth and ownership. • Vibrancy and activity. • Co-housing options should be explored. ! ! What should affordable housing look like? Regional Coordination + Balance (summary of written responses) ! ! 88% of respondents believe that communities should provide a range of • Safe. housing options and types for their residents. • Clean and well cared for. • Well-built. ! 65% don’t think there is a fair distribution of housing types in the county. • Need to fix derelict buildings. 41% would like to see more opportunities for people to live where they • Affordable housing should be energy efficient. work. 29% wants to see more balance of housing affordability options. • Close to good schools. 19% wants to see more affordable entry-level housing options. • It should allow people to have disposable income for other needs. • It needs to be transportation and transit accessible (need more of ! this). 65% of respondents believe that their community should provide a range of ownership and rental options and need to do more to make this happen. • A part of a stable community. 21% think their community is already doing enough. • It should ensure people have choices as to where they can live. • Close to work. Affordable homes should be within two miles of a job. ! 83% would like to see coordination between jurisdictions on affordable • It should be in mixed-income settings. [very strong comments about not segregating housing types]. housing issues, but only 9% think this coordination is already happening. • Must be compatible with surrounding neighborhood; Should look like ! the other housing that is near it. 45% believe different areas of the county currently have different roles with regard to affordable housing… • There should be a range of housing types in every neighborhood for different life stages. ! What does that mean? • Denser urban areas with greater mix of housing price points. (summary of written responses) • It should not be concentrated; it should be integrated & blended throughout community. ! • Clearly some areas have more affordable housing than others; all • Smaller scale housing units that are more affordable. areas should have affordable housing - there shouldn’t be a “poor” • It should provide options for families. We need more family sized housing. area. • Ann Arbor has more subsidized housing, but outside areas are more • Options for working families and retirees. affordable. • Avoid city-owned housing; focus on private-ownership rental. • Ann Arbor should do more. It has become very expensive. • Explore market-based affordability rather than government subsidies; zoning and density should be tied to market-based affordability. • Ann Arbor needs to focus more on making housing affordable for working people.
181 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 51 of 55 • Ann Arbor provides a lot of services, but other areas of the county • Areas with the most transit and services should support the most have greater numbers of people with needs. affordable housing. • All of the new development in Ann Arbor is high-end and expensive • The County is balanced overall. for people to afford. • The decisions about balance should depend on each community’s • There are options, but not enough. unique needs. • Ypsilanti seems to be more diverse and affordable than Ann Arbor. ! • Ypsilanti houses a disproportionate amount of the county's affordable ! housing. What does “fair” mean with regard to affordable housing distribution? • Ypsilanti isn’t as supportive of new affordable housing as other areas. (summary of written responses) • It appears that some think Ypsilanti should solve everybody else’s ! affordable housing and workforce needs. • Every jurisdiction has a role in helping provide the region’s housing • Rentals are concentrated in the eastern end of the county. needs for all income levels; each community has some reasonable • Ypsi/Eastern Washtenaw generally has enough affordable housing degree of diversity of housing options and price points. and need to focus on stabilizing neighborhoods, fixing the public • No one community (or two) should have to bear a disproportionate schools and getting people good jobs, and encouraging home share of low income housing; over concentration isn’t fair. investment. • We should have a fair distribution of tax base so lower cost, lower tax • Service needs are concentrated in the eastern end of the county. producing properties are not concentrated in one area. • Western Washtenaw, Chelsea and Dexter in particular, are fast • Ann Arbor, Saline, Dexter and Chelsea should play more of a role. becoming retirement centers for wealthy baby boomers & should • We should work to distribute rents/housing choices based on maybe start thinking about affordability now while space is still average wages in an area. available. • If 20% of the jobs in a town pay poverty-level wages, then 20% of • Urban areas have a greater role to play due to proximity to jobs and the homes in the town should be affordable to those workers who transit; the more urban an area is, the more important affordable live in poverty. housing is for workforce needs. • Housing should be available within a 45 minute commute to work or • If you have employment, you should have housing near it. less. • There should be a variety of people and hosing everywhere; • If you can be employed in a community, you should be able to live everybody has a role to make sure people have housing options. there. • Some areas of county are very expensive; wealthier areas of county • Minimum wage should enable you to find housing that is safe and should do more. clean. • Some areas of county have disproportionate share of housing • Teachers, firefighters, police officers should all be able to live in the vouchers. community they work in. • Need more transit services to support housing options for people. • You should not have to earn 6 figures to live in the community. • We need a regional approach rather than each jurisdiction having a • Paying a fair rent (30% of income) different model. • We need more affordable options near transit lines. • Every community needs a health triple bottom line--socially, • More opportunities for families with kids. economically and environmentally--to become truly sustainable. • People shouldn’t have to choose between good schools for their kids • Diversity is not spread evenly throughout the county - the county and affordability; the best schools should be available to all seems very segregated in terms of housing. communities • Less dense areas are pushing the more urban areas to cover the • People should have a chance to get on their feet, but should not get needs for affordable housing. a free ride. • Some places are trying to ban affordable housing. • People should have a chance to live in a community and get ahead.
182 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 52 of 55 • People shouldn’t get special deals based on their income — fair is • Public housing projects raised as being unsafe while others talked everybody pays the same for the same house. about how vouchers work and that more are needed (and they • Ex-felons should have a chance to re-start their lives should be accepted in more places). • Elderly and disabled should be able to live in their community. • Co-ops do work. • Every community should provide a certain amount of housing options • USDA Rural Homeowners Program. for those with disabilities, senior citizens, and the poor because that • Strong comments about the value of mixed-income development (we is the decent thing to do. don’t want segregated areas). • We should have either a "fair share" housing provision (each local unit • Rent controls like in NYC. provides a percentage of the region's affordable housing equal to its • Concerns raised about effectiveness of developer contributions and percentage of the region's total population) or an "impact fee" small projects to impact market forces. approximation of such a system, in which units that don't provide • Increase housing first funding. housing units provide financial support to those who do. • Should offer tax incentives so people can live closer to work. • There should be a sliding scale of income to rent payment. • Inclusionary zoning (mentioned a few times to help create mixed- • Housing choices should take into account all aspects of a persons income housing options). life. Look at poverty issues and disability issues that affect a person's • Fair share housing (per-community). income. • Twin Cities Fiscal Disparity Act / tax-base sharing -- in part, ! approximates a per-community payment-in-lieu fair share housing ! system; regional shift in property tax revenues from communities with What affordable housing policies and programs are you most familiar high taxable value per capita to those with low, so that cities hosting with? more low-income residents (and low taxable-value housing) can (summary of written responses) address the service needs they have. ! • Tenant right of first refusal. • Low income tax credits (some would like them to allow for more • There are few programs to help seniors. mixed income projects). • Should have local land trusts to hold land to help with affordability. • Community Development Block Grant Funds. • Housing first policies. • HOME Funds. • Should have a larger housing trust fund. • Section 8 Vouchers (frequently mentioned, many concerned about • Shared Tax District between jurisdictions to address infrastructure concentrating poverty or concerns about being bad neighbors, many and housing needs. also say they work when they are available but that they are not • Some concerns about concentrated low income housing in Ypsilanti. available in all communities or usable with all land-lords and the • Concerns about low income tax credit projects expiring and people waiting lists are too long). being priced out. • Habitat for Humanity (most commonly sited) people want to see it • MSHDA downpayment assistance program helps homebuyers with used more. the substantial financial burden of the downpayment on a mortgage. • Avalon (mentioned multiple times as needing more support, as • Plan to end homelessness needs to be updated. providing good supportive services). • Concerns about subsidized housing producing dependency. • RAAH. • Step Forward Michigan. • Shelter Association. • Interfaith Hospitality Network. • Ann Arbor Housing Commission. • Some think the focus should be on education not on housing. • Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti Housing Authorities. • Some want “granny-flat” rental options • HOPE 6. • Hamilton Crossing pointed to as a good project. • Delonis and Alpha House. Need more of these and mental health services.
183 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 53 of 55 • Water street • Affordable 3 bedroom purchase options/starter homes. • 1st ave • More infill housing. • Paradise manor • More housing for non-students in Ann Arbor. • University Townhouses • Less low income housing in Ypsilanti. • Arrowwood mentioned a few times as a good project • Something near Chelsea that is affordable. ! • Change state law to allow inclusionary zoning. ! • Expand incentives for developers to include affordability benefits in What would you do for affordable housing if you could do anything? market-rate housing developments. (summary of written responses) • Increased government investment/subsidy. ! • Expand Ann Arbor’s housing trust fund. • New, denser mixed use and mixed income development near all • Rebuild all current public housing. transit lines in region. • Eliminate housing waiting list. • Increase affordability in downtown areas with the most walkability, • More options for use of section 8 vouchers. jobs and transit • Expanded voucher program for more people at a range of income • Allow for more density. levels. • Have a mix of housing in every neighborhood; balance in thee region. • Increase use of habitat for humanity. • Provide more home ownership options. • Provide vouchers targeted for senior citizens. • Prevent sprawl; halt all development on agricultural land. • More housing re-habitation funds for seniors and others. • Stop McMansions. • More support services (mental health, social workers, jobs programs) • Increase housing supply along key corridors, including both subsidize for people in subsidized housing. and market-rate housing. • Make sure people living in subsidized housing take care of their • Don’t allow developers to tear down modestly-priced housing. homes. • Stop building luxury apartments. • Increase subsidized housing options for working - poor with • Don’t segregate or concentrate — integrate. incentives for them to maintain their units. • Expand transit routes (have more buses to and fro Chelsea, Dexter, • Help people with underwater mortgages. Canton and add Saline) • Lower taxes. • Make sure all affordable housing looks nice and is something we can • Continue building the Sister Yvonne Gelise Fund for Supportive be proud of. Services. • Make units small so they are more affordable (e.g. 800 sq ft); make • Reclaim abandoned properties for affordable housing. Use housing sure zoning allows smaller homes (e.g. more affordable) funds to buy up low cost housing and work with habitat for humanity • Make all affordable housing energy efficient. to then re-sell it; Take over all vacant properties fix them up. • Support small, modest apartment units/buildings throughout the • Bring in more outside capital to the area to invest in housing choices. urban areas. • Put less money into housing first and more into first time home- • Allow ADUs in Ann Arbor. buyers and workforce housing needs. • Provide more starter homes for young families. • Increase the living wage in county. • More rental options for young professionals just starting. • More job training so people could work and afford housing; attract • More affordable first time home buyer options. more jobs to area. • House young families with seniors so the seniors can help with the • Provide more security in neighborhoods with a lot of affordable/public kids housing. • More co-ops. • Provide rent to own housing options. • More senior housing options. • Develop rent control policies. • Affordable 2 bedroom apartments. • More Avalons.
184 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 54 of 55 • Work collectively as a region; create a region-wide plan. • We need them to stop building luxury housing — they are only • County-wide affordable housing trust fund paid for through millage. focused on expensive homes and condos. • Create a community/regional panel to oversee these issues on a • They need to put more work into making inexpensive housing look regional scale. good. • Create some sort of income metrics to guide plans. • They are only focused on profit, so their profits should be tied to • End homelessness. affordability. • More safe shelters, especially for women and children. • They are not building mixed income and mixed use buildings that we • Improve options for Camp Take Notice. want • More emergency housing options. • We need more Avalon’s. • Just let the market due what it does - don’t try to control it. • We need inclusionary zoning. • Work with private investors instead of government. • Should require smaller homes integrated with larger, more expensive • Remove the fear and bias from this issue - eliminate the stigma. ones. • Make sure everybody could find a place to live. • Unless they are forced to, they won’t do it. • Working people, seniors, vets, families all deserve places to live. • They should have to build on transit and infrastructure corridors… • Make sure everybody has access to a great education. stop sprawl. • Make sure everybody has access to healthy, local, foods • Need to build more small, starter homes. • More housing options, with services, for people with mental illness. • When developers do try to build affordable housing, the community ! opposes it and/or it is struck down by the local government; ! developers need confidence their affordable projects have a fair shot 70% think developers should do more to help with affordable housing… to move forward. ! • Ann Arbor’s extra floor space premiums for developers have not What does that mean? been working. (summary of written responses) • Zoning restrictions make it hard for developers toe expand housing ! supply and thus impact supply and demand pressures. • They need to set aside more units as affordable. • Developers focus a lot on the student market, not the workforce • There should be more incentives for developers to create affordable market. ! housing.
185 ©2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, czbLLC 55 of 55