A. .-.C . I- ‘,'g~Q--—~.-.-;-¢o'v.-v.a.'.... r v o a r . . a o o . t u -. a. -- u . l v . '. ~- ~ . . .‘ ... 9.‘..oC-A-IAS0—¢'6 “..l.‘.' V _ ......o| -.-.n.-grut-'Q'V'MMHM‘Jflfl‘éfiw . o . . . c ‘ . 0 ~ I 0 ~ . .- - . .. l . a . a . . - . . .' . . .. . ' . . .‘ u . t . - ' . . . _ - » .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . a. . . . . ' .‘ o - . " - . . . .. - _ _,. . , .. ..‘., . . . ‘ ' ‘ . - --. . . . - , ... .. - . ‘ 'a . o — ’ . . - u . . . - . o . . .. . . s . - 9 l . . . . , . . n ‘ . . . c - . . - s ' . ; , - . _ ° ‘ ' . - . - I . . - . . ' ‘ . ‘ . ' I. .. . . . ,. . . . . .. . . . u - . . . . . . . . . . ‘ o - ’ . -- - ~ ~ . - . . .- . . I. n , v . . ‘ . . . . _ . . . . . _.. .4 . ..‘ .. ‘ - . - . . ‘ - . . - . -. - . . . . . - u — . . . . . . .- . ~ . . u . . ... . q . . .. ‘ ~ . . ., . . . . ~. . ‘ _ . _ . . . . . . . .. I - 5 . - ' ' 0- o .. . . ‘ . o . . _ -.. p -o . , . , . _ . ‘. ... . - . . . a- . . - . , , . . . V ‘. . . . v - . .. . . . .. . . . - . . . n . . , . \ - n . . - -.. ‘ .. . a, . . . o ' . . n ‘. . . - . u _. . o . . . . . . . . .,.~c . ‘ o .. — . . .. . . o -. - ‘ . ~ ' - - ‘ ~ ' .. . . n . - . o . . . . . ' ‘ . . . u . , . - - . . ‘ . , .V . . , . , . , n -. . . .. ‘ . - . . - , . . . . - . . - . - . - o . o . . . - . . - . o . - . . - . .- . . _ . .o. . - n . . . . . . - - o , . . .. . . . . ‘ . l . - . . . < , . ‘. . . . . - . ' ' - o . . . - . . . . . - » - . - - . a ‘ . . . , . . .. . o . . . . . . .. . . < . . . ‘. . n . . ‘ . a - ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . - . .. o . s u ‘ . . nu . ,' . . . . . . . o . . ’ l - . K LIBRARY Michigan State University ‘— — - -’l ANNiNG 8i _ - - DESioN _ Plan B Papers Vlgland, Todd. 1997 N Parcels 0 K “a? '. - fl a._m Alternatives for a Proposed Land Swap Between the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Rotary Camps and Services of Traverse City Prepared by Todd Vigland For Rotary Camps and Services of Traverse City Fall Semester, 1997 I. 1 A _ls_._l,:i._3) ' QETU WES Alternatives for a Proposed Land Swap Between the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Rotary Camps and Services of Traverse City By Todd Alan Vigland A PLAN B PAPER Submitted to Michigan State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER IN URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING Urban and Regional Flaming Program Fall Semester, 1997 Table of Contents Introduction ............................................. 4 Methodology ............................................ 6 Descriptions and Mapping Evaluation of the Parcels Descriptions of Parcels .............................. 11 Introduction Benzie County Grand Traverse County Kalkaska County Evaluation of Parcels .................................. 17 Introduction Potential for Affordable Housing Overall Land Values Conservation Values Blue Chip Parcels ..................................... 24 Land Protection Tools Conclusion ............................................... 29 References ............................................... 30 Appendix I ............................................... 31 Appendix II ........................................... -...39 Introduction This report explores alternatives for a proposed exchange of land between Rotary Camps and Services of Traverse City and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The DNR has proposed a trade A trade that would involve the exchange of a large parcel held by Rotary for one or more “surplus” parcels held by the DNR. The trade would advance DNR’s goal of holding land in large contiguous parcels; and would allow Rotary to remove itself from the landholding business by trading for smaller parcels of land and subsequently selling off the parcels for cash assets. Rotary Camps and Services of Traverse City (Rotary) was incorporated by Rotary Charities of Traverse City as a charitable foundation to hold in trust two parcels of land used for youth camps. The parcels are currently used as girl and boy scout camps. Rotary was also structured to own property, including land, and to operate other non-profit programs. It receives and administers fimds from interested parties and serves as an incubator to experiment with ideas involving community needs and remains deeply involved in community service. Examples of Rotary’s community service work include founding HomeStretch and the establishment of the Howard and Mary Edwards Nature Preserve and Stewardship Fund. In 1995, Rotary laid the groundwork for HomeStretch, the Grand Traverse Bay Region’s first community development corporation. To date, this community development corporation has been focused performing a needs assessment for affordable housing in the region. Rotary has also been involved in land conservation. In early 1993 Rotary received a bequest of land from the estate of Mr. Howard Edwards. The bequest of land originally comprised three separate parcels within the Boardman River Watershed in East Bay and Paradise Townships of Grand Traverse County. The Edwards parcel is adjacent to a large contiguous segment of the Pere Marquette State Forest, which is owned by the DNR. According to a 1993 Grand Traverse Regional Land Conservancy (GTRLC) report: “The most notable feature of the three Edwards tracts are that they are inter-connected to one another and to the other natural lands in the area. This includes the Brown Bridge Quiet Area, the Pere Marquette State Forest, undeveloped private lands and other Rotary land holdings. These connections are by both continuous waterways and their wetland corridors. and by continuous forest cover. These interconnections, or ‘corridors’ are extremely important n the protection and management of biodiversity.”1 This bequest offered Rotary an excellent opportunity to further its goals of providing long-term protection of the Boardman River. This river is designated as a Wild and Scenic River. An second Rotary project involving the Edwards estate was coordination of the placement of a conservation easement on 56 acres of privately owned land adjoining an existing 40 acre easement placed on a portion of the Edwards estate. The placement of this voluntary easement further expanded Rotary’s initiative of protecting the Boardman River. Additionally, Rotary worked in conjunction with the GTRLC and Grand Traverse Regional Community Foundation to establish the Howard and Mary Edwards Nature Preserve and Stewardship Fund. The land used for this preserve was part of the original bequest of land from Mr. Edwards. The subject of this report is the decision to be made by Rotary about the use of the remaining 720 acres of the Edwards estate in sections 22, 26 and 17 of Paradise Township in Grand Traverse County. This large parcel is known as the “East Creek parcel of the Edwards Estate.” The DNR is interested in acquiring the Edwards property because it is adjacent to a portion of the Pere Marquette State Forest. A significant portion of eastern Grand Traverse County is designated as Pere Marquette State Forest, which is owned and administered by the DNR. The parcels described in this report are those under consideration for the proposed land swap. ' Glen Chown, Lew Coulter, Steve Largent, Rick Moore and Gary Reese Natural Resources and Stewardship Recommendations for the Rotary/Edwards Properties. Grand Traverse Regional Land Conservancy, 1993. Rotary has been approached by the DNR with the proposal to exchange the 720 acre parcel for land that the DNR has identified as surplus in three counties in northwestern lower Michigan. The DNR prefers to hold land in large, contiguous parcels. It is very difficult to manage natural systems and forestry practices on small, scattered parcels. The DNR holds many small, scattered parcels throughout the state. Because they are difiicult to manage effectively, the DNR has identified them as “surplus” lands and is in the process of disposing of them through sale, auction and exchange. The DNR has proposed a trade in which Rotary would exchange its 720-acre Edwards property for parcels on the list of DNR surplus property. The parcels listed by the DNR as surplus consist mainly of small (2 to 40 acres), fragmented parcels in Benzie, Grand Traverse and Kalkaska Counties. These parcels, if taken out of State holding, may be very desirable for development, conservation, recreation and open space. They include a wide range of land types including wetlands; desirable lake frontage; dry, developable sites; parcels with and without road access; and varied zoning designations. The proposed land swap is an attempt to satisfy some interests of the DNR and Rotary. The DNR has expressed interest in: o holding more of its land in contiguous blocks for greater effectiveness of natural systems management 0 extending the Shore to Shore Trail through the Edwards property to bring it closer to other State Forest land to the west 0 disposing of small, fragmented properties in the three counties, on which natural systems are difficult to manage Rotary has expressed interest in: 0 possibly relieving itself of landowning responsibility in the near future 0 exchanging the Edwards property for parcels identified as surplus by the DNR and subsequently selling parcels to provide funding for its other community and philanthropic programs 0 acquiring some of these parcels for conservation purposes and selling them with conservation easements to appropriate conservation buyers The proposed trade has an advantage for Rotary in that the exchange would transfer the 720-acre Edwards property to an owner (DNR) who may be more likely than a private purchaser to manage the property in a manner consistent with long-term conservation and recreational uses. Under DNR administration, the property would be used for timber management and recreational activities, but would almost certainly not be used for development. The DNR originally provided Rotary with a list of “surplus“ parcels in Grand Traverse County and pr0posed a trade involving a number of these parcels for the 720-acre Edwards parcel. Rotary serves five counties, however, and wished to expand the scope of the trade to its entire service area. Of the five counties — Antrim, Benzie, Grand Traverse, Leelanau and Kalkaska - the DNR only had surplus parcels in Benzie, Grand Traverse and Kalkaska. Surplus lists were eventually supplied by the DNR for Benzie and Kalkaska Counties. The final list of surplus parcels included 66 parcels ranging from 0.25 acres to 125 acres. This report explores some or Rotary’s options as it formulates its strategic plan for the Edwards parcel. The report provides a brief description of each parcel and evaluates the parcels in the categories of Overall Land Value, Potential for Affordable Housing and Conservation Value. Methodology WW Parcel descriptions were needed for the preliminary organization and mapping of the surplus parcels. Two initial lists of surplus parcels were provided by the DNR. The DNR Traverse City District Office provided surplus parcel lists from Benzie and Grand Traverse Counties. The DNR Kalkaska District Office provided a list for Kalkaska County. lnforrnation included in the original lists consisted of an identification number, number of acres of each parcel, and an abbreviated legal description. lnforrnation to be gathered for the descriptions portion of the project included amount of wet and dry acres on the parcel, the parcel location on plat maps and State Forest compartment maps, surrounding land characteristics and zoning. Collecting this information involved working at the Traverse City and Kalkaska District offices of the DNR researching the descriptions of the parcels from compartment maps of the Pere Marquette State Forest. Zoning information was gathered at the various townships in which the parcels were located. The Pere Marquette State Forest is under the jurisdiction of numerous districts. The Forest is organized within each district into compartments. Township plat maps were used for parcel location using the legal descriptions included in the original DNR surplus lists. Using the location of the parcels on the plat maps, 1 plotted the locations on the maps of the various compartments within the Pere Marquette State Forest. After locating the parcel on the compartment maps, the number of the compartment in which the parcels are managed was noted. This number was used to locate files in the DNR office in which were found detailed descriptions of all parcels within the compartment. The parcel descriptions gathered from the DNR compartment files were used to map the DNR’s surplus parcels. TRANSCADW is a computer-mapping program used by the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT). MDOT has developed data layers for mapping that include cities, roads (with names), trunklines and bodies of water. On the computer, these layers were overlaid to produce a base map. The location of parcels were manually placed on the MDOT TRANSCADT" map, indicated with stars and labeled. Placement of the stars was based on matching roads and section lines between the plat maps and roads, section lines and waterbodies on the computer- generated base map. Labels (i.e. B-l6) consisted of a letter indicating the name of the county (i.e. “B” for “Benzie”) and the number assigned in the DNR surplus lists. Evaluation of chels Each parcel was evaluated along three dimensions: Overall Land Value, Potential for Affordable Housing and Conservation Value. These categories were chosen to reflect of the Rotary’s interests which include the establishment of affordable housing in the Grand Traverse Bay Region, greatest cash asset potential and the conservation of natural resources and scenic qualities of northwestern lower Michigan. Methods used in listing parcels in the Overall Land Value, Potential for Affordable Housing and Conservation Value lists consisted of reviewing the location of all parcels mapped in the description portion of the project and inventorying the general characteristics of the land surrounding the parcel. Much of the generalizations formed in this process were a result of extensive local knowledge of the region and site visits. When forming the general characterizations of the areas surrounding each of the 66 parcels, specific indicators of landscape character were used. These include proximity to inland lakes, rivers, streams; presence of wetlands; proximity to roads; proximity to cities, towns, villages or resort and rural development; and general land use and natural states of the surrounding area (i.e. agriculture, forestry, open meadow, forest). These general characterizations were helpful in concluding a “first cut” of the 66 parcels for consideration of inclusion in the three categories. The parcels surviving this first cut were then subjected to the criteria listed in the Evaluations section for inclusion or elimination in the three categones. Overall Lard Value. Because the DNR would almost certainly manage the Edwards property as part of the Pere Marquette State Forest, Rotary could realize the value of the property while knowing that the Edwards property would be managed in a manner consistent with sound conservation principles. Rotary could sell the parcels for which it traded. Procwds from such a sale could be used for investment in the establishment of affordable housing or other philanthropic activities of Rotary. For this reason, the category of Overall Land Value was established. These evaluations were based on the potential for resale of the parcels with the intent that they might be used for development. The parcels chosen for this category were those whose locations were advantageous to development. All three counties have experienced rapid retirement- and second-home growth in the past two decades. The locations of many of these parcels are conducive to these types of homes. Additionally, tourism is a major factor driving the regional economy of northwestern lower Michigan. The increase in tourism has led to an explosion of these kinds of homes in the three counties, especially in areas with lake and river frontage, or in close proximity of these amenities. For this reason, Rotary wished to look at those parcels of greatest overall value. Cash assets from the sale of parcels acquired in a trade is of significant interest to Rotary. Proceeds from such a sale would be used for the establishment of affordable housing or to fiu‘ther the other philanthropic activities in which it is involved. Obviously, some parcels identified as surplus by the DNR are of greater potential development value than others. Many of the more valuable parcels seem to be in areas of greatest potential of altering the overall character of the region. This is because most of the parcels included on this list have inland lake frontage or are within a close proximity to inland lakes, or are of otherwise significant scenic quality. The demand for land located in areas such as these is high and prices, in general, are at a premium. Many are adjacent to or are in close proximity to already developed subdivisions or resort communities. Criteria used to identify the parcels of highest overall land value from the original list of 66 surplus parcels include the following: 0 Proximity of the parcel to: > existing development 'r existing infrastructure (sewer, water, electricity, etc.) ’5' road access ‘5' scenic views ‘r recreational opportunities “r lake frontage > parcels of comparatively high value 0 Zoning ‘r lot requirements (size, density, restrictions) P residential, commercial, forest/agriculture ‘i proximity to same/other zoning districts Note: Rarely is there any kind of development on the parcels listed as surplus. For this reason, the presence of built structures on these parcels was not a significant criterion for including them on this list. The proximity of the parcels to Lake Michigan and the inland lakes and a parcel’s view to these amenities are the major determiners of overall value. This is consistent with the realtor’s adage that the three greatest determiners of land values are “location, location and location.” Close proximity to existing develOpment, infrastructure (sewer, water, electricity, etc.) and road access reduces the cost of development. By reducing the length of necessary infrastructure and new roads, the cost of development is significantly reduced. The reduction of development costs in this context makes development easier, more affordable and tends to promote clustering of development instead of sprawl. The close proximity to scenic views, recreational opportunities, lake frontage and other parcels of high value may drive up land values of neighboring parcels. This is especially true in the counties of the Grand Traverse Bay Region where retirement- and second-homes, financed by downstate and out-of-state money, are prevalent. Zoning determines the use that is permitted on land and the intensity of that use. Although zoning may be changed through requests for rezonings, variances and special use permits the zoning designation may effect resale value when development is intended. Potential for Affordable Housing. A housing inventory and analysis in the Grand Traverse Bay Region will likely show that there IS a need for affordable housing. According to the Traverse City Housing Commission and HomeStretch, there rs significant need for affordable housing in Grand Traverse County, and in the four counties surrounding Grand Traverse County. Residents of the affordable housing need to be employed. For affordable housing to be appropriate in an area, jobs must be available in the region. Furthermore, it is desirable that these jobs be within walking distance or within walking distance of public transportation. Land should be available on which to build the housing and should be zoned to permit single-family and/or multi-family use. Criteria for the ranking of parcels for affordable housing include the following: 0 Proximity to job locations, services, shopping, public transportation and recreational opportunities )‘r it is desirable that these amenities would be within walking distance of the housing iv if outside of walking distance, public transportation access should be within walking distance with these amenities accessible from the public transportation 0 Requirement of the urbanized area: iv municipality must prove need for affordable housing > jobs must be available ‘1» public transportation must be available and provide access to job locations, services, shopping and recreational opportunities )9 there must be availability of parcels that may be assembled and purchased for affordable housing Xv zoning of parcels intended for affordable housing must permit single- or multiple-family use Proximity to job locations, services, shopping, public transportation and recreational opportunities is important in the placement of affordable housing. To be consistent with the notion of aflordable housing, the housing should be placed so that it does not require the its residents to invest heavily in transportation costs. Carefiil placement of affordable housing should locate it within walking distance of basic needs or within walking distance of public transportation. Large distances between housing and basic needs may begin to degrade the advantage of the lower price of affordable housing by making transportation costs higher. Conservation Value. Conservation of the extraordinary natural resources and character of the northwestern lower Michigan region is, however, foremost in the consideration of Rotary as it reviews parcels for this potential trade. Mr. Edwards bequested his land to Rotary with the understanding the that it would not only benefit Rotary financially in some point in the future, but would serve to protect the Boardman River and some of its tributaries. Development of the parcels was not an intention of the original bequest, and Rotary holds to this intention today. For this reason, a trade to the State for recreational use and forest management practices may be appropriate. Rotary’s willingness to conserve land, water and the character of the landscape of northwestern lower Michigan is consistent in this project. For this reason, a category of Conservation Value was included in the project. This category was intended to list those parcels that are of greatest significance to natural ecosystems (i.e. wetlands, rivers and streams, wildlife habitat) and of greatest potential impact to the surrounding landscape. The literal antithesis of the conservation mindset is full—blown development of these parcels. Although development occurs in many forms and consumes varying degrees of land, it will almost always result in a change in the character of the surrounding landscape. The region in which this project applies is of significant natural beauty and scenic accessibility. It has experienced an explosion of retirement- and second-home construction as well as resort development. Much of this development has occurred on the edges of Lake Michigan, inland lakes, streambanks and in former agricultural areas. In short, development on these and other scenic areas in the region is permanently changing the overall landscape of the region. Rotary is well aware of the effects of development on the region and was therefore enthusiastic to include in the evaluation of parcels a category for Conservation Value. Criteria used in the determination of this list include: The presence of: 0 wetlands o lakes, rivers, streams, ponds and standing water 0 exceptional scenery and views - adjacency to other protected land The role of the parcel in the local watershed: o the filtering and water recharge function of wetlands 0 patterns of drainage 0 susceptibility of portions of the parcel to erosion 0 neighboring land uses Wetlands play an extremely important role in the function of natural systems and deserve protection. They serve the function of water retention, filtering and recharge and provide habitat upon which an uncountable number of organisms rely. Although protected by federal and state laws prohibiting their destruction, care needs to be taken to assure that these natural resources will not be damaged by the actions of man (including contamination resulting from runoff from impervious surfaces, invasion of exotic species, erosion). Lakes, rivers, streams, ponds and naturally occurring areas of standing water are also susceptible to damage from the actions of man. Together with wetlands, these areas deserve protection from erosion, runoff and loss of vegetation in the form of setbacks from development and vegetative buffers. Often the undeveloped nature of the parcels included in this list defines the character of the region in which it is located. The change in use of some of these parcels may significantly influence the overall character of these localities. Some of these parcels are heavily forested with road frontage and create a break between areas of development. The change of use from forested to developed would significantly impact these areas and continue to degrade the “rural” nature of northwestern lower Michigan. Taken in a project-by-project basis, the impact may not seem significant. Taken in a cumulative context, however, northwestern lower Michigan is losing thousands of acres of previously non-developed land each year. This change in land use is having a profound influence on the character of the region. Rotary, therefore, has been given the opportunity to play an important role in preserving the character of this region by acting or choosing not to act towards acquiring some of these parcels. For instance, if Rotary chooses to trade for some of these parcels, they will have the opportunity to direct where and in what manner development will or will not take place on the parcels. This can be achieved through the use of conservation easements and conservation- designed development. A discussion of these concepts will be included in the Protection Tools section of this report. Rotary has the option of choosing not to participate in the trade at all. In this scenario, the surplus parcels will most likely be offered to the highest bidder and it will be less likely that conservation easements or conservation-designed development will be used. ) ll, 1. .w.._m.om< ilkhl r ll Description of Parcels The following are brief descriptions of the parcels identified as “surplus” by the DNR in the counties of Benzie, Grand Traverse and Kalkaska. They are to be considered available for exchange to Rotary for all or portions of the Edwards East Creek Tract. A slightly more detailed and extensive description of each parcel is provided in Appendix I. The parcels identified as surplus are listed in tables by county below. DNR Surplus Parcels Description: Benzie County Parcel Acres Acres Number Acres Wet Dry Section Township Comments 8-1 40+/- 0 40+/- 35 Homestead 8-2 1 0 1 28 Inland 8-3 4 O 4 10 Homestead 8-4 8+l- * * 1 Joyfield *sometimes wet 8-5 47 0 47 6 Weldon 8-6 12 O 12 7 Weldon 8-7 51+l- 0 51+/- 5 Colfax 8-8 40 * * 9 Colfax *sometimes wet 8-9 0.15 O 0.15 16 Colfax 8-10 40+l- 0 40+/- 27 Weldon 8-1 1 not found 812 20 O 20 4 Benzonia 8-1 3 7 0 7 15 Homestead 8-14 40 O 40 15 Homestead 8-1 5 19 O 19 26 Homestead 8-16 39 1 8 21 24 Homestead 8-17 80 O 80 33 Lake 8-18 40 5 35 4 Benzonia 8—19 10 0 1O 16 Homestead «v- '3 -11 l4 DNR Surplus Parcels Description: Grand Traverse County Number Acres Wet Dry Section Township Comments G-1 0.25 0 0.25 33 Fife Lake G—2 20 17 3 4 Green Lake G3 16 0 16 4 Green Lake 6-4 40 11 29 17 Green Lake 6-5 55 49 6 7 Grant 6-6 40 0 40 18 Grant 6-7 77.6 77.6 0 15 Green Lake 6-8 80 40 4O 24 Green Lake 6-9 10 O 10 14 Blair 6-10 120 7* 107 35 Long Lake * 6 acres sometimes wet 6-11 67 0 67 18 East Bay 6-12 80 O 80 16 East Bay G13 40 0 40 17 East Bay 6-14 11 0 11 12 East Bay 6-15 4 0 4 6 Long Lake 1. meOad DNR Surplus Parcels Description: Kalkaska County Parcel Number K-1 K-2 K-3 K-4 K-5 K-6 K-7 K-9 K-1 0 K-1 1 K-1 2 K-1 3 K-14 K—1 5 K-1 6 K-1 7 K-1 8 K-1 9 K—20 K-21 K-22 K-23 K-24 K-25 K-26 K-27 K-28 K-29 K-3O K-31 K-32 Acres 20 2 10 1 20 80 40 8 10 24 35+/- 41 40 20 10 10 1O 80 40 25 5 80 40 40 40 40 40 40 10 8 1 1 Section Township 4 2 29 6 34 7 10 22 31 31 36 22 27 31 1 6 6 12 12 27 27 28 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 9 1 5 Garfield Garfield Springfield Oliver Orange Kalkaska Kalkaska Kalkaska Kalkaska Kalkaska Kalkaska Blue Lake Blue Lake Blue Lake Cold Springs Cold Springs Cold Springs Rapid River Rapid River Rapid River Rapid River Rapid River Rapid River Rapid River Rapid River Rapid River Rapid River Rapid River Rapid River Clear Water Clear Water Comments 16 17 Evaluation of Parcels Through the process of inventorying the parcels identified as surplus by the DNR, a few scenarios have surfaced concerning the possible long-term results of an exchange as envisioned in this description. The parcels range in area from 0.25 acres to blocks of parcels totaling 160 acres. Most parcels are between 20 and 40 acres. The change in use of these parcels from a forest management use, as prescribed by the DNR, to another use, such as low-density residential housing or resort development, for example, could have a significant impact on the character of the town, townships and counties in which these parcels are located. Fortunately, there are many options open to Rotary that may be applied to accomplish its interests and desires in acquiring and selling parcels without detrimentally affecting the character of the landscape of these counties. The possible scenarios that have become apparent in this inventorying process are as follows: 0 The outright sale of parcels acquired by Rotary to adjacent landowners or highest bidder. This scenario represents the simplest and possibly the most profitable transaction. It also poses the highest potential for significant change in the character of the landscape of the areas. Without restrictions, the new buyer is allowed to conduct use on the site as regulated by existing zoning by right. With the current situation of “urban sprawl” apparent in these counties in mind, the outright sale of these large parcels to the highest bidder may “add fuel to the fire,” especially if they are under low-density residential zoning. Many of the surplus parcels are adjacent to already existing subdivisions. Outright sale of these parcels, for example, may quicken the expansion of exurban housing developments. 0 The sale of parcels with the application of conservation easements. The application of conservation easements can accommodate the desire to sell land for a profit while conserving the character and quality of the natural systems on the parcel while allowing for limited development, as may be desired by the prospective buyer. Conservation easements are extremely flexible and are crafted for each individual property. They may be used, for example, to restrict the development of a portion of a site and leaving the rest of the parcel in its natural state. This is effective in protecting fragile natural systems as they may exist on a parcel and screening development from the roads and “view corridors” for which these northern Michigan counties are known. 0 The sale of parcels for residential housing with “conservation-designed” development. Because many of the parcels available for trade are located near existing subdivisions or are of prime residential development potential, there exists a potential for significant profit to be realized for the sale of these properties for this use. The large size of some of these parcels (40 to 160 acres) makes the development of these parcels additionally attractive. The use of conservation principles in the design of subdivisions can positively reduce the impact of a housing development on the character of the landscape in these areas. Elements of conservation-designed development include the clustering of housing on smaller (one quarter to one half acre lots) that the usual on to five acre lots in a designated portion of the parcels and leaving the rest of the parcel in its natural state; installing trails and recreational amenities on the natural area; screening the developed part of the parcel from view of roads; maintaining existing use of the parcel (such as farming or recreation) to continue on the parcel. This scenario is effective where the parcel, if sold, would almost certainly be developed for residential uses. 0 Sale or transfer to parcels to schools, municipalities or townships for recreation or park improvement. Some parcels are located next to schools and municipal or township parks. Interest has been expressed by these entities about the possibility of the acquisition of certain parcels for expansion of parks and recreational opportunities. Examples include the expansion of a township park in Long Lake and Paradise Townships of Grand Traverse Counties. 0 Sale or Donation to GTRLC. If sold or donated to GRTLC, a parcel would most likely receive a conservation easement and be subject to resale to generate income for GTRLC or be designated as a nature preserve (depending on the natural systems present on the parcel). The scenarios listed above are examples possibilities of the transfer of ownership of these parcels that might occur. They are by no means the only scenarios possible, but may be helpfirl to keep in mind as the following descriptions are reviewed. In order to facilitate the decision-making process, I have evaluated the surplus parcels using three criteria: Potential for Affordable Housing, Conservation Value and Overall Land Value. Surplus parcels not included in the following 18 lists are not suitable for affordable housing; do not have high conservation value; or may have low overall property value (and therefore may not be, in my opinion, of prime investment for Rotary with the intention of future sale). Potential fgr Affordable ngsing There is currently an expressed need for affordable housing in the Grand Traverse Bay Region, especially in the city of Traverse City. Traverse City is the largest city and the greatest source of jobs in the region. Rotary has expressed interest in facilitating the establishment of additional affordable housing in the region. There may be opportunity for the accomplishment of this desire in the proposed Rotary-DNR trade of land. I have listed some parcels that may be suitable for development of affordable housing. The surplus parcels, however, tend to be at located considerable distances from urbanized areas. None of the parcels evaluated below are in the city of Traverse City. In fact, there were no parcels listed as surplus within approximately an eight mile radius of the city. The parcels in this ranking are located near the city of Kalkaska, in the town of Rapid City or in the villages of Honor and Leetsville. Should it be determined that there is a need for affordable housing in these places, the parcels ranked here may represent opportunities. In general, however, none of the surplus parcels are of high potential for siting of affordable housing because of large distances from urbanized areas. An alternative to establishing affordable housing on surplus properties may be to trade the Edwards property for surplus properties and sell them for profit. Money generated through sale of these parcels could then be used to assemble and purchase land suitable for affordable housing in the city of Traverse City. A list of properties that may be of highest value for sale have been ranked in the Overall Land Value category. Surplus parcels deserving of consideration for affordable housing (brief and informal notes about each parcel are included in this list): K-6 80 acres Frontage on M-72 in section 7 of Kalkaska Township LOCATED ONE-HALF MILE FROM VILLAGE OF KALKASKA WITH EXTENSIVE M-72 AND KALKASKA ROAD FRONTAGE Close proximity to city of Kalkaska Oil wells and pipeline present - areas of the parcel have already been disturbed. Located adjacent to 5 acre subdivided lots K-7 40 acres Frontage on County Road 612 and Log Lake Road in section 10 of Kalkaska Township LOCATED ONE-HALF MILE FROM KALKASKA Adjacent to county park and subdivisions There is strong potential for conservation-designed residential housing on this parcel. May be opportunity to extend public transportation from Kalkaska into this parcel and to county park. Parcels near Leetsville: K-2] 25 acres Frontage on US-3l and M-66 and Phelps Road in section 27 of Rapid River Township LOCATED IN LEETSVILLE Potential for residential development K-22 5 acres Frontage on US-3l and M—66 in section 27 of Rapid River Township LOCATED IN LEETSVILLE Potential for residential development K-23 80 acres Frontage on Phelps and Holly Roads in section 28 of Rapid River Township LOCATED IN LEETSVILLE Potential for residential development K-24 40 acres Frontage on Dorman and Beebe Roads on section 33 of Rapid River Township LOCATED ONE-HALF MILE FROM LEETSVILLE Potential for sale to adjacent landowner K-25 40 acres Frontage on Rabourn and Beebe Roads on section 33 of Rapid River Township LOCATED ONE MILE FROM LEETSVILLE Potential for sale to adjacent landowner K-26, K-27, K-28, K-29 160 acres total Frontage on US-3l and M-66 in section 33 of Rapid River Township LOCATED ONE MILE FROM LEETSVILLE l9 20 Overall Land Values . ' A list of parcels that may have the highest overall land values of the 66 originally identified by the DNR as surplus may be helpfirl in comparing strategies for a trade. This list may be useful for identifying parcels from the surplus list in the event that the Edwards property is traded for land that might be then sold for cash assets. For example, if the desire of Rotary is to establish affordable housing in Traverse City, proceeds from the sale of land acquired in the Edwards property trade could be used to assemble and purchase land in or close to an urbanized area for development of affordable housing. This list is not based on cash value of land determined by a licensed or experienced appraiser. It was generated from intuition, extensive personal knowledge of the Grand Traverse Bay Region and the location of the parcels in the context of the natural and man-made characteristics of the surrounding area in which the parcels are located. Conservation easements should be considered in the sale of parcels. Many of the parcels listed here have a great potential for expensive (market-priced) development (mostly residential). The development of some of these parcels, however, might cause significant changes to the overall character of the immediate locality and townships in which they are located. Development of a typical resort subdivision on two parcels, for example, between Crystal Lake and Big Platte Lake would set a precedent for additional development on the ridge between the two lakes and severely impact the natural wooded serenity of the hillsides. This area is also very near the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. The application of conservation easements or even the use of “conservation-designed” subdivisions would dramatically reduce the impact of development on these parcels and the surrounding region. The former may reduce resale value to a degree, the latter could increase the resale value. Left alone, however, the resale of these properties might prove to be disastrous to the local character of some of these areas. Parcels of Greatest Overall Land Value (brief and informal notes about each parcel are included in this list): B-lO 40+/- acres; all dry This is a landlocked parcel adjacent to land owned by Thompsonville Public Schools in section 27 of Weldon Township. It is locatedone mile fi'om Crystal Mountain Resort. Crystal Mountain Resort is a rapidly expanding Michigan tourist destination. The reasonably close proximity of this parcel to this resort may affect its value as the resort grows and downstate tourists continue the trend of investing in second homes in northwest lower Michigan. The closest road access to the parcel is Weldon Road. B-12 20 acres; all dry This parcel is located at the intersection of Warren and Platte Roads in section 4 of Benzonia Township. It may be very desirable real estate for residential development, as it is less that 0.25 miles from Big Platte Lake This parcel is important to maintaining the rural character of the ridge between Crystal Lake and Platte Lake and has high potential for conservation designed residential development DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PARCEL WOULD SEVERELY ALTER THE OVERALL CHARACTER OF THE RIDGE BETWEEN THESE LAKES Zoned RP 2.5 (rural preservation; 2.5 acre lots) in the Benzonia Township zoning ordinance B-1 7 80 acres; all dry The location of this parcel is less than one-half mile of frontage on Platte Road in section 33 of Lake Township, is less than one-half mile to Sleeping Bear National Lakeshore, and is less than one-quarter mile to Big Platte Lake. Adjacent land is subdivided into lakefront homes on Big Platte Lake on the north and east; the landowner(s) to the north and west have logged extensively; touches comer of parcel B-18 Potential for: sale to Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore; sale to neighboring logging interests; conservation - designed subdivision; outright sale for development (this option would be very detrimental to the rural character of the ridge between Crystal Lake and Platte Lake) DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PARCEL WOULD SEVERELY ALTER THE OVERALL CHARACTER OF THE RIDGE BETWEEN THESE LAKES It is the site of old landfill; extensive dumping is present. The parcel has been cleaned by Lake Township and has recently been dumped upon. Zoned R-l in the Crystal Lake Township zoning ordinance. 21 G-2 20 acres; 17 acres wet, 3 acres dry This parcel includes extensive frontage on Lake DuBonnet in section 4 of Green Lake Township and access to South Long Lake Road Adjacent parcels are subdivided, and has potential for sale with conservation easement Zoned F/A (Forest/Agriculture — five acre lots) in the Green Lake Township zoning ordinance G-3 16 acres; all dry This parcel includes frontage on Lake DuBonnet in section 4 of Green Lake Township Access may be a problem although trails exist on the parcel. Part of the parcel is used as fishing access and has potential for sale with conservation easement Zoned F/A (F crest/Agriculture - five acre lots) in the Green Lake Township zoning ordinance G-4 40 acres; 29 acres dry, 11 acres wet The parcel has frontage on US-3l in section 17 of Green Lake Township and is located one mile from the village of lnterlochen A small stream present and the parcel has potential for residential development, although outside of village of lnterlochen Zoned R-3 in the Green Lake Township zoning ordinance G-lO 120 acres; 107 acres dry, 6 acres sometimes wet, 7 acres wet This parcel is bisected by Bass Lake Road in section 35 of Long Lake Township and is located one quarter mile from Bass Lake. IT IS ADJACENT TO LAND HELD BY ROTARY CAMPS INC. (south) and presents potential for expansion of Rotary land, if desired. Zoned Agriculture in the Long Lake Township zoning ordinance GI] 67 acres; all dry This is a landlocked parcel in section 18 of East Bay Township and drains to Boardman River. It has potential for sale to an adjacent landowner Zoned 5-] (Lake and River Environment — subdivisions, residential, some commercial allowed) in the East Bay Township zoning ordinance G-12 80 acres; all dry This parcel includes frontage on Garfield Road and Arbutus Hill Road in section 16 of East Bay Township. There is potential for sale of this parcel for residential development with conservation subdivision design. It is located eight miles from the nearest urbanized area (sale to adjacent landowner with conservation easement). It is an oil well site. Zoned S-i (Lake and River Environment - subdivisions, residential, some commercial allowed) in the East Bay Township zoning ordinance GB 40 acres; all dry This is a landlocked parcel in section 17 of East Bay Township. It has potential for sale to adjacent subdivision with conservation easement on steep hillside. It is an oil well site. Zoned S—l (Lake and River Environment — subdivisions, residential, some commercial allowed) in the East Bay Township zoning ordinance Conservation Value Conservation value is included as a category because of the role that the surplus parcels play in the character and ecology of the Grand Traverse Bay Region. The change in use of some of these parcels, such as development of single family housing or introduction of impervious surfaces, might dramatically impact the aesthetics and natural function of these places. Fortunately, the use of conservation tools can facilitate the dual function of money generation and preservation. Conservation easements may be applied to a property to allow and place development without destroying either the aesthetic or ecological value of properties. Other parcels may be placed in the ownership of the Grand Traverse Regional Land Conservancy (GTRLC) for permanent protection as a nature preserve. The parcels listed here are those that stood out in the original list and deserve conservation consideration. Parcels of Greatest Conservation Value (brief and informal notes about each parcel are included in this list): B-12 20 acres; all dry This parcel is located at the intersection of Warren and Platte Roads in section 4 of Benzonia Township. It may be very desirable real estate for residential development, as it is less that 0.25 miles from Big Platte Lake This parcel is important to maintaining the rural character of the ridge between Crystal Lake and Platte Lake and has high potential for conservation designed residential development DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PARCEL WOULD SEVERELY ALTER THE OVERALL CHARACTER OF THE RIDGE BETWEEN THESE LAKES Zoned RP 2.5 (rural preservation; 2.5 acre lots) in the Benzonia Township zoning ordinance B-l7 80 acres; all dry The location of this parcel is less than one-half mile of fiontage on Platte Road in section 33 of Lake Township, is less than one-half mile to Sleeping Bear National Lakeshore, and is less than one-quarter mile to Big Platte Lake. Adjacent land is subdivided into lakefi‘ont homes on Big Platte Lake on the north and east; the landowner(s) to the north and west have logged extensively; touches corner of parcel B-18 Potential for: sale to Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore; sale to neighboring logging interests; conservation - designed subdivision; outright sale for development (this option would be very detrimental to the rural character of the ridge between Crystal Lake and Platte Lake) DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PARCEL WOULD SEVERELY ALTER THE OVERALL CHARACTER OF THE RIDGE BETWEEN THESE LAKES It is the site of old landfill; extensive dumping is present. The parcel has been cleaned by Lake Township and has recently been dumped upon. B-16 39 acres; 21acres dry, 18 acres wet Frontage on unpaved portion of Rosa Road in section 24 of Homestead Township Frontage on Carter Creek (tributary of Platte River) DNR listing notes possibility of GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION Potential sale to adjacent landowner with conservation easement protecting Carter Creek B-1 8 40 acres; 35 acres dry, 5 acres wet Access to Wistrand Road in section 4 of Benzonia Township Surrounds north side and west end of Rush Lake HIGHEST CONSERVATION PRIORITY Potential for sale to Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore; donation or sale to Grand Traverse Regional Land Conservancy; sale to landowner with strict no building clause in conservation easement G-2 20 acres; 17 acres wet, 3 acres dry This parcel includes extensive frontage on Lake DuBonnet in section 4 of Green Lake Township and access to South Long Lake Road 23 Adjacent parcels are subdivided, and has potential for sale with conservation easement Zoned F/A (F crest/Agriculture - five acre lots) in the Green Lake Township zoning ordinance G3 16 acres; all dry This parcel includes frontage on Lake DuBonnet in section 4 of Green Lake Township Access may be a problem although trails exist on the parcel. Part of the parcel is used as fishing access and has potential for sale with conservation easement Zoned F/A (Forest/Agriculture — five acre lots) in the Green Lake Township zoning ordinance G? 77.6 acres; all wet Frontage on Duck Lake in section 15 of Green Lake Township No road access Bisected by stream, adjacent to Tonawonda Lake VERY HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE G-8 80 acres; 40 acres dry, 40 acres wet On Mason creek in section 24 of Green Lake Township No road access Potential for sale to adjacent landowner with conservation easement K-1 20 acres Near Riverview Road in section 4 of Garfield Township May have access difficulty; two-tracks present Near Manistee River (watershed conservation importance) 24 “Blue Chip” Parcels The following parcels appeared on both the Overall Land Values list and Conservation Values list. All four are close to lakes and may be suitable for development of market-priced residential dwellings. At the same time, the development of these parcels may change of the overall character of the localities in which they are located. B-12 20 acres; all dry This parcel is located at the intersection of Warren and Platte Roads in section 4 of Benzonia Township. It may be very desirable real estate for residential development, as it is less that 0.25 miles from Big Platte Lake This parcel is important to maintaining the rural character of the ridge between Crystal Lake and Platte Lake and has high potential for conservation designed residential development DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PARCEL WOULD SEVERELY ALTER THE OVERALL CHARACTER OF THE RIDGE BETWEEN THESE LAKES Zoned RP 2.5 (rural preservation; 2.5 acre lots) in the Benzonia Township zoning ordinance B-1 7 80 acres; all dry The location of this parcel is less than one-half mile of frontage on Platte Road in section 33 of Lake Township, is less than one-half mile to Sleeping Bear National Lakeshore, and is less than one-quarter mile to Big Platte Lake. Adjacent land is subdivided into lakefi'ont homes on Big Platte Lake on the north and east; the landowner(s) to the north and west have logged extensively; touches comer of parcel B-18 Potential for: sale to Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore; sale to neighboring logging interests; conservation - designed subdivision; outright sale for development (this option would be very detrimental to the rural character of the ridge between Crystal Lake and Platte Lake) DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PARCEL WOULD SEVERELY ALTER THE OVERALL CHARACTER OF THE RIDGE BETWEEN THESE LAKES It is the site of old landfill; extensive dumping is present. The parcel has been cleaned by Lake Township and has recently been dumped upon. G-2 20 acres; 17 acres wet, 3 acres dry Extensive fiontage on Lake DuBonnet in section 4 of Green Lake Township Access to South Long Lake Road Adjacent parcels are subdivided Potential for sale with conservation easement G-3 16 acres; all dry Frontage on Lake DuBonnet in section 4 of Green Lake Township Access may be a problem; trails exist on parcel Part of the parcel is used as fishing access Potential for sale with conservation easement fl . . ........ la}...— 4 .. . . £83m 9:0 35 ././ . LII! : IL 1r . l \ ‘ a i . . ... \ . . D .. I 4 u .. 9.... .. Eu! 25 Lan Pr t ion Tool In order to strike a balance between development for profit and land stewardship, 1 suggest that Rotary investigate the potential use of conservation easements and conservation-designed development if it decides to make a trade for land and especially if the trade involves the parcels included in this listing. Conservation Easements. Conservation easements are a land protection tool that can be used when it is desired that all or part of a parcel of land be protected from development. When a landowner places a conservation easement on a parcel of land, he/she gives up some of the rights that are associated with owning the property. When development is to be restricted, the rights given up are the rights to develop all or a portion of the parcel. There are many advantages to the use of conservation easements: 1.) They leave the property in the ownership of the landowner. The landowner may continue to live on the property, sell it, or pass it on to heirs. 2.) Easements can significantly lower estate taxes. This may make the difference between the heirs being able to keep the land in the family and the need to sell the land. Easements can also provide the landowner with income and property tax benefits. 3.) They are flexible. Easements can be written to meet the nwds of the landowner while protecting the resources of the property. 4.) They are permanent and remain in force when the land changes owners. As land changes owners, the land tmst or government agency holding the easement ensures that the restrictions are followed. Easements are held by an authorized land trust (or conservancy) or a governmental agency. The landowner and easement holder design the easement terms to protect the land’s conservation values and meet the financial and personal needs of the landowner. Easements are extremely flexible, and each is unique. Limitations are generally made on the number and location of structure and the types of land use activities that can take place on the parcel. An easement may apply to all or only a portion of the property. The option of development may remain open on the remaining part of the property as long as the development will not harm the natural or historic resources of the property. Some building may be allowed under the terms of the easement as long as it is within the conservation objectives of the easement. The land trust or governmental agency holding the easement accepts the responsibility and legal rights to enforce the terms of the easement. The holder of the easement monitors the property at regular intervals. The holder also has the responsibility to take action in the event that a future owner or other party violates the easement - such as construction of a building that the easement doesn’t allow. Conservation easements are particularly appropriate in the aftermath of a potential land swap between Rotary and the DNR. In the event that Rotary acquires land on which there are significant natural resources, it may place conservation easements on portions of the property that are of highest conservation value and designate the portions of the parcel that are most suitable for development. It may then sell the property and be assured that any firture development will only occur on the most suitable portions of the property. Future owners will be permanently restricted from developing those areas protected fi'om development under the easement. The use of conservation easements in this manner will allow Rotary to accomplish the goals of generating cash assets from the trade and sale of land and assure for the protection of the natural resources and character of significant parcels of land in the Grand Traverse Bay Region. Conservation-designed Development. Conservation-designed Development (CD) is a method of subdivision design that lessens the impact of the development of subdivisions on the character of the surrounding environment. This method of subdivision design allows for the same amount of units to be built as would be built in a typical subdivision, but clusters the units in smaller portions of the property. The small areas of development are situated around areas of conservation. Areas to be conserved are, in this type of design, the design element of foremost importance. Conventional subdivision designs can often be described as “checkerboards”. An example of the allocation of land for platted lots in this type of design is provided in Figure One. This is the layout that is widespread in the suburban areas of the US and is usually permitted (often required) by local zoning and subdivision ordinances. The crime that these designs commit is the needless displacement of wildlife habitat and the conversion of otherwise natural areas into suburban yards. 26 Figure One. 0 Suppose, for example, that each of the parcels in Figure One are two acres in area. In order to accommodate the 50 lots, the entire property is consumed. In the CD scenario, the same number of houses are clustered on a smaller portion of the land. An example of this concept is provided in Figure Two. This accomplishes a few important objectives. First, it retains valuable wildlife habitat and protects fragile natural areas. Second, by locating units close to each other, development costs are reduced. Third, it creates the possibility of a greater sense of community within the development by providing a more neighborly arrangement of homes. Fourth, because large portions of the property are preserved as open space, the opportunity arises to provide trails throughout the property and improve the quality of life in the development. 27 nature preserve ’- conserva tion-d esigned ‘ / subdivision ' S nature preserv conventional ‘ r subdivison 111 Figure Two. Local zoning and subdivision ordinances may need to be adjusted to allow this type of subdivision design. Conventional zoning often allows houses to be built only in the middle of a predetermined area of land (i.e. one house per two-acre lot requirements). For the widespread use of CD to be accepted in the development community, it will be essential that more conservation design standards be incorporated into the local land-use ordinances that govern subdivision proposals. CDs are finding an enthusiastic market around the US among home-buyers. Often, these home—buyers are placing greater emphasis on “quality of life” issues when choosing new homes. Homes are often chosen because of the fact that residents prefer to live in park-like settings and choose locations that offer attractive views fiom windows and offer pleasant places to stroll. 28 The encouraging nature of CD is that it offers a realistic and achievable set of design principles for the provision of housing in areas that are significant in natural resource value and are, at the same time, attractive for the development of residences. Many of the parcels identified in this project fit into this category. The inclusion of this CD section is intended to provide Rotary with an optional concept for subdivision design in the event that it decides to acquire land and then resell it with the knowledge that there is potential for construction of residential subdivisions. It should be understood, however that the use of CD would require an extensively active role of Rotary in the development any of these parcels. 29 Conclusion This report is intended to help Rotary in its decision of action to take in the ownership of the Edwards property. At the present time, Rotary is in the beginning stages of developing a strategic plan for the direction of the organization. This plan will help to define goals, objectives and a framework for future strategic decisions such as this project. Although premature in its timing, it is hOped that this report will be helpful to Rotary when the time is appropriate to make decisions involving the Edwards property. If a trade is indeed crafted, this report may prove to be helpfirl in selecting parcels to be included. At the present time, however, Rotary seems to be far from making a trade proposal. The organization is struggling to determine its objectives and responsibilities in owning the Edwards and its fixture philanthropic activities in which the property may be involved. The land protection tools section is included in this report as an option to consider when selecting lands for a possible trade. It is hoped that its inclusion will broaden the range of possibilities in the minds of the decision- makers should a trade and subsequent resale of parcels take place. 30 References Arendt, Randall. Conservation Design for Subdivisions: A Practical guide to Creating Open Space Networks. Washington DC: Island Press, 1996. Chown, Glen; Coulter. Lew; Largent, Steve; Moore, Rick and Reese, Gary. Natural Resource Inventory and Stewardship Recommendations for the Rotary/Edwards Properties. Traverse City: Grand Traverse Regional Land Conservancy, 1993. Land Trust Alliance. Conservation Options. Washington DC: Land Trust Alliance, 1993. Rockford Map Publishers. Land Atlas and Plat Book: Grand Traverse County. Rockford, IL: Rockford Map Publishers, 1995. Rockford Map Publishers. Land Atlas and Plat Book: Kalkaska County. Rockford, IL: Rockford Map Publishers, 1996. Rotary Charities of Traverse City. Annual Report 1995/96. 31 Appendix I Parcels in this description have been assigned a preliminary “conservation value” indicated by stars (*). One star indicates a low conservation value. Five stars indicate the highest conservation value. A high conservation value may not only indicate that there are a wealth of natural systems on the property, but may indicate that the adoption of conservation practices should be considered if the parcel leaves ownership by the DNR. Conservation values were based on the following criteria: size of parcel distance to urbanized areas role of parcel in local watershed presence of lakes, streams, wetlands local zoning proximity to local roads Surplus Parcels in Benzie Cgunty: B-l 40 +/- acres; all dry Parcel is landlocked in section 35 of Homestead Township No access to this parcel B-2 One acre parcel; dry Located on Cinder Road in section 28 of Inland Township Potential residential development (situated near other private holdings, need to check zoning) B-3 Four acres; all dry Located on US-3l less than one mile north of Honor in section 10 of Homestead Township Access on US-31, potential residential development B-4 8 +/- acres; sometimes wet Frontage on Wallaker Road in section 1 of Joyfield Township Near Betsie River and Homestead Dam B-S 47 acres; all dry Frontage on Aylsworth and Lee roads in section 6 of Weldon Township Potential for conservation easement and sale to neighboring land owner One mile from Homestead Dam B-6 12 acres; all dry On Fred’s Landing Road in section 7 of Weldon Township Frontage on Betsie River DNR notes this a heavily used gathering spot with significant trash DJ 51 +/- acres; all dry On Aylsworth and Miller Roads in section 5 of Colfax Township Eight Miles from Benzonia Across Ayslworth Road from eight subdivided lots; surrounded by private land 32 B8 40 acres; sometimes wet Parcel is landlocked in section 9 of Colfax Township Seven miles from lnterlochen Potential for conservation easement and sale to neighboring landowner B-9 0.15 acres; dry On unpaved portion of Wallin Road in section 16 of Colfax Township Seven miles from lnterlochen extremely small parcel adjacent to village of Wallin t B-lO 40+/- acres; all dry Landlocked parcel; adjacent to land owned by Thompsonville Public Schools in section 27 of Weldon Township One mile from Crystal Mountain Resort; closest road access is Weldon Road Potential acquisition by Crystal Mountain for expansion? it B-ll could not be found B-12 20 acres; all dry At intersection of Warren and Platte Roads in section 4 of Benzonia Township Very desirable real estate for residential development; < .25 miles from Big Platte Lake Potential for conservation designed residential development (parcel is influential in maintaining the rural character of the ridge between Crystal Lake and Platte Lake) Zoned R-l in Benzonia Township zoning ordinance *ltt B-13 7 acres; all dry Frontage on N. Pioneer Road (also called Goose Road); across the road from State property through which flows the Platte River in section 15 of Homestead Township Some steep areas One mile from village of Honor; one-half mile from US-31 Potential for residential development with a conservation easement tit B-l4 40 acres; all dry Parcel comer touches N. Pioneer Road (Goose Road) in section 15 of Homestead Township Adjacent property to southwest is subdivided into small tracts; 20 and 40 acres landowners surround property Potential for residential development with conservation easement, or sale to adjacent large lot landowners with conservation easement it B-1 5 19 acres; all dry Frontage on Cinder Road in section 26 of Homestead Township Potential sale to adjacent landowner * B-l6 39 acres; 21acres dry, 18 acres wet Frontage on unpaved portion of Rosa Road in section 24 of Homestead Township 33 Frontage on Carter Creek (tributary of Platte River) DNR listing notes possibility of GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION Potential sale to adjacent landowner with conservation easement protecting Carter Creek tit. B-17 80 acres; all dry less than one-half mile of frontage on Platte Road in section 33 of Lake Township less than one-half mile to Sleeping Bear National Lakeshore less than one-quarter mile to Big Platte Lake Adjacent land is subdivided into lakefront homes on Big Platte Lake on the north and east; landowner to north and west have logged extensively; touches corner of parcel B-18 Potential for: sale to Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore; sale to neighboring logging interests; conservation - designed subdivision; outright sale for development (this option would be very detrimental to the rural character of the ridge between Crystal Lake and Platte Lake) Site of old landfill; extensive dumping present; has been cleaned by Lake Township and recently dumped upon tttt B-18 40 acres; 35 acres dry, 5 acres wet Access to Wistrand Road in section 4 of Benzonia Township Surrounds north side and west end of Rush Lake HIGHEST CONSERVATION PRIORITY Potential for sale to Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore; donation or sale to Grand Traverse Regional Land Conservancy; sale to landowner with strict no building clause in conservation easement ##ttt B-l9 10 acres; all dry Landlocked parcel contiguous with State land in section 16 of Homestead Township Potential for sale to adjacent property owner t Surplus Parcels in Grand Traverse qunty: G-l 0.25 acres; all dry subdivision lot in section 33 of Fife Lake Township Near Walton Pond One-half mile to Usk-3l and M-113 t G-2 20 acres; 17 acres wet, 3 acres dry Extensive frontage on Lake DuBonnet in section 4 of Green Lake Township Access to South Long Lake Road Adjacent parcels are subdivided Potential for sale with conservation easement tilt. G-3 16 acres; all dry Frontage on Lake DuBonnet in section 4 of Green Lake Township Access may be a problem; trails exist on parcel Part of the parcel is used as fishing access Potential for sale with conservation easement *ttt G-4 40 acres; 29 acres dry, 11 acres wet Frontage on US-3l in section 17 of Green Lake Township One mile from the village of lnterlochen Small stream present; zoned R-2 Potential for residential development, although well outside of village of lnterlochen it G-S 55 acres; 49 acres wet, 6 acres dry Frontage on Hall Creek Road in section 7 of Grant Township One mile from village of Karlin Potential for sale to adjacent landowner 3* G6 40 acres; all dry Bisected by Albrecht Road in section 18 of Grant Township One mile from village of Karlin Potential for sale to adjacent landowner it G-7 77.6 acres; all wet Frontage on Duck Lake in section 15 of Green Lake Township No road access Bisected by stream, adjacent to Tonawonda Lake VERY HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE ##ttt G-8 80 acres; 40 acres dry, 40 acres wet On Mason creek in section 24 of Green Lake Township No road access Potential for sale to adjacent landowner with conservation easement ttttt G9 10 acres; all dry Landlocked parcel in section 14 of Blair Township One quarter mile north of Hoosier Valley Road Potential for sale to adjacent landowner # Gm 120 acres; 107 acres dry, 6 acres sometimes wet, 7 acres wet Bisected by Bass Lake Road in section 35 of Long Lake Township One quarter mile to Bass Lake ADJACENT TO LAND HELD BY ROTARY CAMPS INC. (south) Potential expansion of Rotary land, if desired ‘3. GI] 67 acres; all dry Landlocked parcel in section 18 of East Bay Township 34 Potential sale to adjacent landowner Drains to Boardman River Oil G-l2 80 acres; all dry Frontage on Garfield Road and Arbutus Hill Road in section 16 of East Bay Township Potential sale for residential development with conservation subdivision design (eight miles from urbanized area; sale to adjacent landowner with conservation easement Oil well site it GB 40 acres; all dry Landlocked parcel in section 17 of East Bay Township Potential for sale to adjacent subdivision with conservation easement on steep hillside Oil well site 1!!! GM 11 acres; all dry Access from Kantz Road in section 12 of East Bay Township Surrounded on three sides by small tracts 1/8 mile to Rennie Lake it G-l 5 4 acres Strip of land 100’ wide in section 6 of Long Lake Township Access to Cedar Run Road it. Sgplus chels in Kalkaska Cgung: K-1 20 acres Near Riverview Road in section 4 of Garfield Township May have access difliculty; two-tracks present Near Manistee River (watershed conservation importance) 1". K-2 2 acres Landlocked parcel on middle of section 2 of Garfield Township Access is a problem Potential for sale to adjacent landowner t K-3 10 acres among small tracts Frontage on Boume Road in section 29 of Springfield Township Potential for sale to adjacent landowner t K-4 1 acre 36 Landlocked parcel in section 6 of Oliver Township Potential for sale to adjacent landowner * K-5 20 acres Landlocked parcel in northwest corner of section 34 of Orange Township Potential for sale to adjacent landowner * K-6 80 acres Frontage on M-72 in section 7 of Kalkaska Township ONE HALF MILE FROM VILLAGE OF KALKASKA WITH EXTENSIVE M-72 AND KALKASKA ROAD FRONTAGE Oil wells and pipeline present Adjacent to 5 acre subdivided lots May have already been applied for auction it K-7 40 acres Frontage on County Road 612 and Log Lake Road in section 10 of Kalkaska Township ONE HALF MILE FROM KALKASKA Adjacent county park and subdivisions Strong potential for conservation-designed residential housing. fit K-9 8 acres On or near Kettle Lake and Kettle Lake Road in section 22 of Kalkaska Township May already be subdivided it K-lO 10 acres Frontage on west side of US-31 and Penn Railroad ROW in section 31 of Kalkaska Township 2 '/2 miles from town of Kalkaska * K-ll 24 acres Frontage on east side of US-31 and Penn Railroad ROW in section 31 of Kalkaska Township 2 '/2 miles fi'om town of Kalkaska t K-12 35+/- acres Frontage on east side of US-3l and Penn Railroad ROW in section 36 of Kalkaska Township 2 ‘/2 miles from town of Kalkaska * K-13 41 acres Landlocked parcel in section 22 of Blue Lake Township Near Blue Lakes Potential for sale to adjacent landowner it 37 K-14 40 acres Frontage on Blue Lake Road in section 27 of Blue Lake Township South of Blue Lakes Potential for sale to adjacent landowner/conservation-designed development 1. K-15 20 acres Frontage on Kennel Road in section 31 of Blue Lake Township Surrounded by 10 acre lots Potential for sale to adjacent landowner(s) a K-16 10 acres Frontage on Starvation Lake Road in section 1 of Cold Springs Township Potential for sale to adjacent landowner * K-17 10 acres Frontage on Westwood Road in section 6 of Cold Springs Township Potential for sale to adjacent landowner t K-18 10 acres Frontage on Westwood Road in section 6 of Cold Springs Township Potential for sale to adjacent landowner * K-l9 80 acres Frontage on Wheeler Road in section 12 of Rapid River Township Adjacent to La Chandra Plat (potential for conservation-designed development) Adjacent to K-20 One half mile from Westwood 3* K-20 40 acres Frontage on East Plum Valley Road Adjacent to La Chandra Plat (potential for conservation-designed development) Adjacent to K-19 One half mile from Westwood t. K-21 25 acres Frontage on US-31 and M-66 and Phelps Road in section 27 of Rapid River Township IN LEETSVILLE Potential for residential development a K-22 5 acres Frontage on US-31 and M-66 in section 27 of Rapid River Township IN LEETSVILLE Potential for residential development * K-23 80 acres Frontage on Phelps and Holly Roads in section 28 of Rapid River Township IN LEETSVILLE Potential for residential development # K-24 40 acres Frontage on Dorman and Beebe Roads on section 33 of Rapid River Township One half mile from Leetsville Potential for sale to adjacent landowner ** K-25 40 acres Frontage on Rabourn and Beebe Roads on section 33 of Rapid River Township One mile from Leetsville Potential for sale to adjacent landowner Qt K-26, K-27, K-28, K-29 160 acres total Frontage on US-31 and M-66 in section 33 of Rapid River Township ONE MILE FROM LEETVILLE #* K-30 10 acres Frontage on Rabourn Road Potential for sale to adjacent landowner t K-3l 8 acres In section 9 of Clearwater Township DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO TOWN OF RAPID CITY POTENTIAL FOR DEVELOPMENT . K-32 11 acres Among small tracts in section 15 of Clearwater Township Potential for residential development I 38 39 Appendix II In his recent book, Conservation Designs for Subdivisions, Randall Arendt presents a four-step process for designing subdivisions with conservation objectives. He has provided an important alternative to the “one size fits all” approach to lot size regulation in local zoning districts. 2 1. Identify Conservation Areas. Identify: 0 Primary conservation areas - ex. wetlands, floodplains, steep slopes. See Figure Three. 0 Secondary conservation areas - unprotected elements of the landscape that deserve to be spared from grading clearing and development. See Figure Four. 0 Identify potential development areas — balance of site. See Figure Five. river steep slopes \\\\“ '/ 9% men ow hydric soils 2% d e M §\\\\ \\\\\ 5 Figure Three. 2 Arendt, Randall. Conservation Design for Subdivisions: A Practical guide to Creating Open Space Nemorks. Washington DC: Island Press, 1996. 2. Locate House Sites. Design elements: Privacy: use existing woodlands, hedge-rows, land forms Community: provide frontage on common areas, trails Views: provide for natural views of meadows, open fields, wetlands See Figure Six. Figure Six. 41 42 3. Align Streets and Trails. Provide for a logical layout of local streets and footpaths to connect various parts of the neighborhood. This will allow neighborhood residents to physically interact with the natural areas of the property, interact with other residents of the neighborhood out of doors and have a stronger connection with the changing of season. 0 See Figure Seven. ’ ~I Figure Seven. 4. Drawing Lot Lines. 0 Views of open space allow for the sale of lots at premium prices and increase the quickness of the sale. 0 Homes in park-like settings appreciate in value quicker than those in the classic “cookie-cutter” subdivision. 0 See Figure Eight. / / F f f l \ Figure Eight. 43 31293 02656 8950 .......