In August 23, 1991, the Planning Boards recommendation from their - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

This is NOT the first time a community discussion has occurred regarding the Woodland Ponds Property and its future… In July 29, 1991, WBDC Group, planning consultant, recommended the Planning Board encourage the development and the City Council to consider the benefits of a medium density development on this site (Woodlands Ponds Subdivision) rather than the single family plat proposed. In August 23, 1991, the Planning Board’s recommendation from their August 13, 1991 meeting was shared with Flushing City Council. The recommendation consisted of amending the Zoning Ordinance to create a medium density residential zoning district as contemplated by the proposed Master Plan. The Planning Board also recommended that the zoning in the northeast part of the City should be changed from single family residential to the MDR district at the earliest opportunity to provide orderly planning for any new development projects which may be proposed in that area (Woodland Ponds) An ordinance to amend the City of Flushing Zoning Code, to revise Section 15.038 Planned Residential Development District (PRD), (R-4) was adopted in 1992.

On June 29, 2001 a Master Deed for Woodland Ponds was signed and recorded with Genesee County Register of Deeds for the condominium project, Woodland Ponds, Genesee County Subdivison Plan No 266, pursuant to the provisions of the Michigan Condominium Act. Such condominium project did not include the parcel of land to the north of the “Blue Pond” and did not include land fronting Coutant Street.

Community Input Session

Woodland Ponds Property

May 11, 2016 Flushing City Hall 6:30 pm

Property No. 55-25-200-052 24.82 acres, and lies north of the Woodland Pond Condominium Development, and includes an area of water entitled “The Blue Pond.” The property is currently zoned R-1, Residential, Single-Family development. The City of Flushing reserves easement for storm water drainage

• n this property.

Property Description

The City of Flushing acquired the property in lieu of payment for improvements made to complete the Woodland Ponds Condominium Development.

• Paving and road repairs

$ 33,612.29

• Complete required sidewalk

$ 16,940.00

• Taxes (2008/2009)

$ 405

Approximately total: $50,957.29

City of Acquiring Property

In 2008, a project was taken on to provide a trail from Woodland Pond Court to Waterworks Park

Water Tower Trail

January 10, 2011 – Sealed bids were received for several parcels of land (Woodland Ponds). The City Manager recommended placing these parcels back on the market. Bids received were rejected by Flushing City Council. May 9, 2011 – The Flushing City Council authorized administration to accept sealed bids of these city owned parcels with sealed bids due July 31, 2011 November 14, 2011 – City Manager recommended to Flushing City Council to advertise city owned vacant property (Woodland Ponds) for sale with sealed bids due the last Friday of each month, until an offer is accepted by Flushing City Council.

Timeline: Property for Sale

June 10, 2013 – The Flushing City Council rejected a sealed bid

• ffer to purchase property

July 8, 2013 – The Flushing City Council rejected a sealed bid offer to purchase property July 14, 2014 – The Flushing City Council rejected a sealed bid

• ffer to purchase property and took the property off the market for

the time being.

Timeline: Property for Sale

The topic of creating a trail from Eastview Park through Woodland Ponds subdivision to Springview Elementary School was included in: Flushing Area Recreation Plan1999-2004 Flushing Area Recreation Plan 2005-2009 Promote non motorized connections within existing facilities was a goal in the: Flushing Area Recreation Master Plan 2010-2015 Flushing Area Recreation Master Plan 2015-2020

Parks and Recreation Master Plans

Stakeholders have been invited to participate in this community vision session:

• Property owners
• Parks and Recreation Committee
• Boy Scout Troops
• Flushing Youth Baseball
• Flushing Community Schools
• Flushing Lions Club

Community Input

Attendees will be asked to break out into four groups… 1. Property owners – Woodland Ponds Court 2. Property owners – Non Woodland Ponds Court 3. Community Groups (Lions Club and Boys Scouts) 4. Community Groups (School and Youth Baseball) 27 people attended this session

Break Out Sessions

Four questions will be asked of each group to provide…

• Proposed Actions / Solutions
• Concerns
• Ideas
• Feedback

…with their respected perspectives in mind

Break Out Sessions

• 1. What are the strengths / assets of this parcel of land?
• 2. What challenges does this parcel of land have?
• 3. What use of the property has the greatest benefit to the

community?

• 4. Of these uses, what long term impact do they have on

the community?

Four Questions

Information received today will be consolidated into one document. A representative from each stakeholder group is requested. Those interested can indicate such on their index card. Additional meetings will be held with stakeholder representatives to review and finalize results received today. A final report will be issued to city administration to review and submit before Flushing City Council for final consideration and action. The goal is to present a recommendation to Flushing City Council in August 2016.

Next Steps

Actions after May 11, 2016 Community Input Session

The second input session with designated representatives was held on June 11, 2016. The group reviewed the data collected on May 11, 2016 and concluded the following similarities and differences on the future of the parcel of land:

• 1. Woodland Condominium property owners are concerned

with preservation and liabilities.

• 2. Non Woodland Condominium property owners are

concerned with preservation and having a community asset.

• 3. Both groups have shared concerns and wants regarding

safety/control, maintenance, costs, and creating/maintaining a family orientation atmosphere.

The third input session was held on June 29, 2016 with designated

• representatives. Discussion surrounded the results of the previous input

session and SMART goals were to be drafted for each similarity and difference identified for the future of the parcel of land. Specific goals were not drafted; however the following points of discussion were revisited:

• 1. Traffic, property values and security are key factors that influence one’s

feelings on the future use of the property.

• 2. Representatives go back and forth on the expectation one may have when

the property is described as being used for “public use” verses “private use.”

• 3. The continuation of a natural buffer is wanted no matter the use of the

property

• 4. Preservation was defined as being rustic by one group and

guaranteeing privacy by another group.

• 5. It was the sentiment of the group there is an inverse

relationship between the property’s use and the property values around it. Public use equals lower property values and private use equals higher property values. There was no actual data to support either statement.

• 6. One stated conclusion on the future of this property is it is a

binary decision and has limited opportunity for compromises due to the expectations of the diverse group being affected.

C I T Y O F F L U S H I N G MEMORANDUM Date: August 26 2016 To: Mayor Keane and Flushing City Council From: Brad Barrett, city manager Subject: Woodland Ponds Property – Staff Recommendation Background The City of Flushing acquired a 24.82 acre piece of property north of Woodland Ponds Drive in lieu of payment for improvements made to complete the Woodland Ponds Condominium Development in the early 2000s. The property is zoned single family

• residential. The property was placed for sale by the Flushing City Council. The council did

not accept any offers presented on the property and took the property off the market

• n July 14, 2014.

Community Input Sessions Three community input sessions were held to collect information, thoughts and opinions on the future use of the 24.82 acres of

• land. Three distinct interest groups were present at the

community input sessions: Parks and Recreation Committee, Woodland Pond Drive Property Owners and Non Woodland Pond Property Owners. Traffic, property values, preservation and security were key factors that influenced one’s opinion on the future use of the property.

Parks and Recreation Committee

The Parks and Recreation Committee is requesting the land to become a natural rustic park / open space that can be used by the community. This option creates financial concerns for

• administration. A public park has little to no ability to generate revenue for maintenance and

improvements on its own. In addition, a park designation removes a taxable parcel of land off the tax roll. The City of Flushing has eliminated general fund allocation for park capital improvements due to budgetary constraints. The city has 5 acres on Seymour Road dedicated as a park since the 1970s and has not developed it into a park to this day. In addition, the city closed the community swimming pool due to the financial burden it placed on the city’s general fund. Allocating money in the general fund to remove the pool structure is difficult to find each budget cycle. The boundaries of the Woodland Ponds parcel of land create access challenges for public use, especially if the use would attract a large group of people or multiple teams at one time. There is no dedicated parking and or funds to create such improvement on the parcel of land. The ability to share parking at Eastview Park would be problematic due to the league schedule maintained at the baseball diamonds. The committee’s intentions are good, guarantee the city’s high quality of life and ensure a family friendly environment; however at the end of the day insuring, maintaining, financing and managing a public park are responsibilities of the City of Flushing.

Woodland Ponds Drive Property Owners Property owners along Woodland Ponds Drive are steadfast in their desire to maintain privacy and a quiet residential

• neighborhood. The property owners surrounding the “Blue

Pond” and “Woodland Pond” do not own the ponds. The City of Flushing needs to maintain access and ownership of the two

• ponds. These ponds are now incorporated into the city’s storm

water infrastructure system. In addition, there are multiple easements throughout the Woodland Pond Condominium development for public utilities and the county drain commissioner (Boman Drain).

Staff Recommendations The topography and property boundaries of this parcel of land make it difficult to create a simple solution to satisfy all parties involved. However, there is an opportunity to take a look at the bigger picture and future for this north east section of the city. This section is home to Springview Elementary, two parks (Water Works Park and Eastview Park), Heartland Health Care Center –Fostrian, the decommissioned water tower and a well-established residential neighborhood. Including the Woodland Pond parcel of land, there are 63.74 acres of vacant land available for development. The city owns 43.74 of the 63.74 acres and the remaining 20 acres are privately owned. It is important to note, not all of the acreage listed above is buildable due to wetlands/marsh and the ponds. A simple solution with quick results is to place the Woodland Pond property for sale and accept the most reasonable purchase offer and let the new owner develop the property as they see fit within the confines of the city’s ordinances.

Another option includes continuing the conversation with the identified stakeholders and crafting a sustainable development plan that bridges the parties together and has the city’s best interest in mind. Unfortunately, the process will require financial resources to bring together the necessary team of professionals to assist the group in defining elements within the development plan. The State of Michigan has enacted Public Act 61 of 2007, Neighborhood Improvement Authority that could provide funding for such efforts. Like the East Pierson Road Corridor Improvement Authority, a tax increment finance plan and development plan can be created to authorize the capture of property taxes (city and county) to fund the long range planning and much needed capital improvements for this area of the city. Capital improvements would include, but not limited to, park improvements, trail extension, infrastructure (roads, water, sewer, and storm water), water tower removal / rehab and future needs (Department of Public Works Facility). In order for the authority to work, the city will need to sell its property. The city owned parcels are tax exempt and have no taxable or state equalized values. In order to capture taxes, the exempted parcels will need to be sold to a taxpaying entity and placed back on the tax roll.

Neighborhood Improvement Authority Resolution 2016-9-12C – A Resolution of Intent to Create a Neighborhood Improvement Authority (September 9, 2016) Public Hearing on October 10, 2016 to consider an ordinance creating a Neighborhood Improvement Authority. Ordinance 2016-17was approved on November, 14 2016. Neighborhood Improvement Authority held stakeholder meeting on November 28, 2016 to review and comment on the proposed Development Plan and TIF plan. Public Hearing on December 12, 2016 to consider whether the City Shall pursuant to the Act, approve the Development and Tax Increment Financing Plan as submitted for the Neighborhood Improvement Authority. Ordinance 2016-18 was approved on December 12, 2016.

Neighborhood Improvement Authority Monday, September 18, 2017 Motion by Zorn supported by Tabaszewski to recommend a modified proposal in the amount of $13,250 with McKenna and Associates to Flushing City Council for approval. Yea: Zorn, Palinsky, Tabaszewski, Bira, Keane Nay: None McKenna Woodland Ponds Property topic was discussed at the following meetings: Monday, March 19, 2018 Monday, June 18, 2018 Monday, September 17, 2018 Monday, December 17, 2018

Address Date of Sale Sale Price 2019 SEV x 2 Ratio 400 Woodland Ponds 6/22/17 270000 301800 89.46 497 Woodland Ponds 10/28/2016 300000 352000 85.22 464 Woodland Ponds 11/20/17 310000 351600 88.16 1409 Coutant 8/12/16 79000 93400 84.58 1405 Coutant 6/9/17 112000 91600 122.27 1327 Coutant 2/16/18 115336 90400 127.58 1323 Coutant 7/30/18 129900 106000 122.54 1315 Coutant 9/28/17 89900 81200 110.71 1445 Coutant 1/24/2018 64900 197800 32.8

Address Sale Date Sale Price 2019 SEV x 2 Ratio 416 Crestview 5/16/16 108000 107600 100.37 420 Crestview 8/23/16 93800 91800 102.17 425 Crestview 11/14/18 82000 102200 80.23 432 Crestview 11/21/18 105000 96400 108.92 433 Crestview 6/5/18 93617 94600 98.96 437 Crestview 11/1/18 127000 114800 110.62 1323 Kapp Crt 4/29/17 93500 97600 95.79

Address Sale Date Sale Price 2019 SEV X 2 Ratio 528 Sunnyside 6/16/17 143500 133200 107.73 520 Sunnyside 4/27/18 143500 135200 106.13 1246 Springview 9/1/16 137900 148400 92.92 1250 Clearview 12/9/16 134396 142400 94.37 1249 Bonnie Sue 10/18/17 134900 122000 110.57 1250 Bonnie Sue 6/25/18 139900 134600 103.93

Cluster subdivisions are a land development tool used by communities to protect open space or environmentally-sensitive lands. Clustering development simply means grouping or directing new development to relatively less sensitive areas within a subdivision, away from more sensitive areas like open space, steep slopes, or floodplains. Cluster subdivisions (also sometimes known as “conservation subdivisions”) generally do not increase the overall density of a development but rather allow dwellings to be grouped (or “clustered”)

• n smaller lots away from sensitive areas such as rivers or defined

natural hazard areas. The key benefit to a developer is smaller lot sizes than otherwise permitted by the subdivision regulations in exchange for the conservation of sensitive lands.

When developing a cluster subdivision ordinance, the community should: Identify the purposes behind the program, such as maintaining rural character, protecting valuable resources, creating defensible space, and/or avoiding development on hazard–prone land. Develop a set of clear thresholds that identify when and/or where cluster subdivisions are required and the minimum requirements for approval. Include provisions for the ongoing maintenance of required open space. Include standards for acceptable cluster designs, as well as graphics.

The primary benefit to adopting cluster subdivision regulations is the protection of environmentally sensitive areas. The development community also benefits from cluster subdivisions through paired incentives such as density bonuses. Other advantages include: There are synergies with other community goals and assets. Clustering development allows communities to protect development from hazard areas, while also conserving

• ther sensitive areas such as wildlife habitat and migration corridors.

The footprint of new development is reduced. When development is clustered, the needs for grading, paving roads, and laying infrastructure are diminished. Long-term maintenance costs are reduced. Because cluster development has a smaller footprint, this can equate to lower costs for maintaining roads, infrastructure, and other public or private amenities. Property values may rise. Clustering has the potential to increase property values, since individual lots will enjoy access to an increased amount of open space.

There are some costs and challenges associated with cluster subdivisions: Less developable land. Without other incentives, developers may be forced to build smaller homes on smaller lots, making it difficult to maximize profit. Higher open space maintenance costs. Depending on the particular subdivision, the burden of maintaining the protected

• r open areas could become the responsibility of the developer
• r a subsequent metropolitan district or homeowners
• association. If dedicated to the local government, maintaining

those areas becomes the responsibility of that jurisdiction. https://planningforhazards.com/cluster-subdivision

Conventional subdivision with 2 acre house lots with 55 home sites

• n 130 acre site (http://www.landchoices.org/naturalneighborhoodphotos.htm)

Conservation / Cluster Subdivision

Conservation subdivision) with just under 3/4 of an acre, 30,000 sq. ft., house lots with the SAME number of home sites (55) as the conventional subdivision below on the same 130 acre

• site. The

conservation subdivision preserves almost two- thirds of the site, 62%, 81 acres.