Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - 1972.12.07 - 15678Miscellaneous Resolution 6168 December 7, 1972 BY: PLANNING & BUILDING COMMITTEE - Charlie J. Harrison, Jr., Chairman IN RE: ACCEPTANCE AND APPROVAL OF GROWTH POLICIES FOR OAKLAND COUNTY TO THE OAKLAND COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: WHEREAS the Oakland County Planning Commission has presented to the Planning and Building Committee the results of its year-long program to gain local response to proposed Oakland County growth policies; and WHEREAS over 700 copies of the policies have been distributed and reviewed by members of municipal planning commissions and over 200 meetings have been held with local planning bodies and public officials in deliberating the intent and content of these policies; and WHEREAS to date three-fourths of our constituent units of government have initiated or completed their policy responses; and WHEREAS these responses have led to modification of the original policy proposals so as to bring the present revised policy set in line with local thinking; and WHEREAS such policies will continue to be updated and expanded with the cooperation of local communities; and WHEREAS such policies offer the Planning Deportment guidelines for the presentation of the County Plan; and WHEREAS at its November 30, 1972 meeting the Planning and Building Committee approved the Growth Policies as presented by the Planning Commission and recommended approval by the Board of Commissioners; and WHEREAS copies of the amended Growth Policies have been distributed on this date to the entire membership of the County Board of Commissioners and are herewith made a part of this resolution; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Growth Policies as presented by the Planning Commission be approved by the Board of Commissioners with the clear understanding that these policies can be amended at any point in time through additions, deletions or revisions by the County Board of Commissioners. The Planning & Building Committee, by Charlie J. Harrison, Jr., Chairman, moves the adoption of the foregoing resolution. F;1,7_ANNING AND BUILDING COMMITTEE /re-- /Y. • • CHAPTER I SUMMARY OF OAKLAND COUNTY GROWTH POLICIES POPULATION GROWTH POLICY 1.01 *(OPS) Oakland County should not continue to increase its population indefinitely. *(RPS) Same 1.02 *(OPS) Oakland County need not remain at its present 1970 population or thereabout. *(RPS) Same 1.03 *(OPS) Oakland County need not decrease its population from that of 1970. *(RPS) Same 1.04 *(OPS) A policy position on this matter must await the completion of the above-mentioned policy exchange. *(RPS) Oakland County, with the direct participation of each of its constituent units, will develop an -optimum" population size. CHAPTER II NATURAL RESOURCE POLICY 2.01 *(OPS) The Planning Commission concurs with staff action in identifying all natural open space resource areas. Further, the Planning Commission concurs with the seven basic categories as outlined above, with the eventual addition of all mineral resources. *(RPS) The natural resources of Oakland County shall be identiied and mapped by the Oakland County Plan- ning Commission with the eventual addition of all mineral resources. (Natural Resource Areas to be identified are de f ined in the report, Growth Policies for Oakland County.) 2.02 *(OPS) The above natural resource elements should be recognized, as outlined, as vital parts in the total environmental picture, and should be retained in their basic character as their own highest and best use. Not precluding orderly and harmonious develop- ment, these areas must be retained for public health and welfare. *(OPS) Original Policy Statement *(RPS) Revised Policy Statement *(RPS) Natural resource elements are recognized as vital parts in the total environmental picture and should be retained in their basic character as their own highest and best use, not precluding orderly and harmonious development. These areas must be retained for public health and welfare. 2.03 *(OPS) The County should support the proposition that open space is a useful and viable tool to shape deve- loping and new communities, *(RPS) Natural resource areas are useful and effective tools to shape development and, therefore, should be utilized to achieve this objective. 2.04 *(OPS) Oakland County should support the concept of continuity and linkage of natural resource areas as stated above •to shape and control development. Further, this policy can justify acquisitions and'or zoning of -such land since it affords maximum inter- facing between people and open space. *(RPS) Oakland County supports the concept of continuity and linkage of natural resource areas. 2.05 *(OPS) The County should adopt a policy of encouraging and promoting better transportation links to recrea- tional units of all sizes throughout the county. This policy would help to alleviate the present inadequacies of being unable to move large numbers of the urban popu- lation out to regional facilities. Conversely, the County should recognize that our wilderness areas and areas of fragile ecological balance, must be protected. Therefore, a policy of limited accessibility to such land would best insure their continuation as environmental "museum piece" areas. *(RPS) The County should encourage and promote better transportation links to state, regional and county recreational facilities throughout the county. The County recognizes that our wilderness areas and areas of fragile ecological balance must be protected. Therefore, a policy of limited accessibility to such land is preferred. • 2.06 *(OPS) A county policy of maximizing the proximity of people to open space and natural resource areas is paramount to creating a balanced environment. The interface of natural resource areas with new develop- ment will afford this and at the same time, build in the necessary scale factors to promote recognizable communities. *(RPS) Natural resource and open space areas should be interwoven with new development to create a balanced environment which promotes recognizable communities. 2.07 *(OPS) Oakland County would not favor a policy of all resource land being held in public ownership. Oakland County would strongly support public owner- ship of those natural resource areas designated as having high environmental value as outlined by the Planning Commission. *(RPS) Oakland County does not favor a policy of all resource land being held in public ownership. Oakland County strongly supports public ownership of those natural resource areas designated as having high environmental value by the County Planning Com- mission. 2.08 *(OPS)The county should seek site plan review authority by the County Planning Commission for all proposed development within the natural resource areas (as identified on the Oakland County Natural Resources Map and pursuant to the criteria defined in Policy 2.01). *(RPS) The County Planning Department should provide advisory site plan analysis for all proposed develop- ment within natural resource areas. CHAPTER III COMMUNITY STRUCTURE POLICY 3.01 *(OPS) Oakland County should support the role of the existing central business districts as community centers. *(RPS) Oakland County supports the role of existing centeral business districts as community centers. 3.02 *(OPS) Oakland County should encourage the development of community centers with diversified activities. *(RPS) Oakland County encourages the development of community centers with diversified activities. • 3.03 *(OPS) Oakland County should encourage development of communities that have a strong physical identity. *(RPS) Oakland County encourages development of com- munities that have a strong physical identity. 3.04 *(OPS) Pedestrian and non-automotive circulation should be used as criteria for any development or re-develop- ment in the county. *(RPS) Pedestrian and non-automotive circulation should be considerations in the design of new communities and the redevelopment of existing ones. 3.05 *(OPS) Oakland County should promulgate criteria for the location of public facilities and utilize these criteria in the placement of such facilities as a means of accomplishing the objectives of county growth policy. *(RPS) Oakland County should establish criteria for the location of public facilities and utilize these criteria in the placement of such facilities as a means of accomplishing the objectives of county growth policy. CHAPTER IV. TRANSPORTATION POLICY 4.01 *(OPS) Oakland County should support an increase in public transit facilities. *(RPS) Oakland County supports an increase in public transit facilities. 4.02 *(OPS) Oakland County should support an increase in the number of general aviation airports. A PROPOSED POLICY ON "GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORTS" HAS BEEN HELD IN ABEYANCE, PENDING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND INPUT FROM THE MICHIGAN AERONAUTICS COMMISSION, REGIONAL AGENCIES, AND LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT. 4.03 *(OPS) Oakland County should use the implementation of new transportation facilities and further expansion of existing transportation links as an active means of achieving the planned and desired spatial distribution of major land use elements. *(RPS) Oakland County should use the implementation of new transportation facilities and further expansion of existing transportation links as an active means of achieving the planned and desired spatial distribution of major land use elements, with coordinated input from local governments. CHAPTER V ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY 5.01 *(OPS) All new development of a defined size in Oakland County need not be accompanied by a cost-revenue study for the county. However, as part of the "Partners in Planning" Program, the following actions are recommended: 1. Cost-revenue should be implemented and utilized at the local government level in relation to land use and level of services. 2. Once cost-revenue is utilized by a community, all development in variance to its plan should require an analysis of impact to cost-revenue. 3. Cost-revenue should be supplemented by a method of identifying indirect costs such as pollution, traffic congestion, and mental health, 4. Cost-benefit analysis is a method of relating both direct and indirect costs to the benefits of future development. It should be used at the county level to supplement cost-revenue analysis of local govern- ment. *(RPS) Cost revenue and cost benefit analysis should be a part of development plans and the local land use decision- making process. 5.02 *(OPS) All small and medium size industry should not locate in industrial parks; however, the industrial park does represent a type of industrial location with a minimum of conflict to the community. This form of location will be encouraged with the consent of the local community. *(RPS) Small and medium-size industry (under 10 acres) is encouraged to locate in industrial parks. 5.03 *(OPS) The development of Oakland County should be evaluated by the balance of costs and benefits associated with the rate and type of future growth, • *(RPS) The development of Oakland County shall be evaluated by the balance of costs and benefits associated with the rate and type of future growth. 5.04 *(OPS) An economic base study should be encouraged as a component of the land use plan of individual communities and aggregates of communities in the county to determine economic characteristics in terms of employment, income, and industry. *(RPS) An economic base study is encouraged as a com- ponent of the land use plan of individual communities and aggregates of communities in the county to deter- mine economic characteristics in terms of employment income and industry. 5.05 *(OPS) Oakland County should promote the growth and location in Oakland County of non-automotive firms producing a variety of products and services in order to reduce seasonal fluctuations in employment and income. *(RPS) Oakland County promotes the growth and location in Oakland County of firms producing a variety of products and services in order to reduce seasonal fluctuations in employment and income. CHAPTER VI ZONING & REGULATORY MEASURES POLICY 6.01 *(OPS) Oakland County should support a position that local units of government retain legislative authority for zonining. *(RPS) Local units of government should retain legis- lative authority for zoning. 6.02 *(OPS) Oakland County should encourage developing local communities to provide a range of residential zoning from small lot to large lot districts. *(RPS) Local communities should provide a broad range of residential zoning classifications. 6.03 *(OPS) Oakland County should perform the 'function of developing model ordinances (including zoning and subdivision regulations). *(RPS) Oakland County will perform the function of developing model ordinances (including zoning and subdivision regulations). 6.04 *(OPS) Oakland County should propose county-wide minimum zoning restrictions. PROPOSED POLICY ON "COUNTY-WIDE MINIMUM ZONING RESTRICTIONS" DELETED PURSUANT TO LOCAL COMMUNITY CONSENSUS OF OPINION. 6.05 *(OPS) Oakland County should encourage local communi- ties to adopt, through their ordinances, those methods of open space retention available through Michigan legislation. *(RPS) Oakland County encourages local communities to adopt, through their ordinances, those methods of open space retention available through Michigan legislation. • e Moved by Harrison supported by Daly the resolution be adopted. Discussion followed relative to consideration of the Planning Commission's program at a joint meeting of the Local and Regional Affairs Committee and Planning and Building Committee, and presentation of the resolution to the Board by the Planning and Building Committee. Mr. Barakat requested that Daniel T. Murphy, Chairman of the Board of Auditors, speak on this matter. There were no objections. Mr. Murphy addressed the Board. Vote on resolution: AYES: Kronenberg, Lennon, Mathews, Perinoff, Pernick, Powell, Szabo, Aaron, Burley, Daly, Doyon, Harrison. (12) NAYS: Houghten, Kasper, Mainland, Olson, Patnales, Richardson, Simson, Wilcox, Barakat, Coy. (10) A sufficient majority not having voted therefor, the motion lost. Moved by Mainland supported by Coy that this Board of Commissioners approve the concept of the Partners in Planning Regional Growth Program, as presented by the Planning Commission, and recommend the report to the incoming Board of Commissioners with the recommendation for their early and favorable consideration. Discussion followed. The Chairman referred the motion to the Local and Regional Affairs Committee and the Planning and Building Committee, the Planning and Building Committee to report back to the Board. Discussion followed relative to presentation of the resolution to the Board by the Planning and Building Committee instead of a joint committee report. Moved by Aaron supported by Simson that the discussion on the prior motion be stricken from the minutes, inasmuch as the resolution was improperly before the Board, and when the committee has a sufficient majority to report the resolution back to the Board, the resolution be presented at that time. A sufficient majority having voted therefor, the motion carried.