decisions as to location and design of subdivisions, and the adequacy of public
..... Schools. The tennis courts and baseball fields at the High. School were also ...
CITY OF GREENVILLE
2012 MASTER PLAN
VERIFICATION OF ADOPTION BY CITY COUNCIL I hereby certify that the 2012 Master Plan for the City of Greenville was duly adopted by the Greenville City Council on _________________________2012. _________________________________ Bradley Hool, Clerk City of Greenville
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
2012 City of Greenville Master Plan
The preparation of the City of Greenville Master Plan involved the contributions of community leaders and residents. In particular, the efforts of the following individuals is acknowledged and greatly appreciated:
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS John Hoppough, Mayor Jeanne Cunliffe, Mayor Pro-Tem Mark Lehman Larry Moss Brian Greene Frances Schuleit Lloyd Scoby
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS Dave Ralph, Chairman Mike Gustin, Vice-chairman Ron Blanding Linda Collins Jack Corner Jeanne Cunliffe Brian Greene Dale Reyburn Greg VanderMark
City Manager George Bosanic Assistant City Manager Cameron VanWyngarden
PLAN ADOPTED November 6, 2012 Prepared with the assistance of MainStreet Planning Company Maps by City of Greenville and Progressive AE
TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER
PAGE NUMBER
INTRODUCTION Authority to Create the Plan Use of the Plan Preparation of the Plan
CHAPTER 1
1 1 2 3
COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION
Location Government & Services Public Safety Public Services Department Water System Wastewater System Wellhead Protection Parks and Recreation Streets and Transportation Arterial Streets Public Transit Greenville Municipal Airport The Greenerville Initiative Downtown Development Authority Fred Meijer Flat River Trail Michigan Historic District Demographics Population Housing Income and Employment Schools National Guard Armory Medical Facilities
5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 10 13 13 15 17 20 20 20
CHAPTER 2
22 22 23 24 26
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Survey SWOT-Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats Community Workshops Common Issues of Survey, SWOT, & Workshop Results
CHAPTER 3
GOALS AND STRATEGIES
Economic Development Goal Community Character Goal Residential Goal Commercial Goal Industrial Goal Transportation Goal Recreation Goal Natural Resources Goal Cooperation with Adjacent Communities Goal Community Involvement Goal
CHAPTER 4
LAND USE PLANNING ANALYSIS
Existing Land Use Land Use Changes Land Use vs. Zoning Other Land Use Matters -Spectrum Health United Memorial Hospital - Montcalm Community College - Complete Streets Analysis Land Use Planning in Eureka Township
CHAPTER 5
FUTURE LAND USE
Future Land Use Categories Future Streets Recommendations from 2005 Plan Joint Development Plan with Eureka Township
CHAPTER 6 IMPLEMENTATION Zoning Rezoning Evaluation Factors Zoning Plan Zoning Ordinance Recommendations Action Steps to Implement the Plan Recommendations for Complete Streets Capital Improvement Plans Planning Commission Work Plan Planning Commission Education Revisions to the Plan
28 28 29 30 31 32 32 33 33 34 34 36 37 37 38 41 41 42 43 45 48 48 56 56 56 57 57 58 59 59 60 62 63 63 63 64
Tables Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6
Population Change 1970-2010 Ages of City Population 2000 & 2010 Housing and Household by Type Value of Owner-Occupied Units Income and Employment Occupations
Appendices 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Fred Meijer Flat River Trail Map Survey Summary Existing Land Use Maps Trail and Bike Lane Map Lafayette /Flat River Re-Development Concept 2005 Plan Future Land Use Maps and Recommendations 2008 Joint Development Plan with Eureka Township City Official Zoning Map Future Land Use Map
13 14 16 17 18 19
INTRODUCTION
AUTHORITY TO CREATE THE PLAN The City of Greenville Master Plan has been prepared by the City Planning Commission under the provisions of the Michigan Planning Enabling Act, Public Act 33 of 2008, as amended. The Planning Act authorizes municipalities to prepare and adopt a plan for the following purposes:
To promote the public health, safety, and general welfare; To encourage the use of resources in accordance with their character and adaptability; To avoid overcrowding of the land by buildings and people; To lessen congestion on public roads and streets; To facilitate a transportation system, sewage disposal, safe and adequate water supply, recreation and other public improvements; and, To consider the character and suitability of land for particular uses.
Although the Master Plan has no regulatory power, it states specific land development and preservation goals. These goals are intended to guide both the Planning Commission and the City Council in making both dayto-day and long-range land use decisions. This Master Plan has been developed based upon several factors: the existing natural and cultural resources of the City; current land use trends; the need for different types of land use including industrial and commercial uses; and the desired community character as expressed through work sessions with local officials, numerous community values discovery workshops, and a community-wide survey. State law requires that each community shall review its Master Plan every five years, and determine whether the plan should be amended or a new plan adopted. The City of Greenville has chosen to adopt a new Master Plan, which addresses land use policy for at least the next five years, and at the end of that period the Plan should be reviewed to determine whether its’ stated goals and policies need to be revised.
1
USE OF THE PLAN The Master Plan serves as a tool for decision making by providing information and rationale for land use decisions. The Master Plan does not contain a specific time frame or timetable for the development of City lands as recommended on the Future Land Use Map. Development takes place as land owners seek rezoning and as developers request approval of plans for residential, commercial, and industrial projects in response to market demands. The Master Plan does not dictate the timing of development but rather the Plan sets forth recommendations for what type of land uses can be established in the City, where they can be established and under what conditions they can be established. In particular, the Plan will assist local officials in the following:
Review of rezonings and special use permits. Applications for rezonings and special use permits should be evaluated not only in terms of specific ordinance standards but also in terms of how well the proposed action will be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Master Plan.
Review of public improvement projects. All future public improvement projects, including the construction of new facilities, utilities, or buildings must first be reviewed by the Planning Commission for consistency with the Master Plan, according to PA 33 of 2008. In particular, any public improvement project must be reviewed to see whether it is consistent with the planned future land use pattern in the City. Public improvements projects include roads, public safety facilities, parks and recreation facilities, utilities, and any other public space, building, or structure.
Review of plats and site condominiums. Site condominium divisions and traditional land divisions have a profound impact upon the character of a community and future public service needs. The Master Plan provides policies to assist the Planning Commission with decisions as to location and design of subdivisions, and the adequacy of public services to meet the increase in demand placed upon the community by the land use intensity of site condominiums and platted subdivisions. Policies for subdivision of land apply not only to residential land use, but to commercial and industrial land use as well.
2
The Master Plan does not dictate the timing of development.
Maintaining community character while managing growth. Each community has a vision for its future, and a sense for the desired character. However, growth is inevitable in a thriving community. The Master Plan, more than any other document, provides direction for City officials in managing growth while retaining the desired community character, and providing the best quality of life possible for current and future residents.
Providing a legal framework for zoning actions. The Michigan Zoning Enabling Act requires that zoning regulations be “based upon a plan.” (MCL 125.3203) A City’s zoning actions and regulations are generally viewed favorably by the courts provided that such actions and regulations are not deemed to be “arbitrary and capricious.” By providing adequate support for zoning decisions, the Master Plan therefore serves as the legal backbone of the zoning ordinances and helps to protect zoning decisions made by the Planning Commission, the City Council, and the Zoning Board of Appeals
Providing consistency of process. This Plan is a very strong and visible statement by City officials and residents regarding the intended future character of the community and strategies to assure that character. As a formal and tangible document this Plan instills a sense of stability and direction for City officials, activities, and residents, and helps assure that each application for development is reviewed according to the same set of criteria.
PREPARATION OF THE MASTER PLAN The Master Plan process began on November 30, 2010 when the Greenville City Council and Planning Commission conducted a brainstorming session to determine the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) for the City. This SWOT session constituted the beginning of identifying the community issues affecting preparation of the Plan. The issues and topics arising from the SWOT also were useful in preparing questions for the citizen survey.
A total of 157 surveys were returned. A “SWOT”, a Community Values Discovery Workshop and six mobile workshops were held with community officials and stakeholders.
Other survey questions were prepared by the Master Plan Committee made up of four Planning Commissioners which met in December 2010 and in January of 2011. The survey was launched in February of 2011 and the results are described in Chapter 3. Additional public input was obtained from a Community Values Workshop held at the Greenville Community Center on February 24th and by a series of mobile workshops facilitated by Planning Commissioners. These mobile workshops were held with the Coalition 3
of Greater Greenville, the Rotary Club, the Lions Club, the Downtown Development Authority, the Women’s Action Network, and the Greenville High School A.P. Government class. In addition, the CEO of Spectrum Health United Memorial Hospital met with the Planning Commission on June 23, 2011 to present and discuss plans for the future of the Hospital. Results of these workshops are contained in Chapter 3. Planning Commissioners continued preparing the Plan at their regular meetings throughout 2011 and 2012. A work session was held with the City Council to present and discuss the Draft Plan on March 13, 2012. The Draft Plan was then sent to adjoining communities for their comments in accordance with the Michigan Planning Enabling Act. The Planning Commission held its public hearing on the Draft Plan on June 14, 2012 and recommended approval to the City Council on July 26, 2012. The City Council held a public hearing on September 4, 2012 and formally adopted the Master Plan on November 6, 2012.
4
CHAPTER 1 COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION
LOCATION The City of Greenville is located in the southern portion of Montcalm County, approximately 20 miles northeast of the City of Grand Rapids in Kent County and six miles north of the City of Belding in Ionia County. The city is comprised of approximately 5.5 square miles of land. Eureka Township is adjacent to the City on all sides.
GOVERNMENT AND SERVICES The City of Greenville is a Council/Manager form of government. The City Council is comprised of a Mayor and six council members. The Mayor serves a one-year term of office and is elected by the six Council members. The Council members are elected at-large to serve overlapping four-year terms. The Council has policymaking and legislative authority and they appoint the City Manager, who is charged with the administration of city business in accordance with Council decisions. The manger has the authority to appoint and supervise all employees and is responsible for the development of the annual budget. In addition to a City Manager, the city employs a staff of approximately 75 full-time and 16 part-time employees that include Assistant to the City Manager, Parks and Recreation Director, Engineer, Clerk-Treasurer, Assessor, Engineer, and Administrative personnel among others. Public Safety The City of Greenville Department of Public Safety oversees 16 full time cross trained police and fire officers, 17 volunteer firefighters, four police reserve officers, several crossing guards, and administrative staff. The Public Safety Department provides police and fire protection for the City of Greenville and the surrounding area.
5
Public Services Department The Public Services Department is a full service, local government agency providing operation and maintenance for a variety of public utilities and facilities. The Staff is made up of 17 full time employees, and one part-time employee, and includes mechanics, maintenance workers, drinking water distribution system operators, and supervisors. Water System The City of Greenville Drinking Water Distribution System uses ground water as the source of supply. The ground water is pumped from seven (7) wells in a central well field located on the Southeast side of the City. All seven of the wells are pumping from a single aquifer. The water system has a capacity of 6,200,000 gallons per day and an average of 2,615,000 gallons per day. The system is primarily used by residential customers and has a low number of commercial users. Rates are collected quarterly. The City has applied for stimulus funds through the State of Michigan Drinking Water Revolving Fund for several needed improvements to the distribution system. Wastewater System The City of Greenville maintains its own secondary wastewater treatment plant, and has treated water since the 1930’s. The present treatment plant was built in 1960 and was expanded in 1970. The wastewater system has a capacity of 3,750,000 gallons per day and an average of 1,100,000 gallons per day.
6
Well Head Protection The City participates in the Michigan Wellhead Protection Program to help protect the City’s municipal water supply from contamination that may compromise the health and safety of residents. Following is a graphic showing the wellhead protection area.
Wellhead Protection Area-City of Greenville
Parks and Recreation The City of Greenville’s Parks and Recreation Department offers a wide variety of parks and recreation opportunities for residents and guests of the community. The mission of this department is to provide a balance of recreation activities for persons of all ages and ability and to meet the diverse interests of all community members in the Greater Greenville Area while emphasizing physical and mental health, inclusion, self-improvement, teamwork and fun. The Parks and Recreation Department has a full-time Director of Parks and Recreation, over 150 part-time employees throughout the year as well as numerous volunteers. The City currently has 10 public parks with total land acreage of approximately 140 acres. The City is also home to the Fred Meijer Flat River Trail. City parks are available from April through October 31st. The 7
Parks and Recreation Department prepares a Community Recreation Plan, updating it every five years in order to remain eligible for grant funding through the State of Michigan. The current Recreation Plan is for the period 2011 to 2016.
STREETS AND TRANSPORTATION Arterial Streets M-57 is a state trunk line that runs through the center of the City from east to west. It is primarily a rural, two lane highway that crosses the south central Lower Peninsula beginning at U.S. 131 and ending at M-15 near Otisville. M-57 connects Greenville directly to three major interstate freeways and several small to medium sized towns across the state. As M-57 passes through the City of Greenville its name designation is Washington Street. In 2009, traffic along M-57 west of the City of Greenville had an annual average 24-hour traffic count of 13,100 vehicles per day. East of the City M-57 had an annual average 24-hour traffic count of 6,500 vehicles per day. M-91 is a state trunk line that runs through the center of the City from north to south. It is primarily a rural, two lane highway that crosses through Ionia and Montcalm Counties in the south central Lower Peninsula beginning at M-44 near Belding and ending at M-46 near Lakeview. M-91 connects Greenville to three other state trunk lines and other small to medium sized towns in the region. As M-91 passes through the City of Greenville its name designation is Lafayette Street. In 2009, traffic along M-91 north of the City of Greenville had an annual average 24-hour traffic count of 6,500 vehicles per day. South of the City M-91 had an annual average 24-hour traffic count of 7,900 vehicles per day. All of these roadway segments are currently operating at acceptable levels of service for daily traffic volume. However, if traffic volumes grow, additional roadway improvements may be warranted. As a general rule, if 24-hour service volumes approach 15,000+ and 30,000+ vehicles per day for the two lane and four lane portions respectively, roadway design should be evaluated. Public Transit The Greenville Transit System is an “on demand” service that operates within the city limits of Greenville with limited service to the surrounding area. 8
Greenville Municipal Airport The Greenville Municipal Airport is located approximately two miles south of Greenville on M-91. It is a General Utility Airport, servicing light and medium aircraft, and includes a 4,199 feet long by 75 feet wide paved, lighted runway and parallel taxi way. The airport provides charter services, commercial delivery services, airplane storage, flying lessons, and airplane maintenance facilities. The airport is operated privately by the City of Greenville.
THE GREENERVILLE INITIATIVE The City of Greenville has teamed with Uni-Solar and the Greenville Public Schools to install solar systems at municipal and school buildings throughout the City in a project called “Greenerville.” This collaborative effort will install solar panels, manufactured by Uni-Solar in Greenville, on municipal and school facilities. The solar panels are expected to produce 15 to 20 percent of their energy needs. The city and school system are paying for these solar panel systems with state and federal funds, low-interest bonds, and renewable energy incentives from Consumers Energy.
DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
The mission of the DDA is to develop and implement a collaborative plan to create and sustain a viable commercial district in Greenville. The DDA currently has five goals outlined in the plan; the five strategic goals include development of a space use plan, a property improvement plan, a communication plan, a marketing plan, and a district theme and identity. The goals of the DDA have been considered in preparing the Master Plan. A map of the DDA boundaries is on page 11.
FRED MEIJER TRIAL The Fred Meijer Flat River Trail is a 6.5 mile paved path, including bridges and boardwalks that connect 2 mountain bike trails and 5 major parks in the City of Greenville. A tunnel running under the M57 highway safely connects trail users to the rest of the path and includes a museum containing a time-line of Greenville’s history created by local artists. Another 3 miles can be added by circling Baldwin Lake, which features a public beach.
9
The Trail winds along the beautiful Flat River, connecting people with many natural resources, such as unique views of the Flat River, transitional forest, and wetlands. The trail provides convenient access to a variety of cultural opportunities, like Concerts in the Park and Community Center events, downtown shopping, historic sites, the Flat River Museum and Greenville Public School facilities. Funding for the trail came through grants from the Meijer Foundation, Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund, Michigan Department of Transportation, the City of Greenville, and other private sources. See a map of the trail in the Appendix.
DOWNTOWN GREENVILLE, MICHIGAN HISTORIC DISTRICT. The City of Greenville in October of 2009 created an historic district for downtown Greenville generally along Lafayette Street from Benton Street north to the Flat River, east to Clay Street and west to Franklin Street. Downtown Greenville is historically significant because it includes a number of commercial and institutional buildings which embody the distinctive characteristics of the period from 1870 through the 1940s. The proposed historic district is comprised of 84 properties, of which 59 (70.2%) are contributing (meaning they are of historical significance) and 25 are non-contributing. The map on page 12 illustrates the boundaries of the district.
10
11
12
DEMOGRAPHICS Population The population of the City of Greenville has increased by 546 people between 2000 and 2010. Neighboring Eureka Township and Montcalm County also had an increase in population during that period of time. Table 1 illustrates population changes from 1970 through 2010 for the City, Eureka Township, and Montcalm County. Table 2 illustrates the percentage of the population in each age group. Since the year 2000, some changes have occurred in ages of the population in the City; persons in the 20-44 years age group have decreased from 35% of the population to 33%; persons in the 45-64 years age group have increased from 19% to 23%; persons in the 65-84 years age group have decreased from 14% to 12%. The shift in age groups shows that younger families make up less of the population, and those likely to be retired make up less of the population, while those in the middle years have increased in number. While Greenville may be attractive to fewer young families and persons, those who are in their middle years yet still likely to be in need of employment are remaining in the area.
Table 1: Population change from 1970-2010 City of Greenville, Eureka Township, and Montcalm County
Community 1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
Number % Change Change +546 6.8%
City of 7,493 8,019 8,101 7,935 8,481 Greenville Eureka 1,938 2,303 2,594 3,271 3,959 +688 Township Montcalm 39,660 47,555 53,059 61,277 63,342 +2,065 County Source: US Census Bureau, Census 2010
21% 3.4%
13
Table 2: Ages of Population 2010 & 2000 City of Greenville
Age of Population 2010 3% 8%
12%
Under 5 Years 5-19 Years
21%
20-44 Years
23%
45-64 Years 65-84 Years 33%
85 and Over
Source: US Census Bureau, Census 2010
Age of Population, 2000
65-84 years 14% 45-64 years 19%
85 and Over 3%
Under 5 years 8%
Under 5 years 5-19 years 20-44 years
5-19 years 21% 20-44 years 35%
45-64 years 65-84 years 85 and Over
Source: US Census Bureau Census 2000 A comparison of the above pie graphs shows that several age groups have changed: The 20-44 age group which represents the child bearing cohort decreased slightly from 35 to 33 % of the City population meaning there could be fewer school age children in the future; The 45- 64 age group increased 4 % from 19 to 23% while the 65 to 84 age group decreased from 14 to 12 %. All other age groups remained constant. The increase in the 4564 age group could signify a greater percentage moving toward retirement 14
age meaning leisure time activities and services for a maturing population may be more in demand over the next decade.
Housing The total number of housing units in the City increased by 255 units since the year 2000. Between 2000 and 2010, rental housing in Greenville increased by 4.6 % (from 38.4% of total housing units to 43.0%). Vacant units increased by 2.5%, (from 7.5 % to 9.5%). The majority of housing units constructed since the year 2000 were built within the Hathaway Green Planned Unit Development located in the western portion of the City south of the Meijer store. A total of 541 dwellings were approved in 2004 with a mix of single family detached and multi-family attached units. Family households make up the majority of total households in the City, (2,138) but a fairly significant portion of households are non-family (1,326). This proportion has not changed significantly since the year 2000. The US Census Bureau defines a non-family household as persons living in a household with non-relatives, or by themselves. In Greenville, approximately one-half of householders living alone are age 65 years and older. The remainder of non-family householders may be young singles, or those living with a roommate to whom they are not related nor married. This data may point to increased planning for future land uses to retain young singles or to suit the needs of singles over age 65. Mixed uses, walkability, as well as spaces for cultural events will assist in retaining these demographic groups. Average household and family sizes have increased only slightly. In summary, while the family and non-family composition of the City has remained fairly constant over the last decade. The number of rental units makes up a significant portion of the City’s housing units, and this has increased over the last decade. The owner to renter ratio in 2010 was 57 percent to 43 percent. By contrast the City of Kentwood in Kent County has a ratio of about 70 percent ownership to 30 percent rental while the City of Ionia in Ionia County has a ratio of 56 percent ownership to 46 percent rental Vacant units have also increased, which could be a result of the economic conditions in Michigan where a significant number of home foreclosures have occurred.
15
Table 3 Housing and Household by Type City of Greenville Total Households (Occupied Housing 3,464 Percentage Units) Family Households 2,138 61.7% Married Couple 1,345 Families All Types With 1,099 Children Under 18 Years Non-Family 1,326 38.3% Households Average Household 2.39 Persons Size Average Family Size 2.98 Persons Total Housing Units 3,826 Vacant Housing 362 9.5% Units (includes seasonal) Owner Occupied 1,976 57.0% Housing Units Renter Occupied 1,488 43.0% Housing Units Source: US Census Bureau, Census 2010
Table 4 shows the value of owner-occupied housing in the City. The majority of housing in the City is within the $50,000 to $99,999 range, followed closely by the $100,000 to $149,999 range of values. The implication of this data is that housing in this range of values is more likely to be attractive to both current and future residents of Greenville. However, changes in local economies could increase the demand for housing values that exceed $150,000.
16
Table 4 Value of Owner-Occupied Units City of Greenville Number of units for which value was determined: 1,742 Value Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 to $199,999 $200,000 to $499,999 $500,000 to $999,999 $1,000,000 and up Median Value:
Number 165 647 587 215 120 8 0 $103,800
Percentage 9.5% 37.1% 33.7% 12.3% 6.9% 0.5% 0.0% --
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 2005-2009 Income and Employment Table 5 summarizes income and employment data for the City of Greenville and compares it to the same set of data for Montcalm County. While the City of Greenville experienced an unemployment rate of 6.7%, it was slightly lower than the County rate of 8.5%. As of July, 2011, the national unemployment rate stood at 9.2%, while the State of Michigan stood at 10.5%. While the City’s unemployment rate is fairly high, workers in Greenville are faring better than the County, State, or nation as a whole. Continued planning to position the City for future improvements in economic conditions will be reflected in the Future Land Use Plan with goals that address readiness for industrial expansion, mixed use areas to accommodate a range of commercial uses, redevelopment of aging areas, and improvements that draw activity to the downtown core.
17
Table 5 Income and Employment City of Greenville and Montcalm County Greenville Total Population 16 Years and Over -In labor force -Employed -Unemployed
Median Household Income Mean Household Income (average) Median Family Income Mean Family Income (average)
6,157 3,685 3,273 412
Percent
72.6% 59.9% 53.2% 6.7%
Montcalm County
Percent
49,202 30,419 26,217 4,161
77.7% 61.8% 53.3% 8.5%
Greenville
Montcalm County
$31,993
$41,082
$41,028 $37,990
$49,546 $47,292
$47,689 Greenville
$55,648 Montcalm County 3304
Percent
Percent
Families with Poverty 522 24.4% 14.1% Status Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 2005-2009 Table 6 lists occupations of the working population of Greenville by occupation, industry, and class of worker. (Note: The job itself may be within Greenville or outside city boundaries.) Each category groups employment differently, with a total of 3,273 workers reflected in each category. The top two areas that employ the majority of workers are sales and office occupations and manufacturing. The class of worker that employs the majority of people is private wage and salary workers. Since the three categories group employment differently, the data should be examined carefully. While past employment in Greenville was greatly influenced by one or two large local employers, future employment in Greenville will be greatly impacted by regional and state trends in employment and the economy in general. Median household income and mean (average) household income in Greenville are somewhat less than Montcalm County as a whole. Median and mean family incomes are similarly lower. Families with poverty status 18
are significantly higher than that of the County. Explanations for these differences may be one or more of the following: 1) Older cities tend to have lower incomes than suburban areas where higher income earners have located; the County-wide data reflects these suburban areas; 2) Greenville may have been specifically affected by the economic trends of the last three to five years; 3) Older, incorporated areas tend to have a higher percentage of older and retired citizens, who may be living on fixed or reduced incomes.
Table 6 Occupations City of Greenville Civilian Employed Population 16 Years and Over: 3,273 Occupation
Number
Management, professional, and related professions 591 Service occupations 706 Sales and office occupations 952 Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations 45 Construction, extraction, maintenance, and repair occupations 335 Production, transportation, and material moving occupations 644 Industry Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 72 Construction 170 Manufacturing 713 Wholesale trade 76 Retail trade 577 Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 150 Information 9 Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing 172 Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative, and 140 waste management services Educational services, and health care and social assistance 522 Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food 425 services Other services, except public administration 156 Public administration 91 Class of Worker Private wage and salary workers 2,891 Government workers 246 Self-employed in own not incorporated business workers 130 Unpaid family workers 6 Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 2004-2009
19
Percent 18.1% 21.6% 29.1% 1.4% 10.2% 19.7% 2.2% 5.2% 21.8% 2.3% 17.6% 4.6% 0.3% 5.3% 4.3% 15.9% 13.0% 4.8% 2.8% 88.3% 7.55% 4.0% .02%
SCHOOLS Greenville Public Schools are part of the Montcalm Area Intermediate School District. The school district includes the City of Greenville as well as seven surrounding townships in three counties. School buildings located inside the City limits include Greenville High School (picture), Greenville Middle School, Baldwin Heights Elementary, Cedar Crest Elementary, and Walnut Hills Elementary. In 2011 the School District began a number of improvements to schools in the City of Greenville. These included parking lot expansion and repaving, and bus access improvements for the High School, Middle School, Baldwin Heights, Cedar Crest and Walnut Hills Elementary Schools. The tennis courts and baseball fields at the High School were also expanded and upgraded. Montcalm Community College maintains a location in the City. MCC's Michigan Technical Education Center (M-TEC) is located at 1325 Yellow Jacket Drive. This center offers open-entry, open-exit skills training to meet business and industry needs. The M-TEC also houses classrooms, a large conference facility, computer and learning labs and display areas. In 2011 the College submitted plans to construct a new class room building to the east of its current building on property formerly used for the Montcalm County Fair and construction began in 2012 The William J. Seiter Center, a facility of the Montcalm Area Intermediate School District, is located at 1401 East Van Deinse Avenue. This facility offers special education programs as well as vocational training. Private Schools located within the City boundaries include St. Charles Catholic School located at 505 S. Lafayette Street. St. Charles serves students in grades Kindergarten through eighth grade.
NATIONAL GUARD ARMORY The Michigan National Guard Armory is located at 312 S. Hillcrest Street. The Army National Guard has a federal obligation to maintain properly trained and equipped units available for prompt mobilization for war, national emergency, or as otherwise needed. The state mission is to provide trained and disciplined forces for domestic emergencies or as otherwise required by state law.
MEDICAL FACILITIES Spectrum Health United Hospital is located at 615 S. Bower Street. Originally constructed in 1952 it has grown to become one of the largest employers in the City with more than 180 professional staff, 270 clinical 20
staff and 200 medical staff. The hospital provides 65 acute-care beds and 40 long-term-care beds and is the regional health care center for the greater Montcalm County. It provides patient access to physician specialists and sub-specialists, clinical quality, state-of-the-art facilities, and advanced medical and information technology. Several medical clinics are located on nearby Oak Street provide support services. In 2011 the hospital began a $9.61 million construction and renovation project for all outpatient service areas of the hospital, including a new Emergency Department. This expansion also included significant renovations and improvements to patient access (registration) and diagnostic imaging, including a dedicated women's imaging center. Upon completion, the Spectrum Health United Hospital Emergency Department will be named the Stanley and Blanche Ash Emergency Department. The number of yearly emergency room visits at United Hospital has increased from approximately 12,500 visits in 2003 to an expected 30,000 visits by 2012. Spectrum Health United Hospital is part of the Spectrum Health Hospital Group a not-for-profit health system in West Michigan offering a full continuum of care comprised of nine hospitals including Helen DeVos Children’s Hospital, a state of the art children’s hospital that opened in January 2011, and 180 service sites.
21
CHAPTER 2
CITY OF GREENVILLE 2011 CITIZEN SURVEY and PLANNING SESSION
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION In order to prepare a Master Plan which would reflect the needs and desires of the residents of Greenville the Planning Commission sought the opinions of City residents through a citizen survey and through community values discovery workshops.
The Greenville Planning Commission is updating the 2005 Master Plan and is seeking the opinions and comments of Greenville residents and property owners. The Master Plan is your plan for your community! The Planning Commission values your opinions and ideas. Please help us by taking the survey which takes about 5-7 minutes to complete.
SURVEY A total of 146 on-line surveys and 11 paper surveys were completed; the survey and complete results are in the Appendix. Listed below are the responses to several of the survey questions: •
What are the most pressing issues facing the City of Greenville? Unemployment/the economy-86.9% Vacant commercial buildings-80.0%
•
What does the downtown need to better serve the community? More retail stores & restaurants-78.3% Better off-street parking lots-29.4%
•
What would make Greenville a better place to live? More public festivals, concerts, and similar events-83.6% Preserve historic buildings and resources-82.8%
•
What is the best use of the Electrolux property? Mixed use (residential, retail, office, village green)-67.6% City park/boat launch-45.3%
•
What is the best use of the Northland property? City park/boat launch-48.9% Mixed use (residential, retail, office, village green-40.9%
•
Top five most appealing buildings: o Winter Inn
Surveys can be picked up at City Hall, the Library, the Community Center, the Flat River Museum and Jerry’s Paint Store. You can also submit an electronic version of the survey which is available on the Greenville web site at www.greenvillemi.org. Also, Please Plan to Attend the Master Plan Community Values Workshop FEBRUARY 24, 2011
7:00 – 8:30 PM Greenville Community Center 900 East Kent Road Greenville, MI 48838
22
o o o o
Spectrum Hospital & addition Downtown buildings generally Buildings at Cass & Lafayette Buildings at Washington & Lafayette
SWOT-STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES, AND THREATS On November 30th, 2010, the Greenville City Council and the Planning Commission participated in SWOT session, where strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats to the Greenville community were identified and prioritized. While the complete results of the SWOT are found in the appendix, some of the priority items that emerged are as follows: STRENGTHS • Competent & visionary management • Progressive, collaborative, caring and resilient citizens • Strong industrial base. • Strong transportation component; cross roads of two Michigan highways and an airport. • Excellent quality of life: health care, recreation, natural resources, schools, public safety and utilities. OPPORTUNITIES • Variety of cultural opportunities: dance, music, drama, library, museums and its Danish heritage. • Development and re-development opportunities. • Improvements to the airport; four lane roadway to US 131. • The “Greenville” initiative. • Montcalm Community College for additional education. • Natural features; recreational facilities. WEAKNESSES • Improved access to US 131; need alternative means of transportation. • Unemployment. • Apathy of Greenville residents. • Vacant buildings downtown. THREATS • Local, state, national & global economy. • Apathy and complacency of Greenville residents. • Federal and state regulations; decreasing state shared revenues. • Unemployment. • Pollution.
23
COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS One community-wide Community Values Discovery Workshop was held on February 24th, 2011 at the Greenville Community Center. Although attendance was somewhat small, those who attended provided their comments on the Greenville of the present and the Greenville of the future using colored pictures and descriptive words to express their ideas. The following page lists the guiding principles for the future development of the City which participants voiced and then voted on.
GREENVILLE MASTER PLAN 2011 RESULTS OF COMMUNITY VALUES DISCOVERY WORKSHOP HELD FEBRUARY 24TH, 2011 Guiding Principle
Votes
Create a community that feels like home (faith, family, community)
6
Fiscal responsibility
5
Blended areas for multiple/mixed uses
5
Marry industry and agriculture together
4
Build and expand on events and activities
4
Be green-be a leader
4
Technology
4
Preserve and promote history
3
Think big
2
Growth- residential and commercial
0
Discussion following the workshop centered upon the desire for more use of land near the river as a gathering place for activities that will spark community participation, and also act as a catalyst to revitalize the downtown. 24
In addition to the community-wide Community Values Discovery Workshop, several mobile workshops were held with various stakeholder groups around the City including the Coalition of Greater Greenville, the Rotary Club, the Lions Club, the Downtown Development Authority, the Women’s Action Network, and the Greenville High School A.P. Government class. While complete results of the efforts of these groups can be found in the appendices, the ideas receiving the most votes and common themes that emerged from these groups include the following: •
What is something you saw or experienced in another town/place that you wish Greenville had? Common Themes: vibrant downtown, unique shopping, entertainment/arts, skate/splash, family/recreation activities: 1. Unique shops/cafe´s 2. Ice Skating 3. Splash pad 4. Vibrant downtown/attractive buildings 5. Entertainment destination/cultural opportunities 6. Innovation
•
What are Greenville’s greatest problems or challenges besides jobs and the economy? Common Themes: Support for local business, empty/deteriorating downtown, youth needs, community image/marketing: 1. Trying to support local businesses 2. External image /lack of community marketing 3. Empty downtown 4. Youth needs 5. Deteriorating housing around downtown; rental units that aren’t well kept
•
In a mixed use development located near the river and near the downtown, what types of uses and activities would you like to see there? (Ideas: live-work units, shops and restaurants, residential units, festival space, dog park, concert stage, walkways, fresh contemporary architecture, historic architecture, etc.) Common Themes: Swim/skate, market pavilion, fine dining on river, recreation, dams: 1. Community swimming pool 2. Ice skate 25
3. Dedicated farm market pavilion 4. Reds on the River-quality restaurant 5. Recreation baseball 6. Dam, series of dams Projects in the recently prepared City of Greenville 2010-2014 Recreation Plan that include items identified in the community workshops include: • •
Downtown year-round pavilion Splash pad
COMMON ISSUES OF SURVEY, SWOT, & WORKSHOP RESULTS Following is a comparison of certain topics or issues which were found to be common between the citizen survey, the City Council/Planning Commission SWOT, the Community Values Discovery Workshop, and the mobile workshops. These commonalities are listed and analyzed below. Unemployment-this is an important issue for Greenville residents and is a reflection at this time of state and national trends. The Master Plan can respond to this issue by recommending strategies which will position the City to optimize the capture of business and industry. Vacant commercial buildings, especially downtown-this was a reoccurring theme for Greenville residents. A downtown that is more alive with activities will spur a livelier shopping and restaurant culture. Strategies in the Master Plan are designed to encourage investment in redevelopment, and to encourage a mix of land uses that draw people into the downtown area. Mixed Uses-this is a trend in land use that grew out of the new urbanism movement, and as a response to separation of uses that seemed to promote isolation of people and activities. A traditional city such as Greenville easily embraces the concept of a mix of retail, service, entertainment, and residential uses. Areas will be identified in the Master Plan that recommend mixed uses. Festivals, concerts, cultural events-Greenville residents know that a vibrant community needs a place to gather for a variety of events that will 26
draw people downtown and will make Greenville a great place to visit. Locations for gathering places, mixed uses, and fresh architecture are included in the Master Plan. Preserve History-Preserving the best of the past is important to Greenville citizens. Specific buildings were identified as being the most appealing to citizens; most of these were historically significant buildings. The Master Plan recommends areas where existing architecture should be preserved, and where single family historic homes should remain single family units.
Recreation-ideas that emerged include greater use of the Flat River, a city boat launch, a splash pad, a swimming pool, an ice skating rink, more baseball fields, and construction a series of dams near the downtown. The Master Plan identifies areas that may include recreation facilities as identified by the Master Plan process and by the current City of Greenville Recreation Plan. Protection of Natural Resources/Going “green”-this idea surfaced in several different venues. Recommendations are included in the Master Plan for low impact development, as well as strategies for utilizing “green” ideas such as LEED© neighborhood design. Citizen apathy-This concern surfaced in several venues. While a Master Plan typically does not address a concern such as this, carrying out the goals of the Master Plan will be more successful if citizens or groups can get enthused about championing issues that ultimately involve land use issues or decisions. The problem of apathy is addressed in Chapter 3 Goals and Strategies by recommending a Community Volunteer Fair.
27
CHAPTER 3 GOALS AND STRATEGIES Goals and Strategies The following goals and objectives, which are in no particular order, were developed based upon an analysis of existing conditions, input from the Planning Commission and City Council, a community survey, community workshops, and review of plans of other governmental entities. The goals and strategies are intended to be realistic, yet in some cases visionary. Where possible an individual or group is named as the entity to carry out the strategy.
Plan the area north of and adjacent to the Flat River, between Clay and Burgess Streets and north to Congress Street (formerly Northland property), for either a City park/boat launch, or a mix of residential, commercial, and recreational uses.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GOAL Promote the development, redevelopment, and rehabilitation of industrial and commercial areas in the City to provide attractive sites to a variety of enterprises which will strengthen the tax base and provide a place of employment for area residents. Strategies:
Work with local and regional economic development agencies to attract and retain desirable manufacturing, processing, or technological operations to the Greenville area.
Plan the area north of and adjacent to the Flat River, between Clay and Burgess Streets and north to Congress Street (formerly Northland property), for a mix of residential and commercial uses or enlarge the existing Water Works Park for additional recreational uses.
Plan the former Electrolux property for a mix of residential, retail, office, and village green uses.
Develop an action plan to improve the North Lafayette corridor; focus on improving street appearance, building façade improvements, re-development of vacant buildings, and access management.
Plan for continued expansion of Spectrum Health 28
United Memorial Hospital and other health related businesses as key components in the local economy.
Adopt Best Practices of “Redevelopment Ready Communities®” where applicable to the City of Greenville.
Identify potential areas for future industrial growth.
COMMUNITY CHARACTER GOAL Preserve the historic character and architecture of the City of Greenville in identified locations, and at the same time promote redevelopment of specific areas with a new, fresh architecture and mix of uses. Strategies: Identify valuable historic buildings and areas, especially residential areas such as homes on Cass Street, for possible inclusion in historic districts. Utilize the existing tax incentive program using State of Michigan and federal historic preservation tax incentives to help finance property improvements to encourage the preservation and maintenance of historic structures. Specific areas and buildings as identified by the citizen survey include: • • • •
Winter Inn Downtown buildings generally Buildings at Cass & Lafayette Buildings at Washington & Lafayette
Develop zoning ordinance regulations which prevent the division of historic homes into multiunit dwellings. Identify areas for redevelopment that will provide for a mix of uses (residential, retail, office, and gathering spaces) in a contemporary setting that will act as a catalyst for further redevelopment in adjacent areas. Specifically, one area has been identified near the downtown core and the river, and a concept plan has been developed for this area that is included as part of the Future Land Use Plan. Identify areas of the City beyond the downtown core, such as the North Lafayette corridor, where redevelopment of structures into commercial uses with residential above, or live-work units, are desirable. Develop zoning ordinance amendments to allow this type of development.
Identify a location for a central plaza, and promote art fairs, farmers markets, music events, festivals, and other events that will draw 29
persons into the City, and provide the incentive for further development of adjacent commercial and residential uses.
RESIDENTIAL GOAL To promote, preserve, and improve the living environment of the residential areas of the City of Greenville, and to provide a variety of living choices to serve the needs of various age groups and stages of life. Strategies: Ensure that the Zoning Ordinance provides for a diversity of housing types at densities and in locations that meet the housing needs of persons of all economic levels. Plan residential uses near commercial and recreational uses to facilitate walkability and to promote neighborhood vitality. Incorporate elements of LEED© Neighborhood Design into new or redeveloping neighborhoods. (LEED is Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Determine if duplexes in the R-2 District are desirable in historic neighborhoods. Plan areas for live-work units that promote small business ownership and neighborhood vitality. Increase the percentage of owner occupied dwellings to renter occupied dwellings which in 2010 was 57% to 43% to promote residential stability and property values. This can be accomplished by reducing or maintaining areas planned and zoned for multi-family land use and increasing the amount of land planned for detached and attached owner occupied dwellings and instituting policies, programs and ordinances to promote home ownership. Current zoning regulations should also be reviewed to determine the practicality of restricting the conversion of single family dwellings into duplexes. Improve housing quality which falls below minimum standards by adoption and enforcement of necessary codes and public investment in rehabilitation programs. Consider the adoption of a Rental Property Maintenance Ordinance.
30
COMMERCIAL GOAL Plan for Commercial areas both within and outside the downtown core, in order to provide adequate services to the residents, to promote community vitality, and to help strengthen the City’s tax and employment base. Strategies:
Incorporate street trees, and outdoor useable open space, including street furniture, fountains, outdoor eating area for employees and patrons and flower beds to promote neighborhood vitality and activity.
Make greater use of the area near the Flat River as a catalyst for increased retail and restaurant development.
Plan for areas of commercial development with preservation of historic architectural design, and areas with new, fresh architectural designs.
Amend the Zoning Ordinance to require a buildto line in the downtown core in order to preserve the setbacks of the traditional downtown, and to minimize parking in front yards.
Develop zoning ordinance regulations that allow live-work units in designated areas to promote entrepreneurship and community vitality.
Include the Downtown Development Authority and the Chamber of Commerce when developing zoning ordinance amendments which will impact commercial development.
Develop marketing materials to attract new businesses to those areas identified for redevelopment as illustrated on the concept plans included with the Future Land Use Plan.
Work with Eureka Township to prepare a corridor study or sub-area plan for Washington Street (M-57) and Lafayette Avenue (M-91) to ensure the future of these roads as an attractive, well-maintained major arteries free of traffic congestion and visual clutter and overall to ensure unified commercial districts that reflect a high quality of development. 31
Work with Eureka Township to prepare attractive and inviting entrance points into the City.
INDUSTRIAL LAND USE GOAL Promote the development, redevelopment, and rehabilitation of industrial areas in the City to provide attractive sites to a variety of industrial enterprises which will strengthen the tax base and provide a place of employment for area residents. Strategies:
Plan industrial sites in those areas which have sufficient facilities and services to adequately support industrial activity, including transportation access, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, and municipal water service.
Inventory lands zoned industrial for possible alternate uses such as incubator business development or commercial uses.
Restrict offensive and hazardous industrial uses to locations well separated from residences.
Work toward relocation of industrial uses in areas that are primarily residential in nature and re-use of buildings and/or sites for alternative uses more compatible to surrounding properties.
Review site design requirements for industrial land uses to insure adequate landscaping, façade appearance, desirable fencing, and other design components that will promote further industrial investment in the City.
Partner with local educational providers such as Montcalm Community College to develop programs that interface with industrial and technical career options in the City of Greenville and surrounding area.
TRANSPORTATION GOAL Provide for a range of transportation infrastructure to accommodate vehicles, non-motorized transportation, and pedestrians. Strategies: Encourage the construction of pedestrian and bike paths along major arterial streets; incorporate the design concepts 32
of “Complete Streets” into existing and future streets. Cooperate with Michigan Department of Transportation to maintain M-57 and M-91 as valuable State routes while working to improve the appearance and function of these roadways as they serve the needs of the local population and contribute to community character. Prepare corridor plans for both M-57 and M91 that address access, landscaping, signs, and parking among other issues. Limit curb cuts along these corridors and adopt policies to require closing of curb cuts where desirable. Continue to maintain the current road system at a high level of usability.
RECREATION GOAL Provide a range of recreation opportunities and facilities to meet the needs of citizens of all ages; incorporate recreation design such as trails and bike paths into development and redevelopment site plan review. Strategies:
Coordinate land use decisions with the goals of the Greenville Community Recreation Plan in providing recreational services to the Greenville area, including the following: •
Neighborhood connections to the Fred Meijer Flat River Trail;
•
Trail connections to other communities;
•
Downtown year-round pavilion;
•
Splash pad.
Implement land use decisions which make greater use of the Flat River by increasing access to the river or by utilizing the river as a location for increased community gathering.
NATURAL RESOURCES GOAL Adopt land use policies and regulations that encourage the preservation of natural resources and protect environmental and water quality.
33
Strategies: Adopt a Low Impact Development ordinance that gives incentives for site design that incorporates green stormwater management. Incorporate preservation of natural features into site development design as a function of site plan review. Inventory Brownfields throughout the City and adjacent to the City limits. Conduct an inventory of land uses and vegetation along the Flat River within the City limits and then determine the feasibility and practicality of establishing an overlay zone for the preservation of river front vegetation in order to improve the water quality of the river.
COOPERATION WITH ADJACENT COMMUNITIES GOAL Continue to cooperate with Eureka Township in planning for land uses along common borders that serve to advance the goals of each community. Strategies: Incorporate the objectives of the Joint Future Development Plan for Eureka Charter Township and the City of Greenville of 2008 when making decisions regarding land use in the area included in the joint plan. Review the joint plan as required by law or as desired. Participate in cooperative planning efforts with Eureka Township along common borders in those areas not included in the Joint Plan of 2008. Coordinate with the goals and objectives of the Montcalm County General Plan where feasible.
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT GOAL Promote citizen involvement in achieving the goals and accomplishing the strategies of the City of Greenville Master Plan in order to build a sense of community and to increase citizen involvement and interest. Strategies: Hold a volunteer fair once per year where a wide range of civic organizations are represented, and where issues as identified by the Master Plan can recruit “issues champions”. Example: a group can be formed to raise funds for a splash park. 34
Establish links on the City’s web site which connects interested individuals to existing and future issues groups (web sites or Facebook pages).
35
CHAPTER 4 LAND USE PLANNING ANALYSIS Existing Land Use An existing land use survey was conducted in September and October of 2010 as a component of the Master Plan update. The maps in the Appendix illustrate the different land uses in the City including vacant land which will influence future building opportunities. The following table provides a breakdown of the acreages and percentages of existing land uses as of 2011.
EXISTING LAND USE
ACRES
PERCENTAGE
Single Family Dwelling
816.81
18.7
Two-Family Dwelling
18.71
.43
Multi-Family Dwelling
187.27
4.2
Mobile Home Park
32.68
.76
Office
37.68
.86
Park/Recreational
434.46
9.9
Parking Lot
17.26
.39
Public/Institutional
232.49
5.3
Religious
33.55
.76
Commercial
304.22
6.9
Industrial
578.16
13.2
Vacant River/Lake
788.34 183.54
17.9 4.2
Street right of way
724.81
16.5
Total Acres in City
4,390
100
36
Land Use Changes in Recent Years Two of the most significant changes in land use which have affected and which will continue to affect Greenville occurred at opposite ends of the City and involved different land uses. In 2004 the Electrolux industrial complex on the Flat River and Greenville West Drive closed leaving behind a number of vacant buildings and removing about 4,000 daily workers from the north end of the City. These workers supported a variety of businesses along North Lafayette Street, many of which were forced to close resulting in a number of vacant storefronts along this corridor. Only a large storage building is in use on the Electrolux property. The Electrolux property remains a highly visible site with significant re-development potential. The second significant land use change is the Hathaway Green Planned Unit Development which began to develop in 2003 with condominiums on Hawthorne Court and apartments on Meijer Drive. In 2004 the City approved a rezoning of 159 acres to the PUD zone for the development of 541 total dwelling units; both single family detached and attached as well as apartments. A number of units have been constructed although building has decreased in recent years due the downturn in the economy. As building activity resumes the number of new residents will add to the growth for the west portion of the City and influence retail and service related business development as well as traffic. Other land use changes which have occurred since the 2005 Plan was adopted include: Construction of a Wal-Mart store on the northeast corner of M-57 and Satterlee Road. This site and several out lots fronting on M-57 were transferred into the City from Eureka Township in 2007. A 74 room AmericInn hotel was constructed on the southeast corner of M-57 and Satterlee Road in 2005 following the transfer of the property from Eureka Township United Solar Ovonic (Uni-Solar) constructed two 280,000 sq. ft. buildings in 2007 and 2008 in the Greenville Industrial Park to manufacture solar panels. In 2012 the company filed for bankruptcy and its future is uncertain. 37
Spectrum Health United Memorial Hospital purchased a number of single family houses on Marvel Street and converted them to hospital offices. Several single family lots on Ruth Street were converted to parking lots in 2008 and in 2011 a former restaurant site on M-57 and Benton Street was also converted to a hospital related parking lot. Development of the south side of M-57 west of Youngman Road for office and retail uses occurred between 2004 and 2006. Land Use vs. Zoning The existing land use survey conducted in 2010 allowed a comparison to be made between the actual use of land and the zoning of that same land. If the land use was not permitted by that zoning district the use would be considered non – conforming. Zoning Ordinance regulations for nonconforming uses limit the expansion of the use without a variance and prohibit the re-establishment of the use if dis-continued for more than one year. Also lending institutions may not provide financing for residential mortgages if the property is non-conforming. Thus, it is always better for property to be conforming than non-conforming. Following is an identification and analysis of the most significant nonconforming situations resulting from this comparison. Location • The C-1 zoned area on the east side of Clay Street from Washington Street north to the Flat River contains mostly single family houses as well as a number of houses which have been converted to two, three, four unit and five dwellings. All of these dwellings are non-conforming uses. • Several offices have been established on Clay Street between Cass and Grove Streets. Analysis The above C-1 zone abuts the east, west and north sides of the downtown C-3 Zone and was put into place to allow for a transition of neighborhood commercial uses from the downtown into the abutting single family neighborhoods. However, the uses fronting on the east side of Clay Street to the east of downtown have remained steadfastly single family residential with only a few exceptions as noted above. Protection of the single family neighborhoods is a worthy goal of this Plan. In support of this goal the single family areas both east 38
Preserving the look and feel of the current residential street environment is paramount.
and west of downtown should be further analyzed to determine if the C-1 Zoning is still a valid designation or if another land use category would be more suitable. In considering other land uses besides commercial the following objectives should be paramount: Preserving the look and feel of the current residential street environment; Allowing for economically viable transitional uses; Protecting the abutting homes to the rear of the uses fronting on Clay Street. Land use alternatives for this area should include single and two family dwellings, live work units, offices, and smaller multi- family buildings such as townhouses. Location • R-2 zoned areas in the City but especially the area north of Washington Street to the Flat River between the Industrial Zone on the east and the C-1 Zone on the west contain many duplexes which have been converted from single family houses. This area also contains a number of 3-5 unit dwellings which were once single family houses. Duplexes are a use permitted by right in the R-2 zone provided the parcel contains a minimum of 10,000 sq. ft. Analysis • Although duplexes are scattered throughout the R-2 zoned areas that portion of the City described above has a higher concentration which in conjunction with the 3-5 unit dwellings in this areas threaten to diminish the single family residential character of this neighborhood. Because the current zoning rule allows single family dwellings to convert to duplexes as a use by right other R-2 zoned areas could also face a similar turnover of single family houses to duplexes creating pockets of two family rental units which could undermine the viability of single family neighborhoods Consideration should be given to restricting the ease of converting houses to duplexes by requiring a special use permit or increasing the minimum lot size or house size requirements. • Also, the City should consider whether the multi-family dwellings in this area were legally established and if they should be allowed to continue. Location • In the Market and Court Street area a number of vacant parcels are zoned for industrial use and are part of the abandoned railroad tracks and right of way. Analysis These parcels are located in an older industrial area of Greenville which at one time may have expanded into the abutting residential neighborhood north of Market and west of Court Streets. One of 39
the Plan’s goals is to provide suitable locations for expansion of older industries into more suitable industrial parks. In light of this goal it would be appropriate to rezone the non – conforming industrial parcels on the north side of Market Street at Court Street to the R-2 district to match the zoning of this residential neighborhood. Within this area in 2011 a portion of the rails to trails segment linking Greenville with the cities of Belding and Lowell to the south was constructed which further removes this area from the possibility of future industrial use. Location • The C-2 Zone north of the Flat River extends westward from Lafayette to Franklin Street yet most land uses on the east side of Franklin Street are non-conforming single family dwellings. Analysis This area should be reviewed to determine the likihood of these houses converting to C-2 permitted uses and whether the R-2 zoning line should be moved to align with the rear lot line of those parcels fronting on Lafayette. Location • The single family dwellings north of Charles Street between Irving Street and the railroad tracks and also along Osmun Street and Coffren Street are non-conforming as this area is zoned Industrial and C-2. Analysis This area should be rezoned to R-2 to remove the non-conformity and help stabilize the residential character of the neighborhood. Both the 2002 and 2005 Master Plans also recommended this. Location • The single family dwellings which are zoned C-1 on Franklin Street between Grove and the Flat River Museum and those fronting on Grove and Montcalm. Analysis This C-1 zoned area is not likely to be used for commercial purposes given its location, the cost of removing the buildings and the landscaping and setback requirements which reduce the usability of the property. These parcels should be rezoned to R-2 to reflect the existing land use, remove the non-conformity and stabilize the residential character of this neighborhood.
40
Location • The area around the corner of Fairplains and Elm is zoned for Commercial and Industrial use but contains a variety of uses including a number of single family dwellings as well as commercial uses. An Office Zone exists on the south side of Fairplains at Clay although the land is occupied by single family dwellings. Analysis The above areas should be analyzed to determine if the current zoning is still relevant. Other Land Use Matters • Spectrum Health United Memorial Hospital As was noted above Spectrum Health United Memorial Hospital (SHUM) has expanded its presence into the adjacent neighborhoods. This has been done through conversion of single family houses on Marvel Street for hospital administrative functions and by removing existing houses and buildings to construct hospital parking lots. In 2011 the north portion of the main hospital building facing Oak Street was expanded for additional medical exam rooms and a cardiology clinic. This expansion into residential areas was predicted in the 2002 Master Plan which also recommended that future expansions occur northward toward Washington Street rather than south into the established residential zoned areas. This expansion can be expected to occur on Bower Street based on discussions with hospital administrators in 2011. As evidence a house at 615 Bower (the second lot north of Oak Street) was demolished in October of 2011 to construct a parking lot following approval by the Planning Commission. The remaining lots on Bower are occupied by well-kept single family dwellings but these houses are all non-conforming as the zoning on Bower Street is Office and C-2, Commercial. The fact that the parcels on Bower are zoned for nonresidential uses means this is not a long term residential street as any of the lot owners could convert the use of their property to either office or commercial use at any time. Hospitals are a permitted use in the Office Zone but hospitals are not permitted in the C-2 Zone. Medical clinics and hospital support offices are allowed in both zones. The main hospital building is located in an R-1, Single Family Residential Zone while a number of medical clinics west of the hospital on Oak Street are within the Office Zone.
41
The hospital and its support facilities, offices, clinics and parking lots, can be considered as a single use similar to a hospital campus. Expansion of this campus under the auspices of Spectrum Health United Memorial Hospital could be difficult given the varying regulations of the different zones which comprise the campus. One method to address this issue would be for the hospital campus to be within a single zoning district such as a hospital zone which would set forth requirements regarding permitted land uses and land development standards to allow the future expansion in a manner which promotes the interests of the hospital to serve the Greenville community while protecting the stability of adjacent residential neighborhoods. This would require an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance text. Rezonings would need to be applied for by the hospital. • Montcalm Community College Montcalm Community College purchased the land on Hillcrest Street south of Greenville High School which had been the home of the Montcalm 4-H Fairgrounds for many years. Because the Fair has moved to a location outside the City the College proposed plans in 2012 to construct a new building on the site just east of their existing MTEC building which fronts on Yellow Jacket Drive. Although the proposed use of the Fairgrounds does not align with the recommendation of the 2005 Master Plan it is certainly compatible with adjacent land uses and provides a beneficial public service to City residents and attracts additional people from nearby communities which can support City businesses.
The hospital and its support facilities, offices, clinics and parking lots, can be considered as a single use similar to a hospital campus.
Development of and access to this site should include the extension of Yellow Jacket Drive from its existing terminus to Hillcrest Street. Access should not be via a private drive or street. This roadway should be public for a number of reasons. 1. The extension will serve exclusively public uses; the existing MTEC and proposed MTEC building along with the Greenville Public Schools use a portion of the future right of way for Yellow Jacket Drive abuts School property. Because the uses are public a public road assures that access to these uses will remain open at all times for the public as well as for fire, police and emergency personnel. 2. Sidewalks and street lights which are required for public streets are necessary for safe pedestrian and vehicular access through and to this site as the sidewalks can connect to sidewalks on Hillcrest Street and the existing portion of Yellow Jacket Drive. 42
3. The two College buildings will produce a significant number of vehicle trips at certain times but especially when classes let out. The Yellow Jacket public street connector will allow for more efficient dispersion of traffic by providing two ways in and out of the site. 4. The Yellow Jacket public street connector will better serve the parking lots serving Greenville Schools especially for athletic events. 5. A public street will not need easements for utilities or public use of sidewalks. 6. The Yellow Jacket public street connector will provide a logical vehicular connection between two major City streets; Greenville West Drive and Hillcrest Street. This connector will help alleviate traffic congestion at Washington Street and Greenville West Drive and provide an alternate route for drivers to access the traffic signal at Hillcrest and Washington for safer turning movements. 7. Extending a private drive from the end of Yellow Jacket Drive to serve the new MTEC building could create maintenance issues due to different driving surface construction standards at the point of connection. A cul-de-sac may need to be constructed at the end of Yellow Jacket Drive for the public and City vehicles to use for a turn around. These measures would not be necessary if Yellow Jacket Drive were extended as a public street. 8. A public street provides frontage and access for the future development of interior parcels.
•
Complete Street Analysis
In August of 2010, PA 33 of 2008 (the Michigan Planning Enabling Act) was amended to require that local master plans include consideration of additional elements related to transportation. These elements include safe and efficient movement of people and goods by not only motor vehicles but also by bicycles, pedestrian, and other legal users including persons with disabilities. Additionally, the amended Act defines street as “a street, avenue, boulevard, highway, road, lane, alley, viaduct, or other public way intended for use by motor vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and other legal users.” In December of 2010, PA 33 was further amended to require that local master plans also take into consideration the location, character, and extent of public transit routes and public transportation facilities in the preparation of the master plan, and to coordinate with public transportation agencies in the planning process. In the City of Greenville, the following analysis was done of existing transportation facilities, and recommendations were developed to insure adequate transportation for all users.
43
Existing Conditions Most of the older residential portions of the City are served by sidewalks with accessible curb ramps. Some areas of the City, particularly in the northeast and southeast, are not served by sidewalks, or a sidewalk occurs on one side of the street. Where sidewalks do occur, accessible curb ramps are present. Sidewalks are present throughout the central business district. Several mid-block bump-outs with brick paver pedestrian crossings are present along Lafayette Street in the central business district. These crossings include accessible curb ramps. Sidewalks are present in the southwest portion of the City where a variety of newer commercial and residential uses have been developed. Bicycle lanes within street travel lanes are present in some locations within the City. A striped bicycle lane is present on the south side of Greenville West Drive from east of Hillcrest Street to Irving Street. In addition, a fourfoot wide sidewalk is present on the north side of Greenville West Drive along the same segment. From Irving Street to Lafayette Street (M-91), a four-foot wide sidewalk is located along the south side of Greenville West Drive. A striped bicycle lane is present along the north side of Van Deinse Street to Industrial Park Drive, with a four-foot wide sidewalk along the south side. Industrial Park Drive contains striped bicycle lanes along both sides. Fairplains Street includes striped bicycle lanes on both sides, and South Street includes lanes on both sides except between Baldwin and Marvel Streets, where a lane is present on the south side only. Oak Street has bicycle lanes on both sides of the street from Maplewood to Marvel Street, and on the north side from Marvel Street to Baldwin Street. See Map in the Appendix. Within the central business district, accessible parking spaces are located in parking areas behind businesses, since the majority of businesses maintain accessible entrances in the rear. Currently, no bicycle racks are located in the central business district. Unique to the City of Greenville is the presence of the Fred Meijer Flat River Trail, which serves much of the area within the City limits, providing extensive pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, schools, and natural features. The trail, which consists of 6.5 miles, primarily follows the Flat River, but also extends along Greenville West Drive adjacent to Greenville High School and Middle School, crosses under Washington Street (M-57) via a tunnel, and continues south to Baldwin Lake. The trail makes a complete loop through the City via Baldwin Lake Drive (which is not part 44
of the trail), connecting the trail head on Manoka Lake with the trail head on Baldwin Lake. Also serving the City is the Fred Meijer Heartland Trail which consists of both paved and unpaved portions within the City limits, with a goal of paving the entire trail. The Heartland Trail intersects with the Flat River Trail at two locations within the City limits, following the abandoned rail bed of the former Mid-Michigan/CSX Railroad. The trail connects with several communities within Montcalm and Gratiot Counties. Public Transportation The City of Greenville provides a Transit System that provides transportation throughout the City as well as neighboring Eureka Township. The system operates Monday through Saturday and provides service on demand for a fee for all persons including students and those with disabilities. Transit buses are equipped with wheel chair lifts.
LAND USE PLANNING IN EUREKA TOWNSHIP The City of Greenville is surrounded by Eureka Charter Township which adopted an updated Master Plan on April 9, 2010. The Township’s existing zoning map and future land use map appear to match up fairly well with the abutting land uses and zoning districts within the City of Greenville. The Township Plan calls for commercial land uses on M-91 both north and south of the City limits and Suburban Residential (3/4 acre lot size) abutting much of the remainder of the City including industrial land uses and zoning in the northwest portion of the City along Shearer Road. The existing large lot sizes and minimum lot size requirements as well as the natural land features in this area mitigate any incompatibilities between the two land use types. The Township calls for Agricultural use on land at the southeast corner of M-57 and Backus Road abutting existing single family homes in the southeast corner of the City. Typically, agricultural use and residents in subdivisions do not mix well although this situation has existed for a number of years without significant problems for the residents or farmer. The Township Master Plan recognizes the “Joint Development Plan” for the area from Youngman Road to just west of Satterlee Road which was adopted by the City and Eureka Township in November of 2008. The Township Plan call this the M-57 Mixed Use Area and provides the following background narrative: Much of the M-57 Mixed-Use Area is the subject of the “Joint Future Development Plan” agreement between the township and the city, in coordination 45
with the “Act 108 Agreement” between the two communities (see pages 3-11 and A-7). The development agreement covers approximately 155 acres on the north side of M-57 but excludes the WalMart property and the several small parcels immediately south and west. Public Act 108 of 1995, the Urban Cooperation Act, provides for the sharing of revenues between local units of government. Act 108 Agreements are frequently executed between municipalities where the development envisioned on the property of one of the governmental units requires support services (sewer, water, etc.) from the other governmental unit. The Township has incorporated the adopted Future Land Use Map of 2008 for this area as part of its 2011 Master Plan. This Map is also adopted as a component of the City of Greenville’s 2012 Master Plan. ( See Map in Appendix) In addition, the Eureka Plan recognizes the importance of Greenville to the area and expresses a strong intent to cooperate with the City in the following goal and objectives: GOAL: Guide future growth, development, public services, and preservation efforts in a manner that recognizes the position of Eureka Charter Township within the larger region, the mutual impacts of local planning efforts, and the strong interdependence of the township and the City of Greenville. Objectives 1) Where practical, identify a planned future land use pattern that seeks to ensure compatibility among land uses along all municipal borders including Greenville and surrounding townships. 2) Encourage the continuation of coordinated planning efforts with Greenville and the role of the city within the region as the focal area for urban development and public services. 3) Guide large scale commercial, industrial and residential development toward Greenville where public services and facilities are available, or can be provided most efficiently. 46
4) Encourage the vitality of downtown Greenville through appropriate restrictions on the type and location of commercial uses in the township. 5) Establish and maintain a meaningful communication program with area municipalities and county agencies to discuss local and area wide public facilities and service needs, land use conditions and trends, preservation goals and objectives, contemporary planning issues, and other mutually beneficial strategies to address short and long-term needs.
47
CHAPTER 5 FUTURE LAND USE This section contains the recommendations, strategies, and policies which will guide the development of the City of Greenville for the next 20 years. The Future Land Use Plan establishes the pattern of land use desired by the community, but that pattern must be re-evaluated every five years according to State of Michigan law. The Goals and Objectives presented in the Chapter 3, the Guiding Principles from the Community Visioning Workshop and the Citizen Survey as well as principals of sound land use planning are the foundation upon which the Future Land Use Plan is based. Many of the future land use recommendations of the 2005 Master Plan are re-affirmed in this 2012 Master Plan. The Future Land Use Plan consists of the text within this document as well as the Future Land Use Map. The Joint Development Plan for the west end of Greenville adopted in 2008 by the City and Eureka Township is included in the Future Land Use Chapter as well
Future Land Use Categories
The Future Land Use Plan recommends a number of different Future Land Use Categories. The following descriptions explain the type of land use, the intensity of that land use, and the locations for proposed uses. Policies and rationale guiding the establishment of those uses are also provided, as well as implementation steps for carrying out the recommendations of the Plan. • The future land use recommended for an area may be the same as the existing zoning for that area, while in some cases the future land use recommended is different from the existing zoning. Future Land Use categories may or may not correspond to zoning districts existing in the City; in some cases, a new zoning district is recommended as an implementation strategy. The Future Land Use Map does not change the existing zoning in an area. A property owner or the City will need to apply for a rezoning at some point in the future if the future land use category is different from
48
the existing zoning. Meanwhile, a property owner must use the property as it is currently zoned. LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LDR This future land use classification is analogous to the R1 Zoning District and is intended for single family dwellings on lot sizes of 10,000 square feet which is a density of 4.35 dwellings per acre. LDR areas are intended to be served by public water and sanitary sewer. The Plan recognizes a few areas of the City which fit this pattern. Low Density Residential uses are primarily located in the southwest quadrant of the City in neighborhoods south of Washington Street and west of Lafayette Street and the neighborhoods around Baldwin, Como and Manoka Lakes. A smaller LDR area exists in the south east corner along Edgewood. A larger LDR area is proposed at the east end of the City along Backus Street which is occupied by the Glen Kerry Public Golf Course. Conversion of all or a portion of the golf course to LDR use is encouraged by this Plan to be done as a planned unit development which would allow for preservation of a portion of the existing open space as well as attached and detached dwelling units in conjunction with the golf course should it continue. The density would be limited to 4.35 units per acre.
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MDR The primary land use in MDR planned areas, which is the same as the R-2 Zoning District, would be single family dwellings. Certain non – residential uses such as churches and schools which are generally located in residential areas would also be permitted by Special Land Use. Public water and sewer are required for the density permitted which is five dwelling units per acre. The MDR category includes mobile home parks which typically have densities from four to six units per acre. MDR areas comprise the majority of the residential portions of the City. These are typically the older neighborhoods closer to the downtown along Montcalm, Grove, Cass, Webster and Smith Streets. MDR neighborhoods are also located adjacent to the former Electrolux plant on Charles, Gibson and Irving Streets and also north of the Flat River and east of Lafayette to VanDeinse. Smaller areas which are indicative of the MDR lot sizes exist in various blocks around the City and are noted on the Zoning Map as R2.
49
The MDR category also includes the manufactured housing community on Ranney Street east of Walnut Street (MHP on the Zoning Map) as the density in this development is around five units per acre with detached dwelling units. MDR lands in the 2012 Plan remain consistent with the recommendations of the 2005 Plan. The Master Plan recommends that the existing C-1 zoned area on the west side of Franklin from the Flat River to Grove Street be rezoned to R2 as the existing single family houses match MDR characteristics and are compatible in appearance with the abutting neighborhood to the west. Also certain parcels at the corner of Court and Market are recommended to be rezoned from Industrial to the R-2 Zone as these lands are more suitable for residential use. Additional recommendations for R2 zoning are set forth in the 2005 Plan Recommendations in the Section entitled Greenville North Study Area.
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HDR This category is analogous to the R3 Zoning District with multi-family dwellings being the principal land use at a maximum density of 12 units per acre. Single family and two family dwellings are also permitted at a higher density 7.26 than permitted in the MDR and LDR categories. The Hathaway Greens PUD project south of Meijer Drive proposes multifamily units both apartments and townhouses. Forest View PUD on Greenville West Drive also proposes a significant number of multi-family dwellings. These two developments which are far from being completed will likely provide a sufficient supply of HDR type dwelling units for a number of years and therefore additional higher density areas are not proposed in the 2012 Master Plan. Additional recommendations and discussion regarding HDR land use is set forth in the narrative for the Greenville East and Greenville West Study Area. Additional recommendations for single family R3 zoning are set forth in the 2005 Plan Recommendations in the Section entitled Greenville North Study Area.
OFFICE O The Office Future Land Use classification is intended to provide opportunities for small scale office uses to serve the needs of the larger community. Office uses are encouraged as buffers between residential uses and less aesthetically desirable uses within the community such as shopping centers, industrial facilities and high traffic volume roadways. 50
Future Office uses are described in the Plan Section pertaining to the Greenville East Study Area and are illustrated as O-1 on the City Zoning Map. Several new parcels are being recommended for the Office classification in the 2012 Plan. These parcels are located west of Veterans Park fronting on West Washington Street and Bowers Street. These parcels are not seen as being long term residential land uses given the traffic on Washington Street, proximity to the parking lot for Veterans Park and the existence of commercial land uses on the west side of Bowers Street. Office use will serve as an appropriate transition between the commercial use on the west and residential properties east of Veterans Park. As office uses develop on these parcels measures such as landscaping, fencing, low level lighting and other similar measures should be utilized to protect nearby residential uses including those which are planned for Office use.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL NC This category is analogous to the C-1 Zoning District. It is intended to provide goods and services to residents of neighborhoods near this District. The uses will generally be less intense and more compatible with residential uses than those found in the other Commercial Districts. These uses will generally be limited in overall size of building and parking area and will present an appearance of a low intensity use, including such features as limited signs, reduced lighting levels, attractive landscaping, and screened parking areas. Neighborhood Commercial Areas in the Plan recognize the relatively small existing C-1 Zoned areas in the City and near the downtown area.
GENERAL COMMERCIAL GC This category is intended to provide a wide range of goods and services to residents of Greenville as well as surrounding areas. These uses will generally be more intensive and less compatible with residential uses. C-2 is the equivalent zoning district for this future land use classification which is primarily located on M-57 and M-91. The General Commercial category was expanded westward from Youngman Road to Satterlee Road in 2008 when Wal-Mart and the land fronting on M-57 became part of the City through an agreement with Eureka Township. This area is part of the Joint Development Plan adopted by the City and Eureka Township.
51
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT CBD The Central Business District category corresponds to the C-3 Zoning District for the blocks fronting on Lafayette Street between M-57 and Montcalm Street. This CBD is intended to provide a wide range of goods and services to residents of Greenville as well as surrounding areas in a downtown setting. This District is characterized by a compact shopping area with on-street, municipal, and private parking areas. Emphasis is placed on pedestrian safety, convenient access, and ease of vehicular circulation.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PUD This category recognizes the existing Planned Unit Development Zoning Districts in the City. The largest PUD is Hathaway Greens PUD located south of Meijer Drive in the south east quadrant of the City. This PUD was approved by the City in 2004 for 541 dwelling units with a mix of multifamily, attached single family townhouses and condominiums and detached single family dwellings designed to blend with a large areas of open space and walking trails including the Fred Meijer Trail which runs through the PUD. The Hathaway Greens PUD includes the Hawthorne Court condominiums and the Hawthorne Park single family site condominiums. The Forest View PUD located north of Greenville West Drive and east of Shearer was approved in 2004 for a total of 344 dwelling units consisting of 168 apartment units and 175 single family and two, three and four family dwellings to be developed in five phases. To date only one phase containing attached townhouses has been constructed. On the west side of the City the Hathaway Circle PUD fronting on the south side of M-57 just west of Youngman Road was approved in 2005 for commercial. As of the date of Plan adoption the occupants of this PUD included an office building, a retail auto parts store and a fast food drive through restaurant. A fourth PUD is located in the southeast corner of the City along Edgewood Street. This is a single family subdivision is called the Edgewood PUD. The Plan recommends that two former industrial properties be redeveloped as PUD’s: these are the Electrolux site and the Northland property both located on the Flat River. Responses to questions on the citizen survey showed public support for the Northland property to be re52
developed with a mix of residential and commercial uses and the Electrolux site to be re-developed for a mix of residential, retail, office use with a village green. A further description of future land use for the Electrolux property is contained in the narrative for the 2005 Plan recommendations found in the Appendix.
MIXED USE MX This is a new Future Land Use category and is intended to apply to the existing lands east, west and south of the Central Business District. Specifically, the lots fronting on the east side of Clay Street between Benton and Grove, the lots fronting on the west side of Franklin from Grove Street to Washington and the area bounded by Lafayette on the west , Benton on the south, Washington on the north and including parcels fronting on the east side of Clay Street. These areas are zoned C-1 and Office but are primarily occupied by single family dwellings with some commercial uses especially between Washington and Benton. The intent of this existing zoning was to provide a transition to abutting single family neighborhoods from the Central Business District. However, the uses on Clay Street and to a lesser extent Franklin Street have remained steadfastly residential with some single family houses being converted to 2, 3, 4 and even 5 unit dwellings. The lack of new commercial uses being developed over the years despite being zoned C-1 is a strong indicator that another approach is needed for the future re-development of this central portion of the City. The existing physical form of much of this area is a neighborhood of primarily single family houses mixed with houses converted to two and multi-family use with a pedestrian scale; proximity to retail and service uses in the CBD; houses with front porches extending into the front setback; sidewalks; street trees; and detached garages. The Mixed Use classification is designed to retain this form as new uses replace existing ones. The closeness to the CBD makes this area attractive for a new type of residential use, such as townhouses and lofts, and for multi-story buildings with ground floor retail. The 2012 Plan envisions the re-development of this area with a mix of uses. The Mixed Use category would permit small retail or offices within existing houses, live work units where the first floor contains the business with the second floor serving as living quarters for the business owner, and townhouses and four to eight unit apartments or condominiums placed close to the front lot line. Residential densities could be up to 12 units per acre which is the same as the R-3 Zone. The types of uses planned for this 53
area particularly the residential uses will serve to support existing businesses in the CBD.
HOSPITAL H This new Master Plan category recognizes the existing Spectrum Health United Memorial Hospital facilities and its nearby supporting land uses on Oak, Bower, Ruth and Marvel Streets and makes provision for future expansion as discussed in Chapter 4. A new zoning district will need to be prepared and adopted by the City in order to implement this recommendation. Having all of these land uses in one zoning district allows for a more consistent, unified and efficient set of regulations which can be crafted to address the unique needs of the hospital while ensuring a measure of protection for nearby residents and their property. The Plan recommends and recognizes the hospitals intent to expand north along both sides of Bower Street but not extending eastward beyond those parcels with frontage on Bower Street. Expansion to the south into the Greenville Country Club property is also supported by the Plan. Land would only be rezoned to this classification at the request of the hospital. Relocating that portion of Marvel Street between Oak and Judd to the east abutting Baldwin Heights should be considered as a possibility if it benefits both entities and does not compromise neighborhood traffic circulation.
INDUSTRIAL I The Plan recognizes existing lands zoned industrial. Certain parcels at the corner of Court and Market are recommended to be rezoned from Industrial to the R-2 Zone as expansion of the abutting industrial uses is unlikely and these lots can easily be developed with new single family houses. More extensive recommendation for future use of industrial land is set forth in the Appendix regarding the recommendations of the 2005 Plan. The Plan calls for the largest former Electrolux building to be used for industrial purposes with the land along the Flat River being re-developed for a mix of residential, retail, and office uses which was recommended in the 2005 Plan and strongly supported by the 2011 citizen survey. Rezoning and re-development of the nearby residential neighborhoods as recommended in the 2005 Plan are re-affirmed by this 2012 Master Plan. 54
Please see the following recommendations of the 2005 Plan for further details. The Plan recognizes the expansion of the City’s industrial park along the west side of Fitzner Street which occurred in 2011.
PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL P/I This future land use category recognizes those lands and facilities that are owned or operated by a government agency or are supported by public funds and include government buildings, libraries, cemeteries and public schools
LAFAYETTE / FLAT RIVER REDEVELOPMENT CONCEPT One of the principal themes which emerged from the citizens of Greenville during the community involvement sessions was the desire for a vibrant downtown to enhance the sense of community. Comments like “Create a community that feels like home” “ Think big” “Need more public festivals, concerts and similar events” “Splash pad” and “Attractive downtown buildings” rose to the top. In response to this a number of conceptual plans were prepared for the redevelopment of several areas around North Lafayette Street and the Flat River. This area is close to the Winter Inn which anchors the north end of downtown and is the beginning of the commercial uses on Lafayette north of the Flat River. Re-development of this area could serve to strength the existing downtown and also serve as a catalyst for the revitalization of the commercial strip north of the river. The concept drawing selected for inclusion in the 20102 Plan serves as a vivid illustration of what Greenville could achieve if this re-development concept or one similar to it is prioritized as an important goal by the Greenville citizens and elected officials. The vision for this area includes a splash pad/sculpture plaza as a focal point leading to and overlooking the west side of Tower Riverside Park and the Flat River Museum. A multi-use river front plaza is also envisioned just west of the Museum along with expanded outdoor museum exhibits. New parking lots, restaurants, a coffee shop and other new retail buildings along Montcalm and Lafayette Streets complete the conceptual revitalization of this area. 55
None of this can occur of course without the cooperation and support of existing land owners and Greenville citizens. The concept presented here is a starting point to generate enthusiasm and new ideas to create a downtown which is attractive, vibrant and which will make Greenville a community that continues to feel like home. The concept drawing is contained in the Appendix.
FUTURE STREETS The Plan recommends the extension of Yellow Jacket Drive from its present terminus to Hillcrest Street to align with Orange Street as shown on the Future Land Use Map. This should be a public street for reasons outlined in Chapter 4. Construction of the road should take place in conjunction with the development of the property. Typically, payment for the road is borne by the property developers. Another future street proposed by the Plan is constructing Irving Street across the abandoned railroad tracks to complete the connection to Greenville West Drive.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE 2005 MASTER PLAN As noted the 2012 Master Plan re-affirms and incorporates the recommendations of the 2005 Greenville Master Plan. This document has been re-formatted and is presented in the Appendix .
JOINT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The 2008 Joint Development Plan adopted by the City of Greenville and Eureka Township is contained in its entirety in the Appendix and is reaffirmed as part of the 2012 Greenville Master Plan.
56
CHAPTER 6 IMPLEMENTATION In order for the Master Plan to serve as an effective guide to the continued development of the City of Greenville it must be implemented. Primary responsibility for implementing the Plan rests with the City Council, the Planning Commission and the City staff. This is done through a number of methods. These include ordinances, programs, and administrative procedures. The Master Plan itself has no legal authority to regulate development in order to implement the recommendations of the Plan. This implementation must come from the decisions of the Council and Planning Commission to provide needed public improvements and to administer and establish regulatory measures relative to the use of the land.
The Master Plan itself has no legal authority to regulate development
The private sector, which includes individual land owners as well as developers, is also involved in fulfilling the recommendations of the Master Plan by the actual physical development of land and through the rezoning of land. The authority for this, however, comes from the City. Cooperation and coordination among individuals, private developers, and public agencies is, therefore, important in successful implementation of the Master Plan. ZONING Zoning represents a legal means for the City to regulate private property to achieve orderly land use relationships. It is the process most commonly used to implement community Master Plans. The zoning ordinance consists of an official zoning map and zoning ordinance text. The official zoning map divides the community into different zones or districts within which certain uses are permitted and others are not. The zoning ordinance text notes the uses which are permitted and establishes regulations to control densities, height, bulk, setback, lot sizes, and accessory uses. The zoning ordinance also sets forth procedures for site plan review, conditional uses, and sign controls. These measures permit the City to control the quality as well as the type of development. 57
The Zoning Enabling Act, PA 110 of 2006, requires that zoning be based on a plan. A Master Plan provides the basis for the range and spatial location of zone districts. The zoning ordinance, in turn, is the primary plan implementation tool. Local control of land use, as provided for by zoning, is an accepted legal practice. The principles on which zoning is based include the need to: • balance the interests of all landowners and residents with the rights of individual landowners; • help provide a long term vision for the community; • protect the environment; • ensure development is adequately served by roads and utilities; • achieve the quality of life desired by residents; • provide fair and consistent review of development needs; and, • protect the public health, safety and welfare. In considering a request to rezone property the Planning Commission and City Council should evaluate the request according to the following factors:
REZONING EVALUATION FACTORS •
Does the proposed new classification meet the qualifications noted in the appropriate portion of the Future Land Use chapter?
•
Are the uses allowed in the requested district appropriate for the proposed location or can the uses be designed to fit the proposed location without a negative impact on the nearby land uses?
•
Have any conditions changed in the area since the Plan was adopted which might justify this change?
•
Will there be any community impacts which should be considered, such as increased traffic, or others which might create a need for additional services or improvements?
•
Are there any potential environmental considerations which will be contrary to the intent of the existing or proposed classification of land use?
•
Will there be any adverse effects on adjacent properties as a result of the proposed land use change?
•
Will granting the rezoning request likely lead to significant changes contained in the Master Plan for the area where the rezoning is requested? 58
•
Could this use be accommodated in some other location or in the proposed location by some other zoning measure such as a special land use or a planned unit development?
ZONING PLAN The 2008 Planning Enabling Act requires that a Master Plan contain a zoning plan which outlines the development requirements for the various zoning districts and an explanation of how the future land use categories relate to the districts on the zoning map. Regarding this latter requirement the Future Land Use Categories in Chapter 5 describe how each of these categories relates to the various zoning districts in the City of Greenville. A Zoning Map is contained in the Appendix of this Plan and the development requirements for each zone are set forth in the City of Greenville Zoning Ordinance which is too large to be included in this 2012 Master Plan but which is available through the City of Greenville.
ZONING ORDINANCE RECOMMENDATIONS Chapter 3 of the Plan sets forth goals which serve to guide the future development of Greenville. Some of the specific implementation recommendations of this chapter are taken from these goals, while others are taken from the land use recommendations made in Chapter 4. Following is a list of rezonings and zoning ordinance amendments which can be initiated by the City in order to bring the zoning into compliance with the recommendations of the Master Plan. 1. Prepare new zoning regulations for the Mixed Use District described in Chapter 4 and then rezone those parcels which are recommended for Mixed Use on the Future Land Use Map. 2. Amend the setback requirements of the C-3 Zone (CBD) to require new buildings to have a zero setback or perhaps a minimum and maximum setback. 3. The single family dwellings which are zoned C-1 on Franklin Street between Grove and the Flat River Museum and those fronting on Grove and Montcalm should be rezoned to R-2. 4. Consider amending the R-2 Zone regulations to require a special use permit to convert a single family house to a duplex OR as an alternative revise the R-2 requirements so it is clear that a conversion of a single family dwelling to a duplex must have a minimum lot size of 10,000 sq. ft. with at least 720 sq. ft. of floor area per dwelling unit.
59
5. Rezone the non –conforming industrial zoned parcels on the north side of Market Street at Court Street and along Smith, Grove and Montcalm to R-2 as shown on the Future Land Use Map. 6. Rezone the C-2 zoned parcels located from just south of Gibson to Congress to the R-2 category so C-2 zone boundary more closely aligns with the rear lot line of those parcels fronting on North Lafayette. 7. Rezone from Industrial and C-2 to R-2 the single family dwellings north of Charles Street between Irving Street and the railroad tracks and also along Osmun Street and Coffren Street as illustrated on the Future Land Use Map. Both the 2002 and 2005 Master Plans also recommended this. 8. Prepare new zoning regulations for the Hospital Zoning District as described in Chapters 4 and 5. 9. Adopt a Low Impact Development ordinance that gives incentives for site design that incorporates green stormwater management. 10. Conduct an inventory of land uses and vegetation along the Flat River within the City limits and then determine the feasibility and practicality of establishing an overlay zone for the preservation of river front vegetation in order to improve the water quality of the river. 11. Revise the Zoning Ordinance to permit senior housing and assisted living facilities in all zones except industrial as a Special Use.
ACTION STEPS TO IMPLEMENT THE 2012 MASTER PLAN The items listed below are specific recommendations arising from the Citizen Survey, Community Visioning Workshop and the mobile workshops conducted in 2011. Some of these are also listed as goals and strategies in Chapter 3. These are listed here with the recommendation that the Planning Commission and Council review these twice each year in January and July and decide which ones to act upon and as a means to monitor progress in implementing these important measures. Action: Develop an action plan to improve the North Lafayette corridor; focus on improving street appearance, building façade improvements, re-development of vacant buildings, and access management. Action: Using the concept plan developed for the 2012 Plan as a starting point seek additional community involvement to identify and re-develop areas that will provide for a mix of uses (residential, 60
retail, office, and gathering spaces) in a contemporary setting that will act as a catalyst for further re-development in adjacent areas. The Lafayette / Flat River area concept plan once implemented could serve to strengthen the existing downtown and also serve as a catalyst for the revitalization of the North Lafayette commercial strip. Action: Increase the percentage of owner occupied dwellings to renter occupied dwellings which in 2010 was 57% to 43% to promote residential stability and property values. This can be accomplished by reducing or maintaining areas planned and zoned for multi-family land use and increasing the amount of land planned for detached and attached owner occupied dwellings and instituting policies, programs and ordinances to promote home ownership. Current zoning regulations should also be reviewed to determine the practicality of restricting the conversion of single family dwellings into duplexes. Action: Improve housing quality which falls below minimum standards by adoption and enforcement of necessary codes and public investment in rehabilitation programs. Consider the adoption of a Rental Property Maintenance Ordinance. Action: Work with Eureka Township to prepare a corridor study or sub-area plan for Washington Street (M-57) and Lafayette Avenue (M-91) to ensure the future of these roads as safe and wellmaintained major arteries and to ensure unified commercial districts that reflect a high quality of development. This should include creating attractive and inviting entrance points into the City. The plans would address access, landscaping, signs, and parking and include recommendations to limit curb cuts along these corridors and adopt policies to require closing of curb cuts where desirable. Action: Encourage the construction of pedestrian and bike paths along major arterial streets; incorporate the design concepts of “Complete Streets” into existing and future streets as noted in the following section. Action: Hold a volunteer fair once per year where a wide range of civic organizations are represented, and where issues as identified by the Master Plan can recruit “issues champions”. Example: a group can be formed to raise funds for a splash park.
61
Action: Establish links on the City’s web site which connects interested individuals to existing and future issues groups (web sites or Facebook pages). Action: Inventory Brownfields throughout the City and adjacent to the City limits.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COMPLETE STREETS Recommendations to assist the City of Greenville in moving toward the goal of increased use of transportation facilities for all users are as follows: 1. Lafayette Street (M-91) is a four-lane road between Greenville West Drive and the Flat River. Ample right-of-way exists here to consider adding bicycle lanes (and a possible “road diet”) which would provide access from the Heartland Trail to downtown Greenville and to river front activity centers planned on the south side of the river west of Lafayette. Touring cyclists as well as local users could more easily be routed directly into the downtown at street level. Further coordination with Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) is necessary to determine the feasibility of bicycle lanes in this location. 2. Franklin Street provides a direct connection from the City of Greenville Library at Union Street to the planned river front activity centers at the river on both sides of Franklin as well as to the Flat River Museum and Flat River Trail. Sufficient right-of-way exists on Franklin Street to provide bicycle lanes that would connect these areas, although further analysis would be needed to determine the actual feasibility. In addition, an improved crossing area would be needed at the Washington Street intersection; routing of bicycle traffic to the light at the Washington Street (M-57) and Lafayette Street (M-91) intersection may be desirable. Coordination with MDOT would be necessary to determine possible options. 3. The City of Greenville Community Recreation Plan 2010-2014 identifies as a priority the linking of city neighborhoods with the Flat River Trail via non-motorized sidewalks and trail sections. Many neighborhoods are lacking connections to the trail; any efforts to provide neighborhood connections should ensure barrier free access along any new routes, and at the point of connection with the existing Flat River Trail. This concept could potentially be applied to connections with the Heartland Trail as well. 4. Bicycle lanes may be appropriate along other streets in the central business district and residential neighborhoods and should be identified for practicality in view of available right-of-way. The 62
City of Greenville Downtown Development Authority has identified the provision of bike lanes in the downtown area as a discussion item. 5. Determine areas of the City where new or improved sidewalks are needed that will accommodate walkers and all legal users. 6. The Downtown Development Authority is pursuing the possible addition of on-street accessible parking spaces in the central business district; accessible curb cuts would need to be included in a design plan for the addition of accessible spaces.
CITY OF GREENVILLE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM The Capital Improvements Program (CIP) is a schedule of short and long range capital projects that have been earmarked for funding by the City Council. Elements of the CIP include: - Project identification - Project description; - Implementation timetable; - Project cost; - Funding sources; and - Parties responsible for undertaking the project. The 2008 Planning Enabling Act requires that all municipalities which operate a public water and/or sanitary sewer system prepare a Capital Improvements Program. The Planning Commission By- Laws state that the Commission is to be involved in the preparation of the annual Capital Improvements Program.
PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM The Plan recommends that the Planning Commission prepare an annual work program in the beginning of each year. This work program would set forth the tasks of goals which the Planning Commission determines to accomplish for the upcoming year. This will allow the Commission to stay focused on important tasks, in order to develop and implement goals and strategies identified within this Plan.
PLANNING EDUCATION The Planning Commissioners should be kept informed of planning seminars to learn how to better carry out their duties and responsibilities as Planning Commissioners. These seminars are regularly sponsored by the Michigan Association of Planning (MAP) and the Michigan Municipal League (MML) and are a valuable resource for Planning Commissions. There are also several planning publications which are useful information 63
tools for Planning Commissions. The main publications are Planning and Zoning News and Michigan Planner Magazine. The Michigan Citizen Planner Program which is administered by the Michigan State University Cooperative Extension Service is also an important education program for Planning Commissioners
REVISIONS TO MASTER PLAN The Planning Enabling Act of 2008 requires all Planning Commissions to review their Master Plans every five years and determine whether to amend the plan or adopt a new plan. This review allows the Commission to be responsive to new growth trends and current citizen attitudes. As growth occurs over the years, the Plan’s goals, land use information, population projections, and other pertinent data can then be reviewed and revised as necessary so the Plan can continue to serve as a valid guide to the growth of the City.
64
Appendix 1 Fred Meijer Flat River Trail Map
Appendix 2 Survey Summary
City of Greenville 2011 Citizen Survey
1. 1. How satisfied are you with the general appearance of the following areas in Greenville? (Both Sides) a. M57/West Washington Street: Hillcrest to Satterlee Road.
Response
Response
Percent
Count
Not at all Satisfied
18.6%
27
Satisfied
76.6%
111
Extremely Satisfied
4.8%
7
Please state why you are not satisfied.
43
answered question
145
skipped question
1
2. 1. How satisfied are you with the general appearance of the following areas in Greenville? b. Industrial Park Drive: M-57 to VanDeinse. (Both Sides)
Response
Response
Percent
Count
Not at all Satisfied
6.3%
9
Satisfied
84.0%
121
Extremely Satisfied
9.7%
14
Please state why you are not satisfied.
1 of 8
24
answered question
144
skipped question
2
3. 1. How satisfied are you with the general appearance of the following areas in Greenville? c. Lafayette Street from Washington to Montcalm (Downtown Greenville)
Response
Response
Percent
Count
Not at all Satisfied
20.8%
30
Satisfied
70.1%
101
Extremely Satisfied
9.0%
13
Please state why you are not satisfied.
52
answered question
144
skipped question
2
4. 1. How satisfied are you with the general appearance of the following areas in Greenville? d. Lafayette Street from the flat River north to the City limits. (Both Sides)
Response
Response
Percent
Count
Not at all Satisfied
47.2%
68
Satisfied
51.4%
74
Extremely Satisfied
1.4%
2
Please state why you are not satisfied.
2 of 8
67
answered question
144
skipped question
2
5. 2. What are the most pressing issues facing the City of Greenville? (Please mark all that apply)
Response
Response
Percent
Count
Unemployment / the economy
86.9%
126
Vacant commercial buildings
80.0%
116
7.6%
11
14.5%
21
10.3%
15
Pollution/contamination of natural resources Ratio of owner occupied to renter occupied houses in single family neighborhoods Crime
Other
3 of 8
29
answered question
145
skipped question
1
6. 3. What does the downtown need to better serve the community? (Please mark all that apply)
Better off -street parking lots
Response
Response
Percent
Count
29.4%
42
11.9%
17
20.3%
29
18.9%
27
Improved pedestrian safety
11.9%
17
More retail stores & restaurants
78.3%
112
No change. I like it the way is now
7.0%
10
(location, accessible, attractive) Better lighting More landscaping (street trees, flowers) Way finding signs (directional signs to parking lots, institutions and points of interest)
Other
4 of 8
41
answered question
143
skipped question
3
7. 4. Which of the following would make Greenville a better place to live? (Please mark all that apply)
Response
YES
NO
82.8% (101)
17.2% (21)
122
b. More elderly housing
40.9% (36)
59.1% (52)
88
c. More sidewalks and trails
54.0% (54)
46.0% (46)
100
d. More access to Flat River
58.0% (65)
42.0% (47)
112
e. Dedicated bus routes
58.9% (53)
41.1% (37)
90
83.6% (97)
16.4% (19)
116
a. Preserve historic buildings and resources
f. More public festivals, concerts, and Similar events
Count
g. Other
5 of 8
38
answered question
140
skipped question
6
8. 5. Please check your top three priorities from the following list.
Response
Response
Percent
Count
Recreation facilities & programs
58.9%
86
Downtown improvements
49.3%
72
Natural resource preservation
24.7%
36
Trail cleanup / maintenance
24.0%
35
Public Wi-Fi service
19.9%
29
Youth activities
57.5%
84
Historic Preservation
26.0%
38
Neighborhood safety
42.5%
62
answered question
146
skipped question
0
9. 6. What is the best use of the former Electrolux property? (Please mark all that apply)
Response
Response
Percent
Count
A mix of housing types (Attached & detached single family,
10.8%
15
45.3%
63
67.6%
94
apartments, duplexes) City park/boat launch Mixed use (residential, retail, office, village green)
Other
6 of 8
27
answered question
139
skipped question
7
Appendix 3 Existing Land Use Maps
LOCATION MAP
CITY OF GREENVILLE EXISTING LAND USE MAP 2011 MONTCALM COUNTY, MI NE QUADRANT
VIL L
RIVE ST D E WE
MA RKS NO RTH
SHE
IR VIN G
ARE
R
NO RTH
GR EEN VIL L E
SUM M IT
PEAR L
OSM U N
PEAR L
SEVE NTH
LIN CO L N
R D.
MO O RE
WAL NU T
CO NG RE SS
CL AY
TYL ER
CO NG RE SS
FRAN KL IN
BAR NAR D
CO NG RE SS
EUREKA TOWNSHIP
CO FFRE N
CO FFRE N
1 0 - 0 1 9 7
SE
CAL L AG H AN
CO FFRE N
CHA
BUR GE SS
VE
NE QUADRANT CHE RR Y
FIFTH
FOU RTH
SIXTH
FIRST
ST
THIR D
WE
SEC ON D
SUM M IT
DRI
EDG EW OO D
GR EEN
7 3 - 0 4 1 3
FITZNE R
VININ G
OWE N M U MA W IND US TRIAL D R.
CAL L AG H AN
LA M B
CHA RL E S
WATER
PL EAS ANT
MIL L S
LA FAYETT E
C T.
LA WRE NC E
SO N
OAK
RID
BL UFF
LA FAYETT E
MY RTL E
LU RAY
BOW ER
CL AY
FRAN KL IN
BAR RY
IR VIN G
CRO SS
CO UR T
GR OV E
OR ANG E HIL L CR EST
SM ITH
WEBS TER
JA ME S
E
PRO SP ECT
MA PL EWO O D
STATE
STATE
MO N TCAL M GR OV
MA RY AN N
MA RKE T
GE
M
OSM U N
TCAL
E
LU RAY
OL SE N
DO DG
CO UR T
GIBS ON JO HN
MO N
EL M WO OD
IN DU STR IAL PAR K DR .
N
MY RO N
GR EEN VIL L E WE ST D RIVE
OL SE N
KAR
IR VIN G
BL AC KBU RN
EL L SWO RTH CT.
SPR AG UE
CRO SS
WAL NU T
CAS S
LIN CO L N
BAL D WIN
CAS S
WASH ING TO N STR EE T (M -5 7 )
WASH ING TO N
KEN T
BEN TON
WEBS TER
SCH OO L L AN E
OAK
UNIO N
EL M
JU DD
BAL D WIN
ME RR Y L AN E
AL EXA ND ER
LIN CO L N
MA PL E
GR ANT
EDG EW OO D
JU DD
TA NA
FA BER
FRAN K
GR ANT
GR ANT
BAC KUS
CL AY
CED AR
OAK
IN DU STR IAL PAR K DR .
FRAN KL IN
OAK
MA RVE L
DAVID
MA PL EWO O D
GR EEN VIL L E WE ST D RIVE
GR OS VEN OR CT.
OAK
Me i j e r Dr iv e
RAN
DA L L
WASH ING TO N
BEN TON
LU RAY
BOW ER
RUT H
NEL S ON
BEN TON
OAK
GR ANT
HIG H
HAR RIS ON
LA FAYETT E
FRAN KL IN
SOU TH
EDG EW OO D
CRE SC ENT
EL M
BRA CY
EUR EKA
SUN NY SIDE CT.
EVER G REE N
D WIN
LA
KE
BAL
WASH ING TO N
FA IRPL A INS
CED AR
CO L L EEN
ADE L IN E
LA KE
MA CO M BER
MA RVE L
HIG H
BEN ITA
BA
LD
WI
N
BRIE RWO O D
E.
PINE
AR
K
RO SEW OO D GR EEN BR IER
CL
MIL
LS
PA
RK
L AK
E IE W
WIN
E CR
STV
AL D
PINE WO OD
T EN SC ALP INE
CRE
GL EN DA L E
W. B
GR
YER
OS
VEN OR
WOO D L AND
ME
EUREKA TOWNSHIP N GR EE
VILL E
W ES
IV T DR
MARKS NORTH
NORTH
Commercial
WATER TOWER
SEITER EDUCATION CENTER
E
IRVING
37 3 -0 4 1
EXISTING LAND USE LEGEND
FITZNER
VINING
CO M O
Industrial Mobile Home Park Multi-Family Dwelling
CHERRY
FIFTH
FOURTH
THIRD
SECOND
FIRST
SIXTH
PEARL
OSMUN
PEARL
EDGEWOOD
SUMMIT SUMMIT
Office Park/Recreational
COFFREN
SEVENTH
LINCOLN
CONGRESS
WALNUT
CONGRESS
CLAY
FRANKLIN
BARNARD
CONGRESS
MOORE
WALNUT HILLS ELEMENTARY
BURGESS
COFFREN
71 0 -0 1 9
Parking Lot CALLAGHAN
COFFREN
Public/Institutional Religious
CALLAGHAN
LAMB
CHARLES
INDUSTRIAL PARK DR.
IRVING
River/Lake WATER
LAFAYETTE
COURT
GIBSON
3 LAFAYETTE
CLAY
FRANKLIN
4
4
3
GLEN KERRY GOLF COURSE
SPRA GUE
3 CASS
CROSS
4
COMMUNITY CENTER KENT
JACKSON LANDING PARK
WASHINGTON
CITY HALL BENTON
AL L
WASHINGTON
3
BENT ON
CEDAR CREST
´ 1 inch = 1,100 feet
ALLEN G. DAVIS PARK
RAN D
BARRY
IRVING
CROSS
GROV E
3
SMITH
4 3
WEBS TER
4
WALNUT
OSMUN
5 3
Two-Family Dwelling Vacant
STATE
STATE
MONTCALM
ELLSWORTH CT.
EUREKA TOWNSHIP
3
TOWER RIVERSIDE PARK
COURT
FLAT RIVER BLU FF
MARKET
Single Family Dwelling
CITY OF GREENVILLE EXISTING LAND USE MAP 2011
LOCATION MAP OWE N M U MA W IND US TRIAL D R.
MONTCALM COUNTY, MI NW QUADRANT
NW QUADRANT
GR EEN
VIL L
RIVE ST D E WE
MA RKS NO RTH
NO RTH
EUREKA TOWNSHIP
BL UFF
WAL NU T
LA FAYETT E
CO UR T
SM ITH
CRO SS
WAL NU T
CAS S
DA L L MA PL E
GR ANT
HIG H
HAR RIS ON
EUREKA TOWNSHIP EUR EKA
WASH ING TO N
EDG EW OO D
CED AR
CRE SC ENT
SUN NY SIDE CT.
EVER G REE N
KE
D WIN
EL M
FA IRPL A INS
BRA CY
SOU TH
LA FAYETT E
FRAN KL IN
CO L L EEN
ADE L IN E
LA KE
MA CO M BER
MA RVE L
HIG H
BEN ITA
BAL
EDG EW OO D
EL M
GR ANT
BAC KUS
CL AY BAL D WIN
JU DD
GR ANT
GR ANT
LIN CO L N
AL EXA ND ER
ME RR Y L AN E
OAK
UNIO N
SCH OO L L AN E
FA BER
MA RVE L
JU DD
RAN
BEN TON
CED AR
OAK
IN DU STR IAL PAR K DR .
FRAN KL IN
OAK
WEBS TER
LU RAY
BOW ER
RUT H
NEL S ON
DAVID FRAN K
KEN T
WASH ING TO N
BEN TON
GR OS VEN OR CT.
OAK
TA NA
LIN CO L N
BAL D WIN
SPR AG UE
CL AY
FRAN KL IN
BAR RY
IR VIN G
CRO SS LU RAY
MY RTL E
EL L SWO RTH CT.
WASH ING TO N
Me i j e r Dr iv e
EDG EW OO D
OSM U N
JA ME S
E
WASH ING TO N STR EE T (M -5 7 )
MA PL EWO O D
FIFTH
CO UR T STATE
STATE
CAS S
BEN TON
IN DU STR IAL PAR K DR .
MIL L S
MA RKE T
GE
GR OV E
BOW ER
HIL L CR EST
MA PL EWO O D
SEVE NTH WATER
LA FAYETT E RID
OR ANG E
GR EEN VIL L E WE ST D RIVE
FOU RTH
CL AY
FRAN KL IN
BAR NAR D OAK
M
MO N TCAL M GR OV
MA RY AN N
OAK
CAL L AG H AN
LA M B
IR VIN G TCAL
E
PRO SP ECT
EL M WO OD
MO O RE
CO NG RE SS
CHA RL E S
C T.
LA WRE NC E
MY RO N
SO N
LU RAY
OL SE N
CO NG RE SS
GIBS ON JO HN
PL EAS ANT
OL SE N
GR EEN VIL L E WE ST D RIVE
N
MO N
DO DG
SIXTH
LIN CO L N
CO NG RE SS
BL AC KBU RN KAR
CO FFRE N
CO FFRE N
1 0 - 0 1 9 7
R D.
TYL ER
CAL L AG H AN
CO FFRE N
PEAR L
BUR GE SS
VE
PEAR L
THIR D
FIRST OSM U N
ST
SE
SEC ON D
WE
DRI
CHA
SUM M IT
SUM M IT
WEBS TER
GR EEN VIL L E
CHE RR Y
SHE
IR VIN G
ARE
R
7 3 - 0 4 1 3
FITZNE R
VININ G
OWEN MUMAW INDUSTRIAL DR.
BA
LD
WI
N
LA
BRIE RWO O D
E.
PINE
AR
K
RO SEW OO D
CL
MIL
LS
PA
GR EEN BR IER
RK
E
STV
IE W
E CR
CRE
PINE WO OD
T EN SC ALP
INE
GL EN DA L E
L AK
OS
WIN
GR
YER
VEN OR
WOO D L AND
ME
AL D W. B
ES LE W N VIL
GR EE
CO M O
T DR
IV E
MARKS
SHE
EXISTING LAND USE LEGEND
GREENVILLE
W
Commercial
IRVING
AR E
R
373-04 1
DR
Mobile Home Park
OSMUN
T
ES
FLAT RIVER
Industrial
IVE
COFFREN
CH
AS
Office
ER
LINCOLN
710-01 9
Multi-Family Dwelling
D.
TYLER
Public/Institutional
N
MO N
T CA
OA K
LM
FLAT RIVER
R ID
GE
TOWER RIVERSIDE PARK
BLU FF
STATE
LURAY
OSMU N
GE
LAFAYETTE
NC T.
PLEASANT
MILLS
NS O
LAWRENCE
MYRON
GIBSON
JOH
DO D
OLSEN
CHARLES
IRVING
KAR
HIGH SCHOOL
MONTCALM
JAMES
MA RY
GR O
VE
AN N
WASHINGTON STREET (M-57)
LAFAYETTE
FRANKLIN
BARRY
IRVING
MYRTLE
LURAY
ELLSWORTH CT.
CROSS
VETERAN'S PARK
LINCOLN
CASS
BALDWIN
ARMORY
ORANGE
BOWER
ELMWOOD
MONTCALM COMMUNITY COLLEGE
GROVE
CROSS
PROSPECT
HILLCREST
Vacant
GREENVILLE MIDDLE SCHOOL
MAPLEWOOD
Two-Family Dwelling
GREEN VILLE WEST DRIVE
Single Family Dwelling
OLSEN
BLACKBURN
Religious
River/Lake
BARNARD
Parking Lot
FRANKLIN
CONGRESS
Park/Recreational
WASHINGTON
CITY HALL
´
1 inch = 800 feet
GROVE
3
MONTCALM COUNTY, MI SE QUADRANT
COURT
4 3
SMITH
4
WEBSTER
CITY OF GREENVILLE EXISTING LAND USE MAP 2011 3
ALLEN G. DAVIS PARK
4
GLEN KERRY GOLF COURSE
3 LAFAYETTE
CLAY
SPRAGUE
EXISTING LAND USE LEGEND
3
4
3
Commercial
WALNUT
CASS
Industrial
COMMUNITY CENTER
Office
Park/Recreational
UNION
GRANT
FL AT RI V
TANA
MAPLE
ER
GRANT
EDGEWOOD
JUDD
ELM
LIBRARY
GRANT
Parking Lot
EUREKA TOWNSHIP
OAK
BACKUS
CEDAR CREST SCHOOL
INDUSTRIAL PARK DR.
CLAY
CEDAR
OAK
N
RAN
BENTO
WEBSTER
BENTON
Multi-Family Dwelling
DA L L
JACKSON LANDING PARK
CITY HALL
Mobile Home Park
KENT
WASHINGTON
GLEN KERRY GOLF COURSE
HIGH
PUBLIC SERVICES
Public/Institutional Religious
River/Lake
Single Family Dwelling Two-Family Dwelling Vacant
WASHINGTON
EDGEWOOD
CRESCENT
CEDAR
EUREKA
BUS TRANSIT GARAGE
LOCATION MAP
EVERGREEN
OWE N M U MA W IND US TRIAL D R.
VININ G
BRIERW OOD GR EEN
VIL L
RIVE ST D E WE
MA RKS NO RTH
NO RTH
BL UFF
OSM U N
CO UR T
WAL NU T
CRO SS
MA PL E
HIG H
HAR RIS ON
LA FAYETT E
SOU TH
WASH ING TO N EDG EW OO D
EL M
CED AR
BRA CY
FA IRPL A INS
SUN NY SIDE CT.
EUR EKA
EVER G REE N
D WIN
KE
BAL
SE QUADRANT CRE SC ENT
FRAN KL IN
ADE L IN E
EUREKA TOWNSHIP
CO L L EEN
BEN ITA
LA KE
MA CO M BER
MA RVE L
HIG H
IN DU STR IAL PAR K DR .
EL M
GR ANT
GR ANT
BA
LD
WI
N
LA
BRIE RWO O D
E.
PINE
AR
K
RO SEW OO D
CL
MIL
LS
PA
GR EEN BR IER
RK
E E CR
IE W STV
L AK
CRE
CO M O
GL EN DA L E
WIN
OS
AL D
GR
YER
VEN OR
WOO D L AND
ME
W. B
T EN SC ALP
INE
PINE WO OD
BAC KUS
DA L L CL AY
JU DD
GR ANT
GR ANT
LIN CO L N
BAL D WIN
ME RR Y L AN E
AL EXA ND ER
OAK
UNIO N
SCH OO L L AN E
FA BER
MA RVE L
JU DD
RAN
BEN TON
CED AR
OAK
EDG EW OO D
FRAN KL IN
OAK
WEBS TER
LU RAY
BOW ER
RUT H DAVID FRAN K
KEN T
WASH ING TO N
BEN TON
GR OS VEN OR CT.
TA NA
LIN CO L N
BAL D WIN
CAS S
OAK
Me i j e r Dr iv e
1 inch = 800 feet
SPR AG UE
CL AY
LA FAYETT E
BAR RY
FRAN KL IN
CRO SS
IR VIN G
MY RTL E
LU RAY
EL L SWO RTH CT.
SM ITH
E
WEBS TER
JA ME S
GR OV
WASH ING TO N
BEN TON
IN DU STR IAL PAR K DR .
STATE
STATE
MO N TCAL M
CAS S
OAK
BUR GE SS
WAL NU T MA RKE T
GE
WASH ING TO N STR EE T (M -5 7 )
NEL S ON
FIFTH
FOU RTH
CO UR T
LA FAYETT E RID
GR OV E
BOW ER
HIL L CR EST
MA PL EWO O D
NE
SIXTH
CL AY
IR VIN G MIL L S
PL EAS ANT
OAK
M
LU RAY
OL SE N
TCAL
OR ANG E
PI
CAL L AG H AN
LA M B
WATER
C T.
LA WRE NC E
MY RO N
GR EEN VIL L E WE ST D RIVE
SO N
E
´
MO O RE
CO NG RE SS
CHA RL E S
PRO SP ECT
MA PL EWO O D
ES
TV
I EW
C
DO DG
CO NG RE SS
GIBS ON
MO N
EL M WO OD
GR EEN VIL L E WE ST D RIVE
RE
N
JO HN
MA RY AN N
NT AL
E SC
OL SE N
KAR
FRAN KL IN
BAR NAR D
CO NG RE SS
SEVE NTH
LIN CO L N
R D.
TYL ER
PINEWOOD
CO FFRE N
CO FFRE N
1 0 - 0 1 9 7
WOODLAND
PEAR L
CAL L AG H AN
CO FFRE N
SE
THIR D
FIRST OSM U N
ST DRI
CHA
GREENBRIER
BL AC KBU RN
CR
SEC ON D
WE
ROSEWOOD
PEAR L
EDG EW OO D
SUM M IT
SUM M IT
VE
CHE RR Y
SHE
IR VIN G
ARE
R
7 3 - 0 4 1 3
GR EEN VIL L E
GLENDALE
SUNNYSIDE CT.
ELM
BRACY
FAIRPLAINS
FITZNE R
LAFAYETTE
HARRISON
CITY OF GREENVILLE EXISTING LAND USE MAP 2011 MONTCALM COUNTY, MI SW QUADRANT
ARMORY
VETERAN'S PARK CITY HALL
SPECTRUM UNITED MEM. HOSPITAL
EXISTING LAND USE LEGEND Commercial
BALDWIN HEIGHTS ELEM.
LIBRARY
Industrial
Mobile Home Park
Multi-Family Dwelling Office
HATHAWAY GREENS PUD
Park/Recreational
GREENVILLE COUNTRY CLUB
Public/Institutional Religious
River/Lake
Single Family Dwelling Two-Family Dwelling Vacant
EUREKA TOWNSHIP
Parking Lot
TOWER PARK
MANOKA LAKE
LOCATION MAP BALDWIN LAKE
EUREKA TOWNSHIP
COMO LAKE
SW QUADRANT
´
1 inch = 800 feet
Appendix 4 Trail and Bike Lane Map
Appendix 5 Lafayette /Flat River Re-Development Concept
Appendix 6 2005 Plan Future Land Use Maps and Recommendations
GREENVILLE WEST STUDY AREA
Recommendations 1.
Area west of Nelson Street & Abutting Maplewood Drive For the area west of Nelson abutting Maplewood Drive the Master Plan recommends office use. An office use on this approximately 7 acre parcel makes good planning sense as it provides a transition from the single family homes fronting on Nelson Street to the Meijer Store to the west. An office use on this property should be no more than two stories in height and should be of a residential appearance with a pitched roof to provide an aesthetic blending with the single-family homes along Nelson Street. The existing tree line at the rear of Nelson Street houses should be retained as a landscape screen although additional screening may be necessary. Office buildings should be situated so that the parking is on the Maplewood side and any lighting on Nelson Street side should be minimal and of low intensity. The Plan recommends that this property be developed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) in order to assure that the design standards noted above can be implemented at the time of rezoning. The Plan recognizes that a number of participants at the Workshop had recommended Low Density Residential use for this particular area. While the Plan recommends office use for this site residential use should not be discounted if the density is not more than 4.36 units per acre and the buildings are of a size and scale which can be compatible with the Nelson Street neighborhood.
2.
The Greenville Country Club The Greenville Country Club is recommended for Low Density Residential use as was recommended in the 1999 Plan. While the golf course may very well be a long-term use it is prudent to plan for development of this area given that many golf courses in other communities have been converted to other uses. Low Density Residential use of the golf course would be in keeping with the land use pattern established for this part of the City. If this property is developed for residential use the design of the street system must be such that neighborhood traffic can move efficiently but not be so inviting so as to encourage non-residents drive to cut through the neighborhood to reach the commercial uses to the west along Meijer Drive and Greenville West Drive. In light of the hilly terrain on the golf course property future streets and lots should be designed to minimize alteration of the existing topography. Provision should be made to allow for street connections to the residential uses planned to the west. Central greens and civic open space should also be provided.
3.
Area west of the Golf Course and South of Meadow Ridge & Edgewater Apartments The remainder of the property in the Greenville West Study Area is recommended for Low Density Residential use at a density of no more than 4.36 dwelling units per acre over the entire site. Single family dwellings would be the predominant land use for this area. Duplexes and
multi-family buildings including townhouses with no more than 10 units per building could, however, be included as part of a mixed residential use project but only if the site is developed as a planned unit development. Multi-family style buildings would be best located in the northeast portion of the site east of the Meadow Ridge Apartments and south of the planned office use along the east side of Maplewood. An existing ridge line and wetlands along the south side of this multi-family portion provide a transition to the remainder of this area which is envisioned for single family detached housing. A planned unit development for this area would be desirable as this would allow for the preservation of natural site features such as wetlands, hills and mature woods, which line the perimeter of the site. Preserved open space could take the form of a centralized play area or the open space could be a trail system to allow residents to take advantage of the natural site features. A planned unit development would also allow for larger lots to be developed on the south and west perimeter abutting existing single-family homes on larger lots. Consideration should be given to connecting a future street system in this area with existing and future streets to the south and west. Any development of the site should take into consideration protection of the wetland and preservation of the wood. As part of any development of this area the Flat River Trail is recommended to traverse this area by the Greenville Recreation Plan. Therefore, the Master Plan recommends that the trail be incorporated into any development of this area.
GREENVILLE EAST STUDY AREA Recommendations 1.
The area on the south side of East Washington between Cedar and Edgewood should remain as Medium Density Residential (MDR) which is analogous to the R-2 zoning category. This was the recommendation of the 2002 Master Plan. These single-family homes are all well kept with a good setback from East Washington and they serve to stabilize the residential character of this portion of East Washington. A sidewalk should be provided in front of these homes to improve pedestrian safety. 2. That area on the north side of East Washington between Walnut and the Flat River is recommended for High Density Residential (HDR). This recommendation reflects the existence of the Cambridge Court Apartments and the two-family dwellings at the corner of Walnut and East Washington. The HDR recommendation provides a transition from the commercial uses along the Flat River to the single-family homes on Walnut. A three family unit and an adjacent single family dwelling provide the only real opportunity for new development in this area. As an alternative to the HDR recommendation for these two adjacent parcels an Office designation would create a similar transition between Cedar Street extended and the Cambridge Court Apartments. An office use would be compatible with both the commercial use to the west and the apartments to the east. Access to these two properties is a concern given the change in topography and the proximity to the existing Cedar Street on the south. An office or apartment use of these two parcels should only be considered if these two parcels can be combined and Cedar Street is constructed north of East
Washington to provide safer access. Without these conditions occurring, the combination of the parcels and the construction of Cedar Street, these two parcels should not be considered for development for office purposes or a newly constructed multi-family use. 3.
The Master Plan recommends that the vacant church property at M-57 and Edgewood be rezoned to the Office category. An Office designation would allow this vacant building to be reused as a church but would also allow other office uses as well. These uses would be compatible with the other land uses on M-57 nearby and with the single-family homes to the west of Edgewood.
4.
The Clarion Technologies building is zoned industrial and the Plan recommends continued industrial use of this property. However, should Clarion vacate these premises, and if no other industrial use utilizes this property other non-industrial uses of this facility should be considered. Uses which would be acceptable include a combination of office and apartments within the Clarion building with new commercial use along the East Washington frontage that would serve nearby residential areas, in keeping with the Neighborhood Commercial uses on the north side of East Washington at the intersection of Cedar. Certainly some industrial use could be retained but other non industrial uses would also be suitable given the nearby residential uses, Cedar Crest Elementary School and Jackson’s Landing Park on the west. In any event, plantings should be provided along the East Washington and Cedar Street frontage in order to improve the appearance of the streetscape.
5.
The industrial designation for the Country Roads property should continue and is the City’s first priority for a re-use of this facility given the size and configuration of the existing building, its location on a City truck route, good access from M-57, its compatibility with nearby industrial uses and the existence of utilities to serve future industrial users. Any future industrial user of this property should provide additional landscaping along M-57 to screen the security fence and improve the appearance along M-57. Due to its size (140,000 sq. ft.) this vacant industrial building has the potential for uses other than industrial. Its location on M-57 provides visibility and traffic volumes which could help support other uses such as commercial or office. The predominately single family neighborhood to the west could benefit by convenience commercial uses in this portion of the City. In order to broaden the possible uses for this vacant facility other uses in addition to industrial could be considered provided such uses are compatible with nearby residential and industrial uses and do not adversely affect the existing character of this area including the nearby existing industrial uses. Although this vacant industrial building may have potential for other uses, the City’s first priority is to see that the building is occupied with a new manufacturing facility that will create jobs and investment in the community. Criteria to Evaluate Non-industrial uses of the Clarion & Country Roads Facilities Both the Clarion and Country Roads facilities have the potential for non-industrial use, such as commercial, as noted above. Because commercial use of these properties would be a significant change to the character of the area around these facilities and could lead to other land uses changes in the vicinity not recommended by previous Master Plans or this Addendum, such a change should be carefully considered. The following general criteria should be utilized in reviewing any requests for commercial use at both of these locations. Criteria specific to the Country Roads facility is also set forth below.
The Plan recommends that the non-industrial re-use of the Country Roads property and the Clarion property shall only be allowed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) as this zoning tool would allow greater control by the City in assuring that such use could meet the above criteria. General Criteria a.
b.
Non-industrial uses of these properties, such as commercial, should be based upon a conclusion that a non–industrial use of either of these facilities would not jeopardize or diminish the economic development goals of the City. Commercial use of either of these facilities should not compromise the carrying capacity of M-57 nor result in unsafe vehicle turning movements into and out of the site. A traffic impact study should be done in order to evaluate how a commercial use of either of these sites would affect traffic movements on M-57 and on nearby residential streets. Such study should also evaluate the impact on traffic at the downtown intersection of M-91 and M-57. (Lafayette and Washington)
c.
Lighting for parking lots and buildings should have cut-off fixtures and not exceed 23 feet in height. In order to protect the integrity of nearby residential areas, landscaping and perhaps decorative fencing should also be required to minimize building size and to screen and reduce the noise from vehicle and people movement on the site.
d.
Proposed uses which would detract from the development potential of vacant commercial properties on the west side of Greenville and other commercial areas should be carefully evaluated to avoid a surplus of vacant commercial space.
e.
The potential for industrial re-use of either of these facilities has diminished to the point that such reuse is unlikely and that a different use is now appropriate so that the facility does not become a visual nuisance due to owner neglect.
f.
Commercial use of these properties should be based on a demonstration that converting this facility to a non-industrial use will not reduce the ability of the City to accomplish its objective of creating more industrial employment opportunities in the City.
Criteria Specific to the Country Roads Facility a.
The uses proposed would be supportive of and not have a negative impact upon the residential neighborhood to the west and the industrial uses to the south. Uses permitted in this zone should serve to provide convenience shopping opportunities to the nearby residential and industrial neighborhood as well as serve the needs of passing traffic.
b.
Because of the proximity of this building to the homes on streets such as Edgewood, Grant, Judd, High and Oak, a re-design or re-use of this large facility should have a positive visual impact on this adjacent neighborhood. Façade improvements may be necessary to accomplish this.
c.
Any re-development of this property should be done with the additional objective of improving the appearance of this portion of M-57 in order to establish a positive identity for this gateway to the City of Greenville.
d.
Would commercial use of this property lead to additional requests for commercial zoning at this end of M-57 creating the need for costly road improvements as occurred on the west side of Greenville?
6.
The Master Plan recommends commercial or office use for the Consumer’s Energy property and for those adjacent properties to the northwest up to the Metron property. While these properties are zoned for commercial use, they do not currently contain retail or service shopping opportunities for residents at the east end of the City. Retaining these properties in the commercial designation allows for possible conversion to a retail or service use.
7.
The land along the west side of Industrial Park Drive south of Kent Street is currently zoned R-2. The Plan recommends that this zoning remain in place which would allow for the development of this land for single- or two-family dwellings.
8.
The Master Plan recommends that the low-density residential classification be continued for the land east of Industrial Park Drive. Should the golf course convert entirely to a single-family development, public utilities would need to be provided. A parcel at the northwest corner of M-57 and Backus Road is zoned R-3. The Plan recommends that this land be rezoned to the R-1 category to encourage development for single-family homes.
9.
In order to create a more positive city identity for those entering Greenville from the east the Plan recommends that sidewalks be extended along the east side of M-57 from Industrial Park Drive to Walnut in order to provide for pedestrian access along this roadway and that trees be planted and street lights be provided along this roadway. Additional signage could also be installed welcoming visitors to Greenville.
10. The property along the south side of Kent Street and west of Industrial Park Drive is currently zoned R-3 and was recommended for High Density Residential use in the 2002 Master Plan. Wetlands or low-lying areas with poor drainage exist along this roadway which could make it somewhat difficult to develop. HDR use of this property may be appropriate given the proximity to the Allen G. Davis Park to the north and the Consumer’s Energy utility yard to the south. However, single-family development may also be appropriate and the Plan would recommend consideration of this type of land use under the Medium Density Residential category.
GREENVILLE NORTH STUDY AREA Recommendations The following are possible future scenarios for the use of the Electrolux property. 1.
Continued use of the Electrolux Facility for Industrial Purposes
•
Remove the truck parking lot on Charles Street and convert this to residential use or park use.
•
Rezone the industrial land east of Irving and south of Congress to R-2 or R-3 to ensure the stability of this area for residential purposes. Consideration should be given however to
converting those homes fronting on Irving Street to convert to industrial should a future user of the Electrolux plant request this. •
Require improvements to the existing parking lot along Greenville West Drive to include landscaping, fencing, and lighting to comply with current zoning ordinance standards.
2.
Conversion of Electrolux Facility and Land to Non-Industrial Uses • •
3.
The significant frontage along the Flat River provides excellent opportunities for a variety of housing types including single family attached and detached dwelling units. Development of this area for residential use should be done as a Planned Unit Development which provides great flexibility in building location so as to maintain the Flat Rive as an amenity.
•
Density should be at least 8 to 12 units per acre to take advantage of existing roads and utilities and to create a population base within the city to support nearby retail and service uses.
•
That portion of the site along Greenville West Drive could be devoted to commercial or office uses with an emphasis on making these uses blend with the new residential uses along the Flat River to help create a downtown and walkable atmosphere.
Recreational Use
The abutting Flat River provides an excellent opportunity for recreational uses such as trails, wild life viewing areas, fishing, or converting some portion of the existing facility or lands to athletic fields or playgrounds. Other Recommendations •
Rezone the industrial land along Irving Street and Congress to R-2 or R-3.
•
Remove the truck parking lot on Charles Street and convert to residential and/or park use.
•
Consider rezoning the residential uses along the west side of First Street from C-2 to R-2 to protect the viability of the single neighborhood to the east.
•
Inventory the curb and sidewalk conditions along North Lafayette and make improvements as necessary.
•
In order to increase the opportunities for the reuse of the Meijer store the plan recommends that residential uses be considered for this site along with office and commercial uses as allowed by the current C-2 zoning.
OTHER INDUSTRIAL AREAS While the Electrolux facility is the largest industrial use in the City other industrial uses north of downtown are similar to Electrolux in many respects and deserve to be reviewed as part of this Master
Plan Addendum. Federal Mogul, Tower Automotive and Northland Corporation are all older manufacturing facilities that located along the Flat River and remained viable while residential neighborhoods grew up around them. These buildings, however, are aging and may need modernizing, the nearby residential streets which allow vehicle parking are not conducive to the safe and efficient movement of industrial truck traffic which can also disrupt the quiet of these surrounding neighborhoods, and the Flat River is no longer a source for water and transportation. These industrial uses may at some future time seek other locations in Greenville, such as the Greenville Industrial Park, which are more suitable for their operations and vacate their current facilities. Given this possibility it makes good planning sense, as in the case of Electrolux, to consider other future land uses for these areas which are not industrial in nature. The following are possible future scenarios and development guidelines for the use of the Federal Mogul, Tower Automotive and Northland Corporation properties. Any future non-industrial use of these properties should seek to incorporate the Flat River as an attractive amenity. 1.
Residential Use •
The significant frontage along the Flat River provides excellent opportunities for a variety of housing types including single family attached and detached dwelling units. Converting the existing buildings to residential use would be encouraged.
•
Development of this area for residential use should be done as a Planned Unit Development which provides great flexibility in building location so as to maintain the Flat River as an amenity and preserve the floodplain.
•
Residential re-development of these areas should seek to match and be compatible with the density of the nearby residential areas and provide sidewalks, street trees, and street lights to maintain the traditional neighborhood character of this section of Greenville
•
The design of future residential neighborhoods should include the extension of the existing public street system to physically tie neighborhoods together.
2.
Commercial / Office Use •
Non-industrial uses of these properties, such as commercial, should be based upon a conclusion that a non–industrial use of any of these facilities would not jeopardize or diminish the economic development goals of the City.
•
Any commercial uses proposed would be supportive of and not have a negative impact upon nearby residential neighborhood. Uses permitted should serve to provide convenience shopping opportunities to the nearby residential neighborhoods.
•
Because of the proximity of these buildings to nearby homes any re-use should have a positive visual impact on adjacent neighborhoods. Facade improvements may be necessary to accomplish this.
3.
•
Proposed uses which would detract from the development potential of vacant commercial properties on the north side of Greenville and other commercial areas should be carefully evaluated to avoid a surplus of vacant commercial space.
•
A determination should be made that the potential for industrial re-use of any of these facilities has diminished to the point that such re-use is unlikely and that a different use is now appropriate so that the facility does not become a visual nuisance due to owner neglect.
Recreational Use
The Flat River abutting these properties provides an excellent opportunity for recreational uses such as trails, wild life viewing areas, fishing, or converting the already level floodplains to athletic fields or playgrounds.
FAIRGROUNDS While the County Fairgrounds was not a specific study area in this Addendum its future use needs more direction than was described in the previous Plan. The closeness of this site to the Greenville Middle School and High School and to the retail uses on West Washington are strong reasons to designate this land for Medium Density Residential (MDR) use as future residents can easily walk to these destinations. MDR use of the Fairgrounds is also logical as this will allow for the extension of the single family neighborhood east of Hillcrest reinforcing the solid residential component of this section of the City. In light of the commercial uses on Washington some consideration could be given to low intensive commercial or office use or perhaps small (no more than eight unit) multi-family buildings at the south end of this site as a transition to detached single family dwellings for the remainder of the Fairgrounds property. This type of mixed use development could best be accomplished as a Planned Unit Development which provides the City with better control over site design to ensure compatibility with nearby land uses and to preserve natural areas. Any development of this site should provide walkways to the nearby schools and retail uses. Consideration also needs to be given to providing a suitable buffer along the west portion which abuts non-residential uses and a small multi-family development.
Joint Future Development Plan For Eureka Charter Township And the City of Greenville
For the “Adjoining Parcels” as Described in the Urban Cooperation and 425 Agreements Of March 29, 2007
Accepted by the Eureka Charter Township Board November 10, 2008 Accepted by the Greenville City Council November 4, 2008
1
INTRODUCTION The City of Greenville and Eureka Charter Township have entered into an Urban Cooperation Act Agreement and an Act 425 Agreement to allow for the transfer of the Wal-Mart Store property located west of the City on M-57, the adjacent Wal-Mart out lots and property identified in the Agreement as the Triad Parcel from the Township into the City of Greenville and to receive City services as part of this transfer. These properties are located north and east of the intersection of M-57 and Satterlee Road. As part of this the City and the Township also agreed to a “Joint Development Agreement” regarding five parcels adjoining the WalMart and Triad Parcels. This Joint Development Agreement is essentially a Joint Plan for these five parcels setting forth future development recommendations for these adjoining parcels which are currently within Eureka Charter Township. PLAN PREPARATION PROCESS The Greenville/Eureka Township Joint Planning Committee (JPC), which is composed of eight members; four from each community, began their joint planning effort on March of 2008. The JPC determined the issues to be resolved, established objectives for the Joint Plan and began discussing land use alternatives. The owners of the properties included in the Joint Plan were invited to attend a meeting on May 28th at the Greenville Public Library to discuss a draft future land use plan. Following this meeting the JPC continued preparation of land use scenarios for the Joint Plan area and agreed upon a draft Future Land Use Map which was subsequently reviewed by the Eureka Township Planning Commission on June 18 and by the Greenville Planning Commisison on June 25, 2008. On July 28, 2008 the Planning Commissions from Eureka Township and the City of Greenville met in a joint session to discuss the Draft Plan. Following this meeting modifications were made to the Future Land Use Map and on October 30, 2008 the Eureka Township and City of Greenville Planning Commissions met in a joint session and recommended approval of the Joint Plan to their respective elected officials. The Plan was subsequently accepted on November 10, 2008 by the Eureka Township Board and by the Greenville City Council on November 4, 2008. PLAN OBJECTIVES The following planning objectives were established by the Joint Planning Committee to guide the development of the Joint Plan 1.
Protect and maintain the quality of nearby existing residential land uses.
2.
Provide for a mix of land uses.
3.
Maintain safe traffic flow. 2
4.
Future land uses should be “walkable”.
5.
“Big box” retail uses may be appropriate for this area.
6.
Protect significant natural features.
7.
Planned uses should not compete with downtown Greenville.
DESCRIPTION OF PLANNING AREA The Joint Planning Area is located entirely within Eureka Township and consists of five parcels totaling about 155 acres. Portions of the planning area abut the City of Greenville. The majority of the planning area parcels are zoned Agricultural which requires a minimum lot size of three acres. The SR Zone permits single family dwellings with a minimum lot size of ¾ acre. Commercial zoning exists along the M-57 frontage west of Youngman Road Land uses consist of the Mormon Church east of Wal Mart with frontage on M-57 and orchards north of and west of Wal Mart owned and Operated by Klackle Orchards. The land is relatively flat to the north and east of Wal Mart with some woods along the north portions of the planning area. There are several small low drainage areas on the Mormon Church property and on the property to the north. The traffic volumes on Satterlee Road taken by Montcalm County Road Commission in April of 2008 were 1142 vehicles per day for two way traffic. The count was taken on Satterlee Road just north of the Wal Mart driveway. City of Greenville water and sanitary sewer lines are located within the M-57 right of way extending to Satterlee Road. Extending these utility lines to serve lands west of Satterlee Road is possible. The sanitary sewer pipe size is somewhat limited and measures may need to be taken to accommodate the expected flow from the planning area. The Existing Conditions Map provides an illustration of the above narrative. FUTURE LAND USE The Future Land Use Map accepted by the Eureka Township Board and the Greenville Planning Commission presents alternative concepts for the future development of these parcels. One concept is that the land will be developed under the zoning regulations of Eureka Township while the alternative concept would allow development under the zoning regulations for the City of Greenville. The Future Land Use classifications and descriptions for each alternative are described below. Eureka Charter Township Future Land Use Categories SR- Suburban Residential: served by private utilities.
Single family dwellings with a minimum lot size of ¾ acre
UR- Urban Residential: Moderate density residential (3-4 units per acre if utilities are provided) permitting a variety of residential housing types: single family, duplexes, attached housing, multi-family and senior housing/assisted living. 3
Village Center: This category proposes a multi-use development arranged in a traditional neighborhood design coupled with neighborhood retail /office and service uses centered on a village green with the emphasis on interior pedestrian access. This type of development could serve as a type of village center for Eureka Township residents. Zoning regulations would need to be developed to allow for this arrangement of uses. As an alternative to the Village Center Concept the Plan recognizes that general commercial uses would also be appropriate to a depth of about 500 feet from M-57 transitioning to residential. General Commercial: This future land use category is proposed to the north of the existing commercial uses on M-57 west of Satterlee Road and is one of several alternatives proposed for this area. Future commercial uses should not extend north of the Wal-Mart building. OSC - Office Service Commercial: This category is proposed north of Wal-Mart along Satterlee Road and would serve as a transition to the existing single family neighborhood to the north. Uses permitted in this area will need to provide appropriate buffering measures to ensure compatibility with residential land uses. Greenville Future Land Use Categories LDR -Low Density Residential: The LDR category is analogous to the R1 zoning district. The predominant use in this category is single family dwellings at a density of about four units per acre. MDR – Medium Density Residential: MDR is the same as the City’s R2 zoning category which would allow single family dwellings and duplexes at a density of about five units per acre.
4
Appendix 7 2008 Joint Development Plan with Eureka Township
YOUNGMAN RD.
LOT 5
ANNESED TO CITY OF GREENVILLE
28
9
0
0 510-02
510-03
510-04
510-01 18
17
14
Winter GREENVILLE CITY LIMIT
13
043-40
R-3 ZONE 509-70
043-50
GRATIOT NR HOME
50 8
508-35
50 8
-4
046-22
019-00
155-00 95.17'
026-00
10
9
8
008-00
060-70
63'
C-2 ZONE
010-00
11
070-20
12
011-00
046-30
012-00
Parcel B
6
006-00
7
007-00
13
030-70
Parcel A
6
009-00
5
GREENVILLE WEST DR.
59-052-487
007-50
Greenville West No. 2
5
Greenville West Dr.
59-008-320
4
5
508-00
013-00
3
4
-6
0
2
3
63'
12
052-694-509-50
1
155-00
11
Creek Condo.
045-00
7
10
9
15
16
043-60
2
59-008-520
8
CHURCH
070-10
2006 #
Par cel 11
509-60
MDOT
052-742-135-00
59-008-360 6 7
5
4
19
Kaedings Westview Sub.
Supervisor's Plat of Abbey's Add.
040-10 8
Par cel 10
OUT LOT A
20
340'
9
10
510-05 Par cel 9
59-052-694-512
69.09'
GREENVILLE CITY LIMIT
11
3
043-30
21
254.87'
CHURCH
12
Par cel 8
044-00
71.08'
002-11
13
14
130-00
8" SANITARY
250-20
250-10
12" WATERMAIN
15
Par cel 7
Leland Dr.
6
LOT 4
16
742-164-00
17
- Multi-use occupancy - Assorted architectural styles - Two story buildings - Residential detailing & scale - Interior sidewalks - Maintain pedestrian & visual connection to Village Green - Sidewalks along Satterlee Rd.
LOT 3
038-30
CHURCH NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL/OFFICE
742-163-00
037-00
As an alternative to the Village Center concept, the Plan recommends General Commercial to a depth of 500 feet.
Village Green 040-01
160-00
038-02
Par cel 6
Leland Estates 2
046-21
a
038-10
LOT 2
SATTERLEE RD.
Par cel 5
1
- Traditional neighborhood design - Townhomes - Condo's - Duplexes - Smaller S.F. lots closer to village green - Front porches
PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY AND CITY LIMITS
120-00
CITY COUNCIL 11/04/08 FUTURE LAND USE MAP GREENVILLE / EUREKA TOWNSHIP JOINT PLANNING COMMITTEE
012-01
VILLAGE CENTER
024-01
ACCEPTED BY THE EUREKA TOWNSHIP 014-10 BOARD 11/10/08
018-00 ACCEPTED BY THE GREENVILLE
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
south portion - Provide suitable buffer/transition to residential uses to north portion
MAINTAIN EXISTING TREE LINE
014-00
020-00
021-00
57 019-00
1
020-50
019-10 2
Parcel A
3
Parcel B
4
001-00
5
002-00
6
004-00
7
007-00
009-00
8
033-00 MDR
54' 32 0.
010-00
9
- OR -
W N16D
u:\giesri\mainstreet\city of greenville\future land use map11x17draft5.mxd
019-05
034-00
- OSC036-01 for
038-20
022-00
Parcel A
026-00
a
MDR - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OR UR - URBAN RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL
011-14
SR SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL
OFFICE/ SERVICE/ COMMERCIAL (OSC)
59-008-630
Tuck's Eureka Acres Subdivision
019-02
011-15
1
035-00
LDR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OR SR - SUBURBAN 018-01 RESIDENTIAL
Parcel B
025-00
742-162-00
STATION RD.
R-2 ZONE 511-00
011-21
027-00
PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
008-017-009-40
77
010-00
028-00
One-half to one acre lots 024-00 023-10
ANNEXED TO CITY
78
023-01
ANNEXED TO CITY
76
ANNEXED TO CITY 008-017-009-30 LOT 1
Pa rcel G
Pa rcel F
102
001-26
001-25
Pa rcel E
Par cel D
001-23
001-10
103
104
105
001-24
106
108
White Ridge
Ridgewood Dr.
SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL 107
030-00
1.3 AC.
WOODS
75
ANNEXED TO CITY
79
101
1.3 AC.
1.15 AC.
029-00
SATTERLEE RD.
t.
1.15 AC.
1.25 AC.
74
008-007-001-29
g
80
001-29
id
C
13
1.3 AC.
1.14 AC.
73
001-28
R
100
Pa rcel H
e
81
12
11
72
115
Par cel C
it
001-22
Par cel A
Par cel B
109
001-21
004-00
002-50
005-10
005-01
h W
e
Gree
114
112
111
116
113
99
82
001-27
White Ridge Ridge White Ct. Ct.
00 1 77240008-
Mid Tim ber Dr.
Whit
177
110
117
176
008-240-178-00
´
NO SCALE
2012 CITY OF GREENVILLE FUTURE LAND USE MAP
INSET
FLAT RIVER
EUREKA TOWNSHIP MDR
MX NC
P/I HDR
I
EUREKA TOWNSHIP
CBD
MDR
EA
PUD/I
P/I
FL A T
MDR
R IV ER
I MDR
SEE INSET
EV
EN
AR
GC
I
P/I
MDR GC
H
O
P/I
GC
LDR MDR
HDR
EUREKA TWP. LDR
LDR
EUREKA TOWNSHIP
I JO
D NT
M OP EL
L TP
AN
GC
PUD
HDR
PUD
P/I MANOKA LAKE
P/I
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
HDR
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OFFICE
NC
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
GC
GENERAL COMMERCIAL
CBD
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
PUD
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
MX
MIXED USE
H
HOSPITAL
I
INDUSTRIAL
P/I
PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL
LFR
LAFAYETTE/FLAT RIVER REDEVELOPMENT CONCEPT FUTURE PUBLIC STREET
ADOPTED BY THE GREENVILLE CITY COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 6, 2012
HDR
I
PUD
EUREKA TOWNSHIP COMO LAKE
MDR
EUREKA TOWNSHIP
P/I
BALDWIN LAKE
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
O
I P/I
LDR
´
NO SCALE
