ORTONVILLEMASTERPLAN-2015extended

Transcription

Ortonville Master Plan
Village of Ortonville
Oakland County, Michigan
Adopted by the Village of Ortonville Planning Commission:
Adopted by the Village of Ortonville Council:
Prepared by:
235 E. Main Street, Suite 105
Northville, MI 48167
TEL 248.596.0920
FAX 248.596.0930
September 30, 2008
October 13, 2008
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The participation and cooperation of community leaders and residents in the preparation of
the Village of Ortonville Master Plan is greatly appreciated. In particular, we acknowledge
the efforts of the following individuals:
PLANNING COMMISSION
VILLAGE COUNCIL
Charles Craciun
Larry Hayden
Mary Kassuba
Rick McAvinchey
Lee Palshan
James Rogers
Dave Vandis
Kenneth J. Quisenberry – President
Kay Green – President Pro Tem
J. Harold Batten – Trustee
Aileen Champion – Trustee
Dan Eschmann – Trustee
Mary Kassuba – Trustee
Melanie Nivelt - Trustee
MASTER PLAN TASK FORCE
VILLAGE STAFF
Dave Bonner
Charles Craciun
Jane Derry
Larry Hayden
Mary Kassuba
Rick McAvinchey
Lee Palshan
James Rogers
Dave Vandis
Ed Coy – Manager
Larry Brown – Treasurer
Julie Alexander – Clerk
Diana Bertapelle – Administrative Support
MASTER PLAN
i
Ortonville Master Plan Adopting Resolution
Village of Ortonville Planning Commission
WHEREAS, Act 33, Public Acts of Michigan, 2008, as amended, provides for a Municipal Planning Commission
to prepare and adopt a Master Plan for the physical development of the community; and,
WHEREAS, the Village of Ortonville Planning Commission has prepared a physical development plan for the
Village in compliance with said Act 33, including relevant charts, maps and text; and,
WHEREAS, the Village of Ortonville Planning Commission has provided opportunity for public input into the
Master Planning process; and,
WHEREAS, the Village of Ortonville Council approved and subsequently distributed a draft copy of the Master
Plan to all of the bodies required by said Act 33 for review and comment; and,
WHEREAS, no person or entity submitted comments indicating that the proposed Village of Ortonville Master
Plan is substantially inconsistent with the Master Plan of any adjacent community; and,
WHEREAS, The Village of Ortonville Planning Commission held a formal public hearing on the draft Master Plan
on September 30, 2008 in order to provide additional opportunity for public comment; and,
WHEREAS, the citizens of the Village of Ortonville were afforded the opportunity to provide oral and written
comments on the draft plan, which comments have been carefully considered by the Planning Commission;
and
WHEREAS, based on the consideration of public comments the Village Planning Commission is satisfied that
the Master Plan is ready for adoption:
NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED, that the Village of Ortonville Planning Commission does hereby adopt
the Village of Ortonville Master Plan, said plan to be dated as adopted this day of September 30, 2008; and
FURTHER, LET IT BE RESOLVED, that the Village of Ortonville Planning Commission does hereby direct the
Commission Chairperson and Commission Secretary to sign this Resolution signifying the adoption of the
Ortonville Master Plan, and to file attested copies of the Plan with the Village Clerk.
CERTIFICATE OF ADOPTION:
Offered by Commissioner Hayden, supported by Commissioner Rogers
Yeas: Craciun, Hayden, Kassuba, McAvinchey, Palshan, Rogers, Vandis
Nays: none
Absent: none
ii
ORTONVILLE
Ortonville Master Plan Adopting Resolution
Village of Ortonville Council
WHEREAS, Act 33, Public Acts of Michigan, 2008, as amended, provides for a Municipal Planning Commission
to prepare and adopt a Master Plan for the physical development of the community; and,
WHEREAS, the Village of Ortonville Planning Commission has prepared a physical development plan for the
Village in compliance with said Act 33, including relevant charts, maps and text; and,
WHEREAS, the Village of Ortonville Planning Commission has provided opportunity for public input into the
Master Planning process; and,
WHEREAS, the Village of Ortonville Council approved and subsequently distributed a draft copy of the Master
Plan to all of the bodies required by said Act 33 for review and comment; and,
WHEREAS, no person or entity submitted comments indicating that the proposed Village of Ortonville Master
Plan is substantially inconsistent with the Master Plan of any adjacent community; and,
WHEREAS, The Village of Ortonville Planning Commission held a formal public hearing on the draft Master Plan
on September 30, 2008 in order to provide additional opportunity for public comment; and,
WHEREAS, the citizens of the Village of Ortonville were afforded the opportunity to provide oral and written
comments on the draft plan, which comments have been carefully considered by the Planning Commission;
and
WHEREAS, following the consideration of public comments, the Village Planning Commission was satisfied that
the Master Plan is ready for adoption and duly adopted the Plan on September 30, 2008; and,
WHEREAS, the Village Council passed a resolution on May 12, 2008 asserting its right to approve the Master
Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED, that the Village of Ortonville Council does hereby adopt the Village of
Ortonville Master Plan, said plan to be dated as adopted this day of October 13, 2008; and
FURTHER, LET IT BE RESOLVED, that the Village of Ortonville Council does hereby direct the Village Clerk to
sign this Resolution signifying the adoption of the Ortonville Master Plan, and to file attested copies of the Plan
with the Village Clerk.
CERTIFICATE OF ADOPTION:
Offered by Trustee Batten, supported by Trustee Green
Yeas: Batten, Champion, Green, Kassuba, Nivelt, Quisenberry
Nays: Eschmann
Absent: none
MASTER PLAN
iii
iv
ORTONVILLE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................................................i
ADOPTING RESOLUTION – PLANNING COMMISSION .................................................................................................ii
ADOPTING RESOLUTION – VILLAGE COUNCIL............................................................................................................ iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS....................................................................................................................................................v
LIST OF MAPS............................................................................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................................................................ iv
LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................................................................... iv
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................1
A.
B.
C.
USES OF THE MASTER PLAN ............................................................................................. 1
ORGANIZATION OF THE MASTER PLAN............................................................................. 2
HISTORY OF ORTONVILLE.................................................................................................. 2
2. THE ORTONVILLE PLAN....................................................................................5
A.
B.
C.
D.
LAND USE CATEGORIES..................................................................................................... 5
BUILDING TYPES ................................................................................................................ 7
THE ORTONVILLE PLAN...................................................................................................... 9
DOWNTOWN PLAN ........................................................................................................... 22
3. EXISTING CONDITIONS.................................................................................. 31
A.
B.
C.
D.
DEMOGRAPHICS AND HOUSING....................................................................................... 31
EXISTING LAND USE......................................................................................................... 43
NATURAL FEATURES AND RECREATION........................................................................... 47
SANITARY SEWER ............................................................................................................ 51
4. HISTORIC PRESERVATION............................................................................. 57
A.
B.
C.
SURVEY METHODOLOGY AND PURPOSE ......................................................................... 57
SURVEY RESULTS ............................................................................................................ 58
PRESERVATION STRATEGIES .......................................................................................... 70
5. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .............................................................................. 73
6. CIRCULATION PLAN ....................................................................................... 79
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................................................... 79
CIRCULATION PLAN.......................................................................................................... 80
ROAD CLASSIFICATION .................................................................................................... 83
ROAD DESIGN GUIDELINES............................................................................................. 84
RECOMMENDED M-15 IMPROVEMENTS ....................................................................... 86
NON-MOTORIZED PATHWAY SYSTEM............................................................................. 87
7. IMPLEMENTATION......................................................................................... 89
A.
B.
C.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................. 89
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM......................................................................................... 89
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOOLS................................................................................. 92
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT............................................................................. A.1
APPENDIX B. HISTORIC PRESERVATION SURVEY FORMS....................................................A.15
APPENDIX C. ESTABLISHING A LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT .................................................A.43
MASTER PLAN
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF MAPS
1908 Village Plat ............................................................................................................................4
The Ortonville Plan .........................................................................................................................9
Downtown Plan – Alternative A .................................................................................................. 25
Downtown Plan – Alternative B .................................................................................................. 27
Existing Land Use ........................................................................................................................ 45
Oakland County Linked Pathway and Trail System................................................................... 48
Natural Features.......................................................................................................................... 49
Areas of Historic Buildings.......................................................................................................... 59
Circulation Plan ........................................................................................................................... 81
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.
Selected Household Characteristics, Selected Communities, 1990 to 2000 ...... 34
Percentage of Housing Units by Type, Selected Communities, 2000 ................... 35
Selected Monthly Owner Costs as Percentage of Household Income,
Village of Ortonville, 2000 ........................................................................................ 38
Educational Attainment of Persons 25 and Older in Ortonville Village, 2000 ...... 39
Existing Land Use, Village of Ortonville, 2006......................................................... 43
Residential and Commercial Land Use Comparisons, Selected Communities,
2006........................................................................................................................... 44
Generalized Land Use Trends, Village of Ortonville, 1966 - 2006 ........................ 44
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Growth in Total Population, Village of Ortonville, 1950 to 2020 ........................... 31
Change in Total Population, Selected Communities, 1980 to 2007..................... 32
Total Population by Gender and Age, Village of Ortonville, 2000 .......................... 33
Population by Age Groups, Village of Ortonville, 1990 to 2020 ............................ 33
Average Household Size, 1990-2007...................................................................... 34
Year Structure Built for Owner-Occupied and Rental Housing, Village of Ortonville,
2000........................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 7. Value of Owner-Occupied Housing Units as Percent of Total Housing Units,
Selected Communities, 2000................................................................................... 37
Figure 8. Distribution of Household Income by Percentage of Total Households, Village of
Ortonville, 2000......................................................................................................... 38
Figure 9. Distribution of Household Income with Number of Households, Village of
Ortonville, 1989 and 1999....................................................................................... 39
Figure 10. Employment by Industry, Village of Ortonville, 2000............................................. 40
vi
ORTONVILLE
1. INTRODUCTION
The Ortonville Master Plan sets forth the vision that Village leaders and residents have for
the future of Ortonville, and serves as a guide to achieving that vision.
A.
USES OF THE MASTER PLAN
A master plan is used for a variety of purposes. At the most basic level, a master plan is
used as the basis for a community's zoning ordinance. One of the requirements that make
zoning constitutionally valid is that the ordinance be based on a comprehensive plan for the
development of the jurisdiction. The Michigan Zoning Enabling Act (P.A. 110 of 2006, as
amended) requires that zoning ordinances be based on a plan.
In context of the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act, the master plan is a study of the present and
future growth of a municipality that identifies the land needed for various types of activities,
including agriculture, single-family and multi-family residences, commerce, and industry.
After a master plan is adopted, a municipality can then adopt a zoning ordinance to assure
that land is available and allocated to meet the community's long term needs.
A common use of the master plan is for reference for zoning changes and special use
permits. One of the primary considerations in a rezoning is compliance with the master plan
and the future land use map.
Another important function of the master plan is giving guidance to developers and potential
homeowners in making investment decisions. Consistent and reasonable application of the
master plan by the Village reduces risk and uncertainty in the real estate market.
The master plan provides guidance and coordination in the provision of public services.
Understanding long-term growth patterns is helpful in making decisions for public
investments, such as parks, and water and sewer infrastructure.
A master plan can be the basis for proactive projects and programs to improve a community.
A fundamental part of the master planning process is the public involvement that forms the
basis for the future land use plan and indicates the community's desires for its future and its
long-term vision. The goals and objectives of a master plan reflect desires for physical
development.
A master plan presents the vision of a community over the next 20 years, but also includes a
number of specific, short term implementation activities intended to realize the overall
vision of the Plan.
This document, then, is the Master Plan that has been developed and adopted by the Village
of Ortonville Planning Commission and accepted by the Village Council pursuant to the
Michigan Municipal Planning Act.
MASTER PLAN
1
INTRODUCTION
B.
ORGANIZATION OF THE MASTER PLAN
The master plan contains seven sections:
C.
•
Introduction – this section, an overview of the Plan and its uses
•
The Ortonville Plan – the future land use plan for the Village
•
Existing Conditions – a survey of existing demographic, land use, utility, and
natural features
•
Historic Preservation – a survey of historic buildings and districts of the Village,
along with recommendations and strategies for historic preservation
•
Goals and Objectives – the functional goals upon which the plan is founded
•
Circulation Plan – a plan for motorized and non-motorized circulation within the
Village
•
Implementation Plan – a summary of activities necessary to implement the
recommendations of the plan
HISTORY OF ORTONVILLE
Before the arrival of European settlers into Brandon Township in the early 1800s, the area
was a hilly, forested land dotted with lakes and a few streams without any permanent
settlements but full of abundant game. Native Americans moved in and out of the area
hunting and fishing.
In the 1830s, European pioneers began to arrive moving from further south in Michigan or
from out of state quite often from New York. These early settlers lived the rugged lives of
frontiersmen. They cleared the land, built log cabins, grew wheat and shot deer and other
game for meat. They interacted peacefully with the Native Americans who were friendly
toward the new arrivals. Each summer the Native Americans would camp on the island in
Eagle Lake where they fished and hunted.
Over the next two decades the land was timbered over, the farmers became more
established, and built large farmhouses and began to create government, roads, and
community institutions. The time was ripe for the creation of a town, and it was then that
there arrived in Brandon an energetic, ambitious man who set about the task.
Amos Orton arrived in the area in 1848 with his wife and two children and promptly set to
work establishing a core of businesses in the vicinity of the Kearsley Creek that today we call
Ortonville. He dammed the creek and built a saw mill, a blacksmith shop, a large house at
the corner of Mill and South Streets, ran the town’s general store and became the first
postmaster. His greatest contribution however, was the grist mill he constructed on the
creek. He first built a small mill in 1852 and then replaced it with the grand Greek-revival
style building that became the heart of the town and still stands today (2008). Later he built
a luxury home on South Street for his family, which had grown to include six children. After
2
ORTONVILLE
INTRODUCTION
the Civil War, Orton left the town of his creation to move to Fenton apparently disappointed
that the railroad had bypassed Ortonville.
Without a railroad Ortonville was not destined to be a large, urban center. Instead over the
next few decades it grew slowly into a comfortable rural town of local businesses, industries,
and shops. The town’s first school house was established in 1864. In 1866 the town was
platted to encourage expansion. The following year a private academy called the seminary
was built and soon became the home of the public school. The town soon attracted
professionals including a doctor, a dentist, school teachers and an undertaker. Early
businesses were the wagon shop, cabinet maker, shoe shops, barrel maker, joiner,
drugstore, livery, millinery, meat market, harness maker, dry goods, and groceries.
Several small manufacturers moved to town helping to support the economy. These
included the Marble Works (1856), the W.L. Guiles carriage factory (1874), and the
Ortonville Foundry (1875). An upscale hotel constructed at the corner of South and Mill was
a sign that Ortonville was well established, and finally near the turn of the century a railroad
did come to town--the interurban passenger line that connected Ortonville to other parts of
the state. The depot for the line was located where the township hall is today.
Buildings still standing in town from the 19th Century include the mill, the old township hall
on Mill Street, the old drugstore building that now houses Bonner’s Jewelry, the Methodist
Church on Church Street, and numerous homes north of the business district and on Mill
and South Streets.
Throughout the 20th Century Ortonville remained a prosperous rural town, its business
district spreading down both Mill and South Streets. However, some of the older buildings
were lost to fires including the grocery and hardware on South Street (1943) and the hotel
on the corner (1974). Buildings still standing from the early part of the 20th Century include
the Masonic Hall, the bank building (now housing the insurance company), several
storefronts on Mill Street and many homes.
In recent decades, the town has seen a spurt of growth. Its small-town quaintness has made
it attractive as a bedroom community and, as a result, several subdivisions have been
developed. The town’s population has grown by a third. As the 21st Century begins Ortonville
faces the challenge of how to grow economically while at the same time retaining its historic
buildings and small town feel.
MASTER PLAN
3
INTRODUCTION
1908 Plat Map
4
ORTONVILLE
2. THE ORTONVILLE PLAN
Consistent with the Michigan Planning Enabling Act and the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act,
the Ortonville Plan is intended to encourage the use and development of lands in
accordance with their character and adaptability, to ensure that uses of land are situated in
appropriate locations, to ensure that new development and buildings respect and enhance
the Village’s existing historic character, and to facilitate adequate provision for sewage
disposal. These considerations are legitimate governmental interests bearing a substantial
relationship to public health, safety and welfare. In particular, the Ortonville Plan advances
the government’s interests to acknowledge and protect, within fair and acceptable
parameters, the Village’s historic character and important natural features without
impacting land value.
To that end, the Ortonville Plan is rooted in the existing conditions of the Village while
recognizing and balancing realistic and reasonable future expectations of land owners. The
Ortonville Plan confirms a commitment to a coherent and comprehensive development
pattern that is both informed by and continues the historic nature of the Village, and from
which proper, practical, productive, and sustainable growth and development can occur.
Recognizing that the Village is largely developed, the Ortonville Plan includes two
components – Land Use and Character recommendations and Building recommendations.
The Land Use and Character recommendations describe the activities and character that
are appropriate for the various areas of the Village, while the Building recommendations
identify specific types of buildings that are appropriate in the various Land Use areas by
virtue of the specific attributes of each type of building.
A.
LAND USE CATEGORIES
A summary page for each future land use category is included beginning on page 15. Each
summary page includes a description of the overall intent, an image of the most appropriate
building for that land use category, a table and illustration of recommended development
standards, and a table of appropriate building types for that land use category.
For convenience, the description and character statement for each Land Use category is
described as follows:
Single Family Residential: Areas planned Single Family Residential have the character of
more recently developed single family neighborhoods. These areas tend to have larger lot
sizes than other areas of the Village. Appropriate land uses in Single Family Residential
areas include detached single family units and uses that can be compatible with single
family dwellings such as schools, churches, municipal and civic buildings.
Village Residential: Areas planned Village Residential reflect the “in-town” character of the
historic neighborhoods surrounding the Downtown area. Appropriate land uses in Village
MASTER PLAN
5
THE ORTONVILLE PLAN
Residential areas include detached single family units and uses that can be compatible with
single family dwellings such as schools, churches, municipal and civic buildings.
Mixed Residential: Mixed Residential areas include a range of residential development
types at a density that falls in between single family neighborhoods and multiple family
areas. Appropriate land uses in Mixed Residential areas include single family and attached
dwelling units and uses that can be compatible with single family dwellings such as schools,
churches, municipal and civic buildings.
Residential density in Mixed Residential areas is regulated by the total number of units per
acre rather than by stipulating a minimum lot width or area.
Multiple-Family Residential: Multiple Family Residential areas permit apartment-style
attached dwelling units. This is the residential land use category that permits the highest
density development in the Village. Uses that can be compatible with residential
development such as schools, churches, municipal and civic buildings are also appropriate
for Multiple Family Residential areas.
Gateway: Gateway areas are located along South and Mill Streets, and form important
entranceways into the Downtown from M-15. These corridors have an established historic
character that should be preserved and enhanced. Streetscape improvements visually
linking Gateway areas to the Downtown along South and Mill Streets should be provided.
Appropriate land uses in Gateway areas can include single family, restricted multiple-unit
residential buildings (refer to the appropriate building types for a description of appropriate
multiple-unit residential buildings in Gateway areas), office, and light commercial uses that
do not generate large volumes of traffic are appropriate in Gateway areas. Drive-through
facilities and automotive uses are strongly discouraged in Gateway areas.
Downtown: The Downtown is the visual and economic center of Ortonville. Downtown has a
small town character, and is a walkable mixed use area designed at a pedestrian scale.
New buildings in the Downtown area should be built to traditional specifications, and a
mixing of residential, commercial and office, municipal, and civic uses is appropriate and
encouraged. Senior housing in particular is encouraged as a residential land use in the
Downtown area.
Buildings should be restricted in floor area to reflect the existing character of buildings in the
Downtown, and to discourage overly large buildings from destroying the close-knit fabric of
Downtown. Uses that have an outdoor storage component are specifically discouraged in
the Downtown area.
M-15 Corridor: The M-15 Corridor area is located along a principal regional arterial and, as
such, is intended to contain businesses and uses that depend upon large volumes of traffic
that pass by every day. Commercial and office uses are appropriate in the M-15 Corridor,
including uses that have drive-through facilities or are automotive-related. Outdoor storage
and sales may also occur in the M-15 Corridor area, provided that the outdoor sales/storage
areas is screened from view.
Workplace: Workplace areas are intended to accommodate commercial, office, light
industrial, and service uses that do not depend on or generate large volumes of vehicular or
6
ORTONVILLE
THE ORTONVILLE PLAN
customer traffic. Outdoor storage is permitted in Workplace areas provided that the storage
area is completely screened from view.
Public: Public areas are suitable for municipal or governmental uses such as Village
buildings, libraries, museums, schools, parks and other similar publicly-owned and operated
uses.
Natural Preserve: Natural Preserve areas are areas of significant natural features in the
Village, such as wetlands and/or woodlands. Because of environmental limitations
associated with these natural features, these areas are not suitable for development.
Appropriate uses for Natural Preserve areas include parks and conservation uses and other
uses that do not require permanent construction of buildings or other structures. However,
small-scale buildings or structures related to a parks or conservation use such as gazebos,
boardwalks, or trail systems are appropriate in Natural Preserve areas.
B.
BUILDING TYPES
In addition to describing what kind of land uses are appropriate in each land use category,
the Ortonville Plan also presents recommendations for how buildings should be designed
and how they should function. In the past, many land use plans and zoning ordinances
would require a series of setbacks but would not elaborate or provide further guidance or
regulation as to how the buildings should look or function. This meant that new buildings
would often be out of character with their surroundings. In a community with as much
existing history and character as Ortonville, it is important to make sure that new buildings
are compatible with old ones to preserve and enhance the community’s irreplaceable
character.
The different types of building will fit in with the particular setback and lot coverage
requirements for each district, and the types of building that are appropriate in each land
use area will contribute to the character of the neighborhood.
Refer to page 11 for a summary of the different building types that are part of this plan.
MASTER PLAN
7
THE ORTONVILLE PLAN
This page intentionally left blank.
8
ORTONVILLE
Spr uce Hill Ln.
Irmas Blvd
Sands Rd
Future Land Use
Village of Ortonville, Michigan
Brandon Twp.
Brandon Hills Dr.
Pine Tree Ln.
Tall Pine
Evergreen Ridge
Cresent Hill Dr.
Pond St
Village Ct.
Kearsley
Creek St.
Rd.
Downtown
Village
Residential
Corridor
Commercial
Mixed
Residential
Workplace
Multiple
Family
Residential
Public
Gateway
Natural
Preserve
.
Crescent Ct
South St.
Granger Rd.
nd
ac
Linda Ki Ln.
eL
Ca
eC
t.
Kearsley Ct.
Brandon Twp.
Data Source: Oakland County, 2006
Data Source: McKenna Associates, 2007
Granger Rd.
Duck
Creek
n.
.
Dr
g
Woodbrid
y
sit
Edwards St.
r
Va
Dons Ct.
Groveland Twp.
le
nvil
Or to
5
M-1
Single
Family
Residential
Schoolhouse St.
James St.
Mill
Brandon Twp.
Myron
Village Pine Ln.
Church St.
Kearsley
Creek
Cedar St.
Ball St.
Francis St.
Nar rin Rd.
East Ridge Dr.
Arbor Pine Dr.
Cedar Lake
Allen St.
Timber Woods Trl.
Cedar
Lake
Sherman Ct.
Oakwood Rd
0
10.20.08
500
1,000
Feet
THE ORTONVILLE PLAN
SUMMARY OF BUILDING TYPES
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING TYPES
BUILDING TYPE
DESCRIPTION
ACCESS and ENTRY
OFF-STREET PARKING
GARAGES
EXPOSURE TO
LIGHT and AIR
Single Family
A building containing one dwelling unit.
The principal entrance to
each dwelling should face
the street.
No guidelines.
Garages should be set
back a minimum of 10 feet
from the front building
wall, and garages should
be located in side or rear
yards.
Each building should have
all four sides exposed to
the outdoors.
Multiple Unit Single Family
A building containing two to four dwelling
units with the appearance and character of
a single family building.
A maximum of one exterior
entrance should be located
on the front façade of the
building.
Parking should be located
behind or next to the
building.
Garages should be located
in rear yards.
Each unit should have at
least two sides exposed to
the outdoors.
Townhouse
A group of attached dwelling units where
units are located next to each other (not
above or below each other) and divided
from each other by common vertical walls.
Each unit should have its
own separate entrance
leading directly outdoors at
ground level. Primary
entrances should face the
street.
behind the building.
Garages on the front
building façade should not
account for more than 20%
of the building width, and
should not protrude
beyond the front building
wall of the unit.
least two sides exposed to
the outdoors.
Apartment
A building containing multiple dwelling units
arranged as flats.
Individual units may have
entrances directly to the
outside or onto an interior
hallway.
in side or rear yards,
although up to 50% of the
front yard may be used for
parking.
Garage doors should not
account for more than 25%
of the width of any façade
facing a street.
least one side exposed to
the outdoors.
MASTER PLAN
11
THE ORTONVILLE PLAN
NONRESIDENTIAL and MIXED USE BUILDING TYPES
BUILDING TYPE
12
GARAGES
EXPOSURE TO
LIGHT and AIR
DESCRIPTION
ACCESS and ENTRY
OFF-STREET PARKING
Live/Work
A building that can be used for residential,
retail, office, or service uses. A live/work
building can be used for any configuration
of uses, including live/live, live/work, or
work/work purposes. Residential units can
be located above the ground floor, or
attached to the side or rear of a storefront.
Direct access should be
provided from the street to
the principal entrance of
the work portion of the
building.
Off-street parking should
be located in a side or rear
yard. On-street parking for
live/work units is strongly
encouraged to
accommodate customer
parking.
Garages should be
accessed from the rear of
the building.
Each dwelling unit should
have at least two sides
exposed to the outdoors.
Downtown Mixed Use
A building that can be used for nearly any
purpose. The ground floor should be used
for commercial purposes, while upper floors
can be used for commercial or residential
uses.
a ground floor access on
the front façade.
Entrances for dwelling
units may be accessed
from other facades.
Off street parking should
be located in the side or
rear yard or off-site at a
nearby location.
Garages, if present, may
only be accessed from a
side or rear yard.
Dwelling units should have
at least one side exposed
to the outdoors.
Automotive service and truck-oriented
wholesale uses are not appropriate in a
Downtown Mixed Use building, nor are
overhead vehicle bay doors on the front
façade.
Office/Retail
A standalone building for highway-oriented
business and service uses.
No guidelines.
No guidelines.
No guidelines.
No guidelines.
Civic/Institutional
Buildings intended to house arts, culture,
education, government, public assembly,
recreation, and religious uses. These
buildings can be located in nearly any land
use area.
at least one street-facing
entrance, and the streetfacing entrance should be
located within 30 feet of
the street.
behind the building,
although up to 30% of the
front yard may be used for
parking in some instances.
No guidelines.
No guidelines.
ORTONVILLE
THE ORTONVILLE PLAN
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DESCRIPTION
Areas planned Single Family Residential have
the character of more recently developed
single family neighborhoods. These areas tend
to have larger lot sizes than other areas of the
Village. Appropriate land uses in Single Family
Residential areas include detached single
family units and uses that can be compatible
with single family dwellings such as schools,
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
APPROPRIATE BUILDING TYPES*
Minimum Lot Width: 100 feet
RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS
Minimum Lot Area: 15,000 sq. ft.
Maximum Building Coverage: 25%
Building Height: 30 feet
Parking: Garages should not protrude beyond
the front façade of the building, and should be
located in rear or side yards.
Front Porches: Unenclosed front porches
should be allowed to encroach up to 6 feet into
the front yard setback area.
Uses: Single family residential uses are
permitted throughout Single Family Residential
areas. Civic or institutional uses may be
permitted in Single Family Residential areas,
but should be located only on corner sites.
Single Family
Multiple-Unit Single Family
Townhouse
Apartment
▪
NONRESIDENTIAL and MIXED USE
BUILDINGS
Live/Work
Downtown Mixed-Use
Office Retail
Civic/Institutional
▪
*See page 11 for a description of building types
RECOMMENDED BUILDING SETBACKS
SETBACK
Front
Side (Street)
Side
Rear
MASTER PLAN
MINIMUM
30 feet
20 feet
10 feet
35 feet
MAXIMUM
None
None
None
None
13
THE ORTONVILLE PLAN
VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL
DESCRIPTION
Areas planned Village Residential reflect the
“in-town” character of the historic
neighborhoods surrounding the Downtown
area. Appropriate land uses in Village
Residential areas include detached single
family units and uses that can be compatible
with single family dwellings such as schools,
the front façade of the building, and should be
located in side or rear yards.
Front Porches: Unenclosed front porches should
be allowed to encroach 6 feet into the front yard
setback area.
Uses: Single family residential uses are
permitted throughout Village Residential areas.
Civic or institutional uses may be permitted in
Village Residential areas, but should be located
only on corner sites.
Single Family
Townhouse
Apartment
▪
BUILDINGS
Live/Work
Downtown Mixed-Use
Office Retail
Civic/Institutional
▪
SETBACK
Front
Side (Street)
Side
Rear
14
MINIMUM
20 feet
20 feet
5 feet
35 feet
MAXIMUM
None
None
None
None
ORTONVILLE
THE ORTONVILLE PLAN
MIXED RESIDENTIAL
DESCRIPTION
Mixed Residential areas include a range of
residential development types at a density that
falls in between single family neighborhoods and
multiple family areas. Appropriate land uses in
Mixed Residential areas include single family and
attached dwelling units and uses that can be
compatible with single family dwellings such as
schools, churches, municipal and civic buildings.
Residential density in Mixed Residential areas is
regulated by the total number of units per acre
rather than by stipulating a minimum lot width or
area.
Maximum Density: 6 units/acre
Mixture of Units: Attached units may represent a
maximum of 40% of all units in a development.
Maximum Building Height: 30 feet
the front façade of the building and should be
located in side or rear yards. No more than 30%
of the front façade width should contain garage
doors.
Front Porches: Unenclosed front porches should
be allowed to encroach up to 8 feet into the front
yard setback area.
Uses: Residential uses are permitted throughout
Mixed Residential areas. Civic or institutional
uses may be permitted in Mixed Residential
areas, but should be located only on corner sites.
Single Family
Townhouse
Apartment
▪
▪
▪
BUILDINGS
Live/Work
Downtown Mixed-Use
Office Retail
Civic/Institutional
▪
SETBACK
Front
Side (Street)
Side
Rear
MASTER PLAN
MINIMUM
15 feet
10 feet
5 feet
20 feet
MAXIMUM
25 feet
20 feet
None
None
15
THE ORTONVILLE PLAN
MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DESCRIPTION
Multiple Family Residential areas permit
apartment-style attached dwelling units. This
is the residential land use category that
permits the highest density development in the
Village. Uses that can be compatible with
residential development such as schools,
churches, municipal and civic buildings are
also appropriate for Multiple Family Residential
areas.
Maximum Density: 10 units/acre
Single Family
Townhouse
Apartment
Parking: Parking should be located behind the
building, although some parking in the front yard
may be permitted. Garages should not protrude
beyond the front façade of the building.
Front Porches. Unenclosed front porches should
be allowed to encroach up to 8 feet into the front
yard setback area.
▪
▪
▪
▪
BUILDINGS
Live/Work
Downtown Mixed-Use
Office Retail
Civic/Institutional
▪
Uses: All types of residential uses are permitted
throughout Multiple Family Residential areas. Civic
or institutional uses may be permitted in Multiple
Family Residential areas, but should be located
only on corner sites.
SETBACK
Front
Side (Street)
Side
Rear
16
MINIMUM
25 feet
20 feet
20 feet
30 feet
MAXIMUM
None
None
None
None
ORTONVILLE
THE ORTONVILLE PLAN
GATEWAY
DESCRIPTION
Gateway areas are located along South and Mill
Streets, and form important entranceways into
the Downtown from M-15. These corridors have
an established historic character that should be
preserved and enhanced. Streetscape
improvements visually linking Gateway areas to
the Downtown along South and Mill Streets
should be provided.
Appropriate land uses in Gateway areas can
include single family, restricted multiple-unit
residential buildings (refer to the appropriate
building types for a description of appropriate
multiple-unit residential buildings in Gateway
areas), office, and light commercial uses that do
not generate large volumes of traffic are
appropriate in Gateway areas. Drive-through
facilities and automotive uses are strongly
discouraged in Gateway areas.
Parking: Parking should be located behind the
building (except for on-street parking).
Garages should not protrude beyond the front
façade of the building.
Front Porches. Unenclosed front porches
should be allowed to encroach up to 8 feet into
the front yard setback area, but in no case
should a front porch be located closer than 5
feet to the front property line.
Uses: Residential, light commercial, and office
uses are appropriate in Gateway areas,
depending upon the type of building that is
constructed. Drive-through facilities and
automotive-related uses are strongly
discouraged in Gateway areas.
Single Family
Townhouse
Apartment
▪
▪
▫
BUILDINGS
Live/Work
▫
Downtown Mixed-Use
Office Retail
Civic/Institutional
▪
▪ Permitted along South and Mill Street corridors
▫ Permitted along South Street corridor only
SETBACK
Front
Side
(Street)
Side
Rear
MASTER PLAN
MINIMUM
10 feet (South St.)
20 feet (Mill St.)
MAXIMUM
20 feet (South St.)
35 feet (Mill St.)
10 feet
20 feet
10 feet
30 feet
None
None
17
THE ORTONVILLE PLAN
DOWNTOWN
DESCRIPTION
The Downtown is the visual and economic center
of Ortonville. Downtown has a small town
character, and is a walkable mixed use area
designed at a pedestrian scale. New buildings in
the Downtown area should be built to traditional
specifications, and a mixing of residential,
commercial and office, municipal, and civic uses
is appropriate and encouraged. Senior housing
in particular is encouraged as a residential land
use in the Downtown area.
Buildings should be restricted in floor area to
reflect the existing character of buildings in the
Downtown, and to discourage overly large
buildings from destroying the close-knit fabric of
Downtown. Uses that have an outdoor storage
component are specifically discouraged in the
Downtown area.
Minimum Lot Width: None
Minimum Lot Area: None
Minimum Building Width: Buildings should
be at least 90% of the width of the lot.
Parking: Parking must be located behind the
building or in off-site lots.
Single Family
Townhouse
Apartment
Uses: Residential, commercial, office,
municipal, and civic uses are appropriate.
BUILDINGS
Live/Work
▪
Downtown Mixed-Use
▪
Office Retail
Civic/Institutional
▪
Additional Standards. Refer to page 24 for a
detailed Downtown plan, including more
detailed building design recommendations.
SETBACK
Front
Side
(Street)
Side
Rear
18
MINIMUM
0 feet
MAXIMUM
5 feet
0 feet
10 feet
0 feet
5 feet
None
None
ORTONVILLE
THE ORTONVILLE PLAN
M-15 CORRIDOR
DESCRIPTION
The M-15 Corridor area is located along a
principal regional arterial road and, as such, is
intended to contain businesses and uses that
depend upon large volumes of traffic that pass
by every day. Commercial and office uses are
appropriate in the M-15 Corridor, including
uses that have drive-through facilities or are
automotive-related. Outdoor storage and sales
may also occur in the M-15 Corridor area,
provided that the outdoor sales/storage areas
are screened from view.
Parking: Parking may be located anywhere on
the lot, although parking lots located where they
will be visible from M-15 should be buffered with
low level landscaping or a low decorative
masonry wall.
Uses: Commercial and office uses are
appropriate. Outdoor storage or sales may occur
in the M-15 Corridor area, provided that the
sales/storage area is completed screened from
view.
Single Family
Townhouse
Apartment
BUILDINGS
Live/Work
Downtown Mixed-Use
Office Retail
▪
▪
Civic/Institutional
SETBACK
Front
Side (Street)
Side
Rear
MASTER PLAN
MINIMUM
25 feet
25 feet
10 feet
25 feet
MAXIMUM
None
None
None
None
19
THE ORTONVILLE PLAN
WORKPLACE
DESCRIPTION
Workplace areas are intended to
accommodate commercial, office, light
industrial, and service uses that do not depend
on or generate large volumes of vehicular or
customer traffic. Outdoor storage is
appropriate in Workplace areas provided that
the storage area is completely screened from
view.
Parking: Parking may be located anywhere
on the lot.
Uses: Commercial, light industrial, office and
service uses that do not rely upon or
generate large volumes of customer traffic
are appropriate. Outdoor storage is
appropriate provided that it is completely
screened from view.
Single Family
Townhouse
Apartment
BUILDINGS
Live/Work
Downtown Mixed-Use
Office Retail
▪
Civic/Institutional
▪
SETBACK
Front
Side (Street)
Side
Rear
20
MINIMUM
25 feet
20 feet
10 feet
25 feet
MAXIMUM
None
None
None
None
ORTONVILLE
THE ORTONVILLE PLAN
PUBLIC
DESCRIPTION
Areas planned for public uses are suitable for
municipal or governmental uses such as
Village buildings, libraries, museums, schools,
and other similar publicly owned and operated
uses.
APPROPRIATE BUILDING TYPES
Single Family
Townhouse
Apartment
NONRESIDENTIAL and
MIXED USE BUILDINGS
Live/Work
Downtown Mixed-Use
Office/Retail
Civic/Institutional
▪
NATURAL PRESERVE
DESCRIPTION
Natural Preserve areas are areas of significant
natural features in the Village, such as
wetlands and/or woodlands. Because of
environmental limitations associated with
these natural features, these areas are not
suitable for development.
Appropriate uses for Natural Preserve areas
include parks and conservation uses and other
uses that do not require permanent
construction of buildings or other structures.
However, small-scale buildings or structures
related to a parks or conservation use such as
gazebos, boardwalks, or trail systems are
appropriate in Natural Preserve areas.
MASTER PLAN
21
THE ORTONVILLE PLAN
D.
DOWNTOWN PLAN
Downtown Ortonville – the properties fronting Mill Street between Kearsley Creek and
Church Street and the properties fronting on South Street between Mill Street and Church
Street - is the historic village core. The downtown core is actually less developed today than
it was during the early 1900’s, having added only a handful of new buildings and losing
some significant buildings to fire over the years.
The strength and uniqueness of Downtown Ortonville is
its historic character. The Ortonville Mill and Township
Hall are historic buildings that anchor each side of the
district. In between there are a few other historic
buildings that have been preserved and a number of
newer buildings or historic structures that have been
covered up with modern materials.
Downtown Ortonville is no longer the retail and
commercial center it once was as retail uses have
migrated to M-15 and regional commercial centers in
The Old Mill
Grand Blanc and around Pontiac that can take
advantage of higher traffic volumes and larger sites that accommodate contemporary retail
needs. However, Downtown Ortonville is still the district that defines the character of the
Village.
Downtown creates the unique sense of place for the community and presents the
opportunity to create a decisive competitive advantage for Ortonville. Downtown is not, and
should not try to be a contemporary retail hub for everyday life. Serving that function in the
competitive retail marketplace would require compromising the Village’s historic character
to meet contemporary retail needs. Ortonville’s historic core will never be a convenience
shopping destination, nor should it try to be. Because of the Village’s historic character and
critical mass of historic buildings, Downtown is better suited to serve niche markets, to
position itself as a destination downtown.
Smaller historic downtowns tend to become destinations for a number of reasons including
location, amenities, historic resources, and activities. Destination downtowns can succeed
because they can cater to patrons that are looking not for a particular good or service at the
lowest price possible, but rather for an experience. A well-maintained and vibrant traditional
downtown can offer what a modern highway oriented shopping center cannot – an
experience.
Ortonville has all of the ingredients necessary to become a destination downtown, most
particularly the historic resources and activities. The next step is to create the right physical
environment and tenant mixture in the downtown area to establish Ortonville as a
destination. Destination downtowns tend to be supported by niche retail establishments,
restaurants, and entertainment venues. Ortonville has just two eating establishments in the
traditional village core, with the lack of sewer service preventing the addition of new eating
and drinking establishments.
22
ORTONVILLE
THE ORTONVILLE PLAN
Ultimately, the decision to install sanitary sewer will determine the future of Downtown
Ortonville. The Village currently does not have sewer service and Oakland County’s septic
field requirements limit what can happen downtown.
CIVIC SPACE
There are some similarities between the two plans. Both plans
create a plaza with a distinctive architectural feature at the
terminus of South Street. This feature can be as elaborate as
a distinctive building or as simple as a statue, monument, arch
or fountain. The Village has the park adjacent to Township Hall
as a common gathering space that can be used for events like
Beets, Beats & Eats, however the park is somewhat removed
from downtown and the back of the buildings along Mill Street
serve to wall the park off from the downtown.
Plaza at Mill and South
A plaza at the terminus of South Street will create additional
Streets
public space within the downtown that can be used for
seasonal events, gatherings, and even a farmers market. Civic spaces are the backbone of
successful sustainable downtowns and this plaza will strengthen Downtown Ortonville.
Illustrative Plaza Improvement
PARKING
On-street parking is essential in a sustainable
downtown district, however, it is not meant to
accommodate the entire district’s parking
needs. In both plans, parking lots are created
off of Mill and South Streets to provide
additional parking. Similarly, both plans retain
the existing amount and configuration of onstreet parking.
Both downtown alternatives move the municipal
parking lot on Mill Street farther south on Pond
Street. A surface parking lot creates a hole in
the “street wall” that is a disincentive for
pedestrian foot traffic. While parking must be
accommodated in a successful and sustainable
MASTER PLAN
Surface Parking on Mill Creates a Streetwall
“Hole”
23
THE ORTONVILLE PLAN
downtown, it should not take up the most valuable real estate – frontage along the main
street.
DOWNTOWN PLAN ALTERNATIVES
Recognizing the impact that the availability of sanitary sewer service has on the
development potential for Downtown Ortonville, two alternatives for the downtown plan are
included in this plan. Alternative A envisions a status quo situation where no sanitary sewer
service is available. This will limit both the physical development potential of downtown and
the types of businesses and services that can locate there. Alternative B is based on a
future where sanitary sewer service is available in the downtown.
Alternative A – No Sewer Service
Alternative A is the Downtown Plan if no
sanitary sewers are built to serve Ortonville.
This is a status quo plan that reflects no
additional development in the downtown
area.
A lack of sanitary sewer service will prevent
the development of any new buildings and
will restrict uses in existing building to retail
and office uses on the first floor with
residential and office uses on the top floors.
This scenario will preclude adding any fullservice dining establishments to the
downtown, and will hamper the Village’s
efforts to improve the economic vitality of
downtown.
Alternative B – Sanitary Sewer Service
Alternative B is the Downtown Plan for an
Ortonville served by new sanitary sewer
service.
In addition to protecting the watershed and
local drinking water sources from
contamination from failing septic systems,
sanitary sewer will create greater opportunity
for Downtown Ortonville to add new dining
and entertainment businesses that will help
enhance the Village’s standing as a
destination community.
This alternative will permit a mixture of uses
that is necessary to create a vibrant, lively
and successful downtown with a mixture of
retail, commercial, office, and entertainment
uses. This diversity of uses is essential to
create pedestrian traffic and to maintain and
improve the vitality of Ortonville’s downtown.
The downtown plans begin on the following page.
24
ORTONVILLE
Schoolhouse Street
Cedar Street
View from South Street
terminates on significant
architectural feature
such as a fountain, arch
or other public art.
Downtown Plan
Alternative A:
No Sewers
Legend
Existing Building
New landscaped
access drive
to Township Hall.
Extend park to Mill Street
by enhancing the entry
through the alley.
Park
Plaza
Proposed Non-motorized Trail
Enhanced sidewalks
Create uniform sidewalks at least
10 feet wide throughout downtown.
New plaza serves as
a civic gathering space.
Mill Street
Church Street
Pond Street
South Street
Davis Street
Little or no opportunity for new
development in the downtown
without sewers.
wn
Downto
ry
Bounda
Note: Not to Scale
Downtown Plan
Alternative B:
Sanitary Sewer
Service
Schoolhouse Street
Cedar Street
View from South Street
terminates on significant
architectural feature
such as a fountain, arch
or other public art.
Legend
Extend park to Mill Street
by enhancing the entry
through the alley.
New access drive
to Township Hall
Existing Building
Proposed New Building
Proposed New Parking
Park
Plaza
Proposed Non-motorized Trail
Enhanced sidewalks
New plaza serves as
a civic gathering space.
Create uniform sidewalks at least
10 feet wide throughout downtown.
Mill Street
Church Street
Pond Street
South Street
Davis Street
New buildings create a
stronger entry into
downtown.
New parking lot provides
additional spaces required
for new buildings.
Replace surface parking lot
with new buildings to fill in the
empty space to create a
traditional downtown street wall
on Mill Street.
New parking lot in the center of the
block replaces existing houses that
are out of place in a traditional
downtown. This lot will replace the
spaces in the existing municipal lot
and create additional spaces to
serve new development.
wn
Downto
New linear park creates
pedestrian link between
South Street and the new
parking lot on Pond Street.
ry
Bounda
New buildings extend downtown
south to Church Street. Parking for the
Fire Department is moved to a less
visible location on Pond Street.
Note: Not to Scale
THE ORTONVILLE PLAN
BUILDING DESIGN GUIDELINES
The physical structures in the Village are what define the community’s character to visitors
and residents. Therefore, it becomes critical to establish acceptable parameters for new
construction and renovation. These design guidelines will help to ensure the Village’s
historic character is maintained even as new development occurs. Ortonville’s design
guidelines are intended to require that new development and improvements adopt the
design principles that are characteristic of traditional downtowns. These regulations will
define acceptable building materials, lot coverage, parking requirements, building height
and placement, signage, lighting and public space improvements.
BUILDING PLACEMENT and ENTRANCES
•
•
•
Zero lot lines – i.e. lot line to lot line construction
There should be a door every 30 feet so that
pedestrians have access to merchandise at a
comfortable pace.
Entrances should be at grade to allow pedestrians
easy access (raised plinths along a sloping street are
not desirable).
Example of zero lot line construction
BUILDING HEIGHT and DETAILING
•
•
•
Buildings should be two stories
The exterior of all buildings should have a clearly
defined base, separated from the upper floors with a
cornice, awning, or other three-dimensional element.
The roof line of the building should also be defined
with a cornice or 3- dimensional element of some
type. This will give the building a top, middle and
bottom, as opposed to the suburban model of the
monolithic façade.
MASTER PLAN
Use of architectural features to create a
distinct top, middle, and bottom
29
THE ORTONVILLE PLAN
BUILDING MATERIALS
•
•
•
•
•
•
It is important to use materials that have a long life
(brick, stone, steel).
Dryvit (EIFS – exterior insulation systems in general),
vinyl and aluminum siding, all have a 20- year life
and should not be used downtown.
Material should be brick, stone or steel.
Any changes to buildings over 50 yrs old should
restore original materials and design.
First floor should:
o Have 70% clear glass (reflective glass, tinted
glass, glass block cannot be used).
o Be built of stone, brick or steel with wood
storefronts.
Second floor should:
o Have windows with a vertical proportion
(taller than wide).
o Be constructed out of durable, natural
materials such as brick, stone or steel.
Proper use of materials and window
proportion
BUILDING USE
•
Commercial, entertainment, office and residential
uses permitted (consistent with septic or sewer
capacity)
PARKING
•
•
•
No ground-level parking between the building and
the street – parking areas should be in the rear of
the building.
Downtown uses should be required to provide private
parking spaces
Common public parking in surface lots should be
provided; use TIF funding to acquire property
30
ORTONVILLE
3. EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section presents an overview of existing conditions in the Village, including a summary
of the demographic makeup of the people who live in Ortonville, an analysis of the housing
stock, economic conditions, existing land use, natural features, community facilities, and
opportunities and constraints that will impact the future development, redevelopment, and
preservation of the Village.
A.
DEMOGRAPHICS and HOUSING
General Population Characteristics
The population of the Village of Ortonville has been steadily increasing over the past 57
years, with major gains in the 1990s. Projections from the Southeast Michigan Council of
Governments anticipate continued growth in the Village reaching a total of nearly 1,700
residents in the year 2020, although limited developable land in the Village may preclude
such continued growth.
Figure 1: Growth in Total Population, Village of Ortonville, 1950 to 2020
1,800
1,535
1,600
Total Population
1,400
1,190
1,200
800
702
1,696
1,252
1,573
Dec. 2007
983
1,000
1,606
771
600
400
200
0
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
Sources: The Ortonville Plan (1980), US Census Bureau, SEMCOG
MASTER PLAN
31
EXISTING CONDITIONS
When compared with other local communities, Oakland County, and the Southeast Michigan
region, the Village of Ortonville has demonstrated remarkable growth since 1980, with an
overall increase of roughly 33 percent. Over the same period, only the Village of Oxford
showed higher population growth. The Village of Holly grew quickly in the 1980s, but
population growth has leveled off over the past seven years. Clarkston and the overall region
experienced both growth and decline, with overall increases of less than five percent.
Figure 2: Change in Total Population, Selected Communities, 1980 to 2007
40%
35%
Oxford village
30%
Ortonville
village
Holly village
25%
20%
Oakland County
15%
10%
Southeast Michigan
5%
Clarkston city
0%
-5%
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Sources: US Census Bureau, SEMCOG
Age Structure of Population
Figure 3 on the following page shows the age structure of Ortonville in 2000, divided by
gender with females on the left and males on the right. The overall structure of the
population pyramid is typical of a community with a high number of family households
(parents 30-50 years old, children under 20 years old) and demonstrates the effects of the
Baby Boom (note that these data are seven years old; Baby Boomers were in the 35-55
years age brackets) and the ‘echo’ generation including the children of the Baby Boomers.
The population of college-age and twenty-something individuals is notably low, suggesting
that many high-school graduates move away from home to attend college. There is a marked
decline in the population over 60 years old, suggesting a lack of housing options or
community services available for senior citizens.
With respect to gender, the population of Ortonville is generally well-balanced, with the
expected higher amount of females in the over-60 category (due to women’s longer life
expectancy). Of note is the higher amount of pre-teen (ages 10-14) boys as compared to
girls (98 vs. 66) and the higher amount of 30-34 year old women (75, compared to 54 men
of the same age).
32
ORTONVILLE
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Figure 3: Total Population by Gender and Age, Village of Ortonville, 2000
85 years and over
Female
80 to 84 years
Male
Low number of retirementage residents. Is the village
retirement-friendly?
75 to 79 years
70 to 74 years
65 to 69 years
60 to 64 years
55 to 59 years
50 to 54 years
High percentage of family
households.
45 to 49 years
40 to 44 years
35 to 39 years
30 to 34 years
25 to 29 years
Young adults
leaving the village.
20 to 24 years
15 to 19 years
10 to 14 years
5 to 9 years
Under 5 years
-100
-75
-50
-25
Female
0
25
50
75
100
M ale
Population
Source: US Census Bureau
The charts below show the percentage of the Village population in each of five age group
categories, or cohorts: under 5 years, 5-17 years (school age children), 18-34 year olds
(young adults), 35-64 year olds (middle-age adults), and seniors 65 years and older. Overall,
the age structure of the Village is anticipated to be relatively consistent through 2020,
suggesting a stable population with young families and older citizens.
Figure 4: Population by Age Groups, Village of Ortonville, 1990 to 2020
1990
2000
35-64
32%
35-64
39%
65+
11%
<5
10%
18-34
27%
2010
5-17
20%
18-34
22%
35-64
43%
65+
7%
<5
7%
5-17
25%
2020
18-34
21%
35-64
41%
65+
6%
<5
7%
5-17
23%
18-34
22%
65+
7%
<5
7%
5-17
23%
Sources: US Census Bureau, SEMCOG
MASTER PLAN
33
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Households
As is to be expected with an increasing
population, the total number of households in
Ortonville increased between 1990 and 2000.
Unlike local, regional, and national trends,
however, the average household size in the Village
also increased, from 2.74 to 2.81. This points to a
high percentage of families with children; in fact,
among the communities shown in the table below,
Ortonville had both a larger percentage of
married-couple families and families with children
at home.
Figure 5: Average Household Size, 1990-2007
Average Household Size, 1990-2007
2.9
Ortonville
2.8
The percentage of one-person households in
Ortonville, while larger in 2000 than in 1990, is
still lower than surrounding communities or the
Oakland County average. Of particular note is the
high percentage of single female-headed
households with children at home. From 1990 to
2000, the percentage of single-mother
households in Ortonville decreased from 9.5% to
8.8%, yet both of these values are notably higher
than neighboring communities and Oakland
County as a whole. These data suggest that
community resources may need to be devoted to
the unique needs of single-parent households, in
addition to an overall focus on family services and
activities.
2.7
2.6
Oxford
2.5
Clarkston
Oakland
County
2.4
Holly
2.3
1990
2000
2007
Table 1: Selected Household Characteristics, Selected Communities, 2000
Ortonville
(1990)
Ortonville
(2000)
Clarkston
Holly
Oxford
Oakland
County
Number of Households
452
537
406
2,412
1,402
471,115
Average Household Size
2.74
2.81
2.37
2.49
2.51
2.51
Married-couple Families
59.7%
56.2%
54.2%
48.5%
53.4%
54.2%
With children at home
53.7%
61.3%
41.4%
51.4%
51.5%
47.5%
Single-mother
Households
9.5%
8.8%
5.7%
6.6%
6.6%
5.2%
One-person Households
18.6%
22.5%
31.0%
28.7%
29.6%
27.3%
34
ORTONVILLE
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Housing Units
The percentage of housing units that are single-family structures increased between 1990
and 2000 to 75.2%, a higher percentage than any of the communities compared and the
Oakland County average. Two-thirds of the Villages multi-unit structures have fewer than five
units, suggesting that there are few large-scale multiple-family housing developments. These
data point to a stable housing base and are consistent with the high percentage of family
households in the Village.
Ortonville has a lower percentage of owner-occupied housing units than either Oakland
County or the Village of Holly, but the homeownership rate has increased 1.9% since 1990.
The vacancy rate in Ortonville increased to 6.1% in 2000, the highest among similar
communities and almost half again as high as the County average. Fifty percent of the
vacant units in Ortonville are single-family homes.
Table 2: Percentage of Housing Units by Type, Selected Communities, 2000
Ortonville
(1990)
Ortonville
(2000)
Clarkston
Holly
Oxford
Oakland
County
Total Housing Units
478
572
424
2,509
1,476
492,006
Single Family Home
69.4%
75.2%
74.7%
62.8%
66.9%
73.9%
2 – 4 Unit Structure
19.5%
16.1%
12.4%
6.0%
9.1%
4.3%
5+ Unit Structure
9.2%
8.7%
12.4%
14.3%
17.2%
18.1%
1.9%
--
0.5%
16.9%
6.8%
3.7%
Rental Units
30.1%
27.6%
33.3%
23.8%
30.9%
24.2%
Vacant Housing Units
5.4%
6.1%
4.2%
3.9%
5.0%
4.2%
Other Housing Units
(including mobile homes)
MASTER PLAN
35
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Housing Age
As shown in Figure 5 below, 30% of Ortonville’s owner-occupied housing units and 20% of
the rental units in the Village are over 65 years old. Compared with Oakland County, these
percentages are quite high, with only 8.9% of owner-occupied housing and 6.0% of rental
units in the County constructed before 1940.
The Village did not seem to experience much of a housing boom immediately following World
War II, but there were significant increases in building activity after 1970. One-fifth of all
owner-occupied housing (typically, single-family homes) were built in the early 1990s, while
most rental structures were constructed in the 1970s and 1980s. Only two percent of rental
units in the Village are less than 15 years old.
Data from SEMCOG indicates that a total of 6 housing units (all owner-occupied) have been
constructed in the Village since 2000.
Figure 6: Year Structure Built for Owner-Occupied and Rental Housing, Village of Ortonville, 2000
120
108
100
76
Units
80
55
60
40
33
37
34
23 25
20
40 38
24
17
20
2
0
3
6
0
0
1939 or
earlier
1940 1949
1950 1959
1960 1969
1970 1979
1980 1989
1990 1994
1995 2000
2000 2007
Year Structure Built
Owner Occupied
Renter Occupied
Source: US Census Bureau, SEMCOG
36
ORTONVILLE
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Housing Value and Affordability
Housing values in Ortonville are generally less than in Brandon Township or Oakland County.
The median value of housing units in the Village was $156,200 in 2000, while the Township
was $173,300 and the County was $173,800. It should be noted that Brandon Township
has a more even distribution of housing values, with a higher percentage of both low-value
and high-value housing units than Ortonville, in which 50% of housing values fall between
$125,000 and $175,000. Only 3.7% of Village housing has a value greater than $250,000.
Figure 7: Value of Owner-Occupied Housing Units as Percent of Total Housing Units, 2000
Brandon Township
Ortonville Village
24
.4%
24
.9%
Oakland County
14.3%
12.4%
9.7
%
12.1%
8.3
%
10.7%
9.6%
11.2% 11.5%
9.4%
14
.7%
13
.1%
17.9%
13.0%
11.1%
9.1%
9.8% 9.7%
8.7%
7.3%
5.3%
Less than
$50,000
3.9%
2.0%
0.0
%
1.0%
0.5
%
2.9%
2.0%
0.0
%
1.1
%
1.1
%
2.1
%
4.9%
0.3%
$50,000 to $100,000 to $125,000 to $150,000 to $175,000 to $200,000 to $250,000 to $300,000 to $400,000 to $500,000 to $750,000 or
$99,999
$124,999
$149,999
$174,999
$199,999
$249,999
$299,999
$399,999
$499,999
$749,999
more
Housing Value, Owner-Occupied Units
The definition of affordable housing is related to income: if a household spends less than
30% of its income on housing costs (including mortgage, rents, utilities, taxes, and heating
fuels), that housing is considered to be affordable. Table 3, on the following page, shows
that of the 357 owner-occupied households in Ortonville in 2000, only 14.5 percent spent
more than 30% of their income on housing costs, which is lower than the Oakland County
average of 19.7%.
More significantly, however, two-thirds of Village “unaffordable” households had housing
costs above 35% of their income, with most households making less than $35,000 per year.
While only three owner-occupied households had incomes of less than $10,000, all of them
spent more than 35% of their income on housing costs. The table below shows that the
large majority of housing in the Village is affordable, but the trend of lower-income
households having higher housing costs suggests that some less-expensive housing may be
needed in Ortonville.
MASTER PLAN
37
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Table 3: Selected Monthly Owner Costs as Percentage of Household Income, Village of Ortonville,
2000
Household Income in 1999
Less
than
$10,000
$10,000
to
$19,999
$20,000
to
$34,999
$35,000
to
$49,999
$50,000
to
$74,999
$75,000
to
$99,999
$100,000
to
$149,999
$150,000
or more
Less than 20%
--
2
8
19
22
38
70
18
20% - 24%
--
8
4
2
34
28
11
--
25% - 29%
--
4
5
5
18
7
2
--
30% - 34%
--
--
2
8
4
3
--
--
35% or more
3
6
16
4
6
--
--
--
Housing Costs
Affordable
(Percent of Income)
Household Income
The Village of Ortonville showed an
evenly-distributed mix of household
income levels in 1999. As shown in
the figure 8 at right, one in four
households earned less than
$30,000 in 1999, while one in five
earned between $50,000 and
$75,000. Thirteen households
(2.4%) earned less than $10,000
for the year, while 10 households
(1.9%) earned $200,000 or more in
1999. The median household
income in 1999 was $60,972, up
from $33,229 in 1989 ($45,413 in
1999 dollars).
When compared with the income
data from the previous Census, it is
readily apparent that household
incomes not only increased but also
became more evenly distributed.
Figure 9 shows that seventy
percent of households in 1989
earned less than $50,000; by
1999, only 41% of households in
Ortonville fell into the same
category. Conversely, only nine
households earned $100,000 or
more in 1989, while ten years later
the number of households with sixfigure incomes had increased to
114.
38
Figure 8: Distribution of Household Income by Percentage of
Total Households, 1999
$ 7 5 ,0 0 0 t o
$ 9 9 ,9 9 9
17 %
$ 5 0 ,0 0 0 t o
$ 7 4 ,9 9 9
2 1%
$ 10 0 ,0 0 0 t o
$ 12 4 ,9 9 9 13 %
$ 12 5 ,0 0 0 t o
$ 14 9 ,9 9 9 5 %
$ 3 0 ,0 0 0 t o
$ 4 9 ,9 9 9
16 %
$ 15 0 ,0 0 0 t o
$ 19 9 ,9 9 9 2 %
$ 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 + 2 %
$ 10 ,0 0 0 t o
$ 2 9 ,9 9 9
22%
Le s s t ha n $ 10 ,0 0 0
2%
ORTONVILLE
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Figure 9: Distribution of Household Income with Number of Households, Village of Ortonville 1989
and 1999
160
1989
140
1999
144
132
120
Households
118
110
100
80
88
94
92
91
60
40
41
33
20
13
4
5
22
0
Less than
$10,000
$10,000 to $30,000 to $50,000 to $75,000 to $100,000 to $150,000
$29,999
$49,999
$74,999
$99,999
$149,999
or more
Annual Incom e
Education
As compared with the State of Michigan overall, Ortonville had a higher percentage of high
school graduates, a roughly equal percentage of college graduates, and a lower percentage
of residents with graduate or professional degrees in 2000. The Village was consistently
lower than Oakland County in all three categories. It should be noted, however, that the
educational attainment of Ortonville residents has increased since 1990, when 86.0% were
high school graduates and only 14.1% held college degrees.
Table 4: Educational Attainment of Persons 25 Years or Older in Ortonville Village, 2000
High School Diploma
Bachelor’s Degree
Graduate or
Professional Degree
or higher
or higher
88.2%
21.1%
5.8%
Oakland County
89.3%
38.2%
15.0%
State of Michigan
83.4%
21.8%
8.1%
Source: Oakland County Planning and Economic Development Services
MASTER PLAN
39
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Employment
While Ortonville residents are employed in a wide range of industries, manufacturing
dominates Village employment, with one in four workers being employed in this sector.
Educational, health, and social service industries employ 15% of Village residents, while
10% work in the retail trade sector. Overall, 36% of workers in Ortonville are employed in
service industries, reflecting a common trend away from production industries.
A change in statistical methods used by the Census Bureau in the 1990s means that
employment data for some industries cannot be directly compared between 1990 and
2000. The manufacturing sector saw a significant increase, however, growing from 21.0% of
jobs in 1990 to 26.7% of jobs in 2000. The percentage of Village residents working in retail
trade shrank by almost half, from 18.1% of jobs in 1990 to 9.9% in 2000.
Figure 10: Employment by Industry, Village of Ortonville, 2000
Education, health and
social services
15%
Professional, scientific
and administrative
services
8%
Arts, entertainment,
recreation,
accomodation and
food services
6%
Other services
7%
Wholesale trade
5%
Other
16%
Retail trade
10%
Agriculture, forestry,
fishing, hunting and
mining
1%
Transportation,
w arehousing, utilities
3%
Information 2%
Finance, insurance and
real estate
4%
Manufacturing
26%
Construction
9%
Public administration
4%
Source: Oakland County Planning and Economic Development Services
40
ORTONVILLE
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Demographics and Housing Summary and Conclusions
GENERAL POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
z Population has increased every decade since 1950 and is projected to continue
increasing through 2030.
z The Village population has increased by 33% since 1980, a higher rate of growth
than Oakland County (20%) or Southeast Michigan (4%).
z The age distribution of the Village is typical of an area with numerous young families
with baby-boomer parents. Age distribution is projected to remain stable through
2020, suggesting that the Village is attracting and retaining families with children.
z Gender distribution is generally equal, with notable exceptions of more age 10-14
boys than girls, and more women aged 30-34 than men.
HOUSEHOLDS
z The average household size in 2000 was 2.81 persons, an increase from 1990. An
increasing average household size is surprisingly atypical and a good indicator of
family attraction and retention.
z Three out of five married couples have children at home.
z The percentage of Village residents living alone has increased 4% since 1990, but is
still lower than neighboring communities.
z The percentage of households headed by single mothers has decreased since 1990,
but is still significantly higher than other communities in the area or the County as a
whole.
z One in seven households in the Village spent more than 30% of their income on
housing costs, a level of spending which is generally considered unaffordable.
z Lower-income households in Ortonville tend to spend a higher percentage of their
income on housing costs.
HOUSING
z Three-quarters of the housing units in the Village are single-family residences.
z 27.6% of all housing units are rental units, and 6.1% of all housing units are vacant.
z 38% of owner-occupied houses in the Village were built before 1950.
z 21.6% of rental units were built before 1950
z Only 2% of rental units were built after 1990.
z Fifty percent of owner-occupied housing units in the Village were valued between
$125,000 and $175,000. Only 21% of Brandon Township houses and 23% of
Oakland County houses were in this same value range.
z Housing units valued at more than $250,000 accounted for 20% of houses in
Brandon Township and 27% of houses in Oakland County, but only 3.7% of houses in
Ortonville.
MASTER PLAN
41
EXISTING CONDITIONS
INCOME, EDUCATION, and EMPLOYMENT
z The median household income in 1999 was $60,972, up from $45,413 (inflation
adjusted) in 1989.
z Twenty-two percent of households in the Village earned more than $100,000 in
1999, while 24% of households earned less than $30,000.
z Eighty-eight percent of Ortonville residents hold a high-school diploma; only 21% are
college graduates. County-wide, 38.2% of residents have graduated from college.
z The top three industries employing Village residents in 2000 were manufacturing
(26%), education, health, and social services (15%), and retail trade (10%).
42
ORTONVILLE
EXISTING CONDITIONS
B.
EXISTING LAND USE
Nearly half (48.1%) of the land area in the Village of Ortonville was dedicated to residential
land uses, and a significant percentage of the Village (11.3%) is used for Public and
Institutional facilities, which include schools, churches and other places of worship,
government offices, hospitals and nursing homes, municipal parking, and cemeteries. Onefifth of the Village land was open space (Vacant or Recreation/Conservation) in 2006.
Table 5: Existing Land Use, Village of Ortonville, 2006
Acres
Acres
Land Use
(Percent of
Land Use
(Percent of
Total)
Total)
Land Use
Acres
(Percent of Total)
Single Family
Residential
286.7
(45.6%)
Commercial
and Office
35.9
(5.7%)
Agricultural
0
Vacant
73.3
(11.6%)
Multiple
Family
Residential
16.0
(2.5%)
Manufactured
Housing Park
0
Public and
Institutional
71.4
(11.3%)
Water
12.8
(2.0%)
Extractive
0
Road
Rights-of-way
66.1
(10.5%)
Industrial
6.5
(1.0%)
Railroad Rightsof-way
0
Recreation &
Conservation
55.0
(8.7%)
Transportation
and Utilities
5.7
(0.9%)
TOTAL
629.2 acres
Source: Oakland County Planning and Development Services
Manufactured Housing Park (not present in Ortonville) includes only those manufactured
housing units located in a community of like structures; an individual manufactured home
located in an area of stick-built structures would be classified as Single Family Residential.
Transportation and Utilities land uses (0.9%) comprise improved parcels with underground
or aboveground communications, utility, or mass transportation facilities, including power
generating stations, transmission lines, utility transformers and substations, airports,
railroad yards, and buildings associated with these facilities. Extractive land uses (not
present in Ortonville) describe parcels used for mining and related activities.
Compared to surrounding communities, Ortonville has a higher percentage of single-family
residential land use and a higher percentage of land devoted to commercial and office uses.
Ortonville also has a higher percentage of vacant land available for development, although
Holly and Oxford both have more acres of vacant land.
MASTER PLAN
43
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Table 6: Residential and Commercial Land Use Comparisons, Village of Ortonville and
Comparable Communities, 2006
Ortonville
Clarkston
Holly
Oxford
Single Family Residential
45.6%
44.3%
33.9%
31.4%
Multiple Family Residential
2.5%
2.7%
2.4%
3.1%
Manufactured Housing Park
--
--
3.9%
--
Commercial / Office
5.7%
2.9%
5.4%
4.6%
Vacant Land
11.6%
73.3 acres
5.5%
18.2 acres
10.9%
213.0 acres
9.5%
89.1 acres
Table 7 presents generalized long-term land use trends for the forty year period from 1966
to 2006. The largest trend is the loss of undeveloped open space in the Village, which
declined from 418.2 acres in 1966 to 73.3 acres in 2006. Most new development in the
Village has consisted of residential development (increasing from 82.1 acres to a total of
302.7 acres), with notable increases in commercial/office and recreation/conservation.
Table 7: Generalized Land Use Trends, Village of Ortonville, 1966 – 2006
Land Use
Commercial/Office
Industrial
Public/Institutional
Recreation/Conservation
Residential, Multiple Family
Residential, Single Family
Road Right-of-Way
Transp./Utility/Comm.
Undeveloped/Open Space
Water
1966
2001
2006
14.2 acres
(2.3%)
0.7 acres
(0.1%)
43.6 acres
(6.9%)
2.6 acres
(0.4%)
35.7 acres
(5.7%)
6.8 acres
(1.1%)
71.9 acres
(11.4%)
55.0 acres
(8.7%)
12.8 acres
(2.0%)
276.6 acres
(44.0%)
66.3 acres
(10.5%)
5.8 acres
(0.9%)
85.5 acres
(13.6%)
12.8 acres
(2.0%)
35.9 acres
(5.7%)
6.5 acres
(1.0%)
71.4 acres
(11.3%)
55.0 acres
(8.7%)
16.0 acres
(2.5%)
286.7 acres
(45.6%)
66.1 acres
(10.5%)
5.7 acres
(0.9%)
73.3 acres
(11.6%)
12.8 acres
(2.0%)
82.1 acres
(13.0%)
55.0 acres
(8.7%)
2.2 acres
(0.4%)
418.2 acres
(66.5%)
10.5 acres
(1.7%)
44
ORTONVILLE
Spruce Hill Ln
Sands Rd
Irmas Blvd
Brandon Twp
Brandon Twp
Pine Tree Ln
Tall Pine
Evergreen
Rdg
le
nvil
Or to
Ca
nd
a
Woodbridge Ln
e r Rd
Grang
Edwards St
y
sit
Dr
Dons Ct
South St
r
Va
Linda K Ln
Crescent Ct
Rd
Duck
Creek
Brandon Hills Dr
Village Ct
Cresent Hill Dr
Pond St
Duck Creek
Groveland Twp
Church St
Francis
Mill
Schoolhouse
Village Pine Ln
Kearsley
Creek
Myr on
James St
Narrin Rd
Ball St
Cedar St
East Ridge Dr
Arbor Pine Dr
Allen St
Timber Woods Tr l
Cedar
Lake Ln
Cedar
Lake
Sherman Ct.
Oakwood Rd
ce
C
t
Kearsley Ct
Granger Rd
Brandon Twp
Existing Land Use
Single Family, Less than 8,000 sq. ft.
Single Family, 8,000 to 13,999 sq. ft.
Single Family, 14,000 to 43,559 sq. ft.
Single Family, 1 to 2.5 Acres
Single Family, 2.5 to 5 acres
Single Family, 5 to 10 acres
Single Family, Greater than 10 acres
Multiple Family
Commercial/Office
Industrial
Public/Institutional
Recreation/Conservation
Transportation/Utility
Vacant
0
500
1,000
Feet
10/13/08
EXISTING CONDITIONS
C.
NATURAL FEATURES and RECREATION
The Natural Features Map on the following page shows the location of natural features and
recreation facilities located in the Village. The Map indicates that the Village contains
significant natural features that are primarily centered around Kearsley Creek and the large
wetland area located south of Mill Street and east of Church Street.
Priority Natural Areas
The Natural Features Map shows the location of priority county natural areas. These priority
areas were identified by Oakland County in a study last updated in 2004. Natural areas
were evaluated according to a number of criteria, including size, connectivity to other natural
areas, restorability of surrounding land within ¼ mile of the natural area, and the existence
of rare species. Once the evaluation was completed, sites were ranked according to a
scoring system.
While all priority natural areas are important and worthy of protection, priority one areas are
the most urgent areas in need of protection while priority three areas are least urgent.
The Village does not contain any priority one or priority three county natural areas. The large
wetland complex southeast of the downtown is a priority two natural area, and there is also
a priority two natural area located at the southwest corner of the Village.
North County Trail Loop
Ortonville is located along the planned North County Trail Loop, which is planned to enter
the Village from the south along the rail right-of-way, from the west along Mill Street, and
from the North along Church Street. The North County Trail Loop will connect the Ortonville
State Recreation Area to Holly State Recreation Area, and will also provide a non-motorized
trail connection between Ortonville and Oxford to the east and Holly to the West.
Parks and Recreation
Ortonville features many parks and recreation facilities and opportunities, including athletic
fields associated with the Intermediate and Elementary schools located along South Street,
the ball fields, skate park, and senior center located at the corner of Cedar and Ball Streets,
and Crossman park located in the heart of the Village’s downtown adjacent to Brandon
Township Hall.
Old Mill Historical Park, located along Mill Street west of Cedar Street, features the historic
Mill. The Mill is an important link to Ortonville’s past, and also serves as a historical
museum.
The Brandon Township Public Library is located adjacent to Fletcher Intermediate School
and serves Ortonville, Brandon Township, and Groveland Township.
MASTER PLAN
47
OAKLAND COUNTY LINKED PATHWAY and TRAIL SYSTEM
EXISTING CONDITIONS
48
OAKLAND COUNTY LINKED PATHWAY and TRAIL SYSTEM
ORTONVILLE
Spruce Hill Ln
Brandon Twp
Evergreen
Rdg
Pine Tree Ln
Tall Pine
Cresent Hill Dr
Ortonville
Village
Park
Brandon Fletcher
Intermediate
School
Rd
Brandon
Middle School
Woodbridge Ln
Ca
Kearsley Ct
nd
a
ce
t
Ct
Brandon Twp
Brandon High
School/Brandon
Middle School
National Wetlands Inventory
County Natural Area
Emergent
Priority One
Forested
Priority Two
Scrub-Shrub
Priority Three
Surrounding Municipalities Flood Hazard Area
Flood Plain
Recreation Land
Lakes and Rivers
Granger Rd
Camp
Gordonwood
Dr
Edwards St
r
Va
y
s it
Dons Ct
South St
Howard T.
Burt/HarveySwanson Elementary
Granger Rd
Natural Features
Map
Crescent C
Linda K Ln
Ortonville
Montessori
Center
le
nvil
Groveland Twp
Arbor Pine Dr
Schoolhouse St
O r to
Print date: 10/22/2008 E:\Projects\Oakland\Ortonville\Natural_Features.mxd
Villa ge Pine Ln
Church St
r
Pond St
Mill
East Ridge D
Kearsley
Creek
James St
Myron
Cedar St
Ortonville
Sherman
Ball
Park
Park
Allen St
Village Ct
Ball St
Francis
Narrin Rd
Cedar
Lake Ln
Sherman Ct
Narrin
Park
Timber Woods Trl
Oakwood Rd
Brandon Hills Dr
Sands Rd
Irmas Blvd
Brandon Twp
0
500
1,000
Feet
10/13/08
EXISTING CONDITIONS
50
ORTONVILLE
EXISTING CONDITIONS
D.
SANITARY SEWER
Existing Conditions
Like many rural Villages, properties within the Village of Ortonville are served with on-site
sewage disposal systems (OSDS) which are commonly referred to as septic systems. Septic
systems typically consist of a tank which collects solids and provides access to the system
and a drain tile field to distribute the sewage flow into the underlying soil. Septic systems
are the fundamental private property sewage treatment and disposal system of the area and
are, unfortunately, susceptible to failure and ultimately environmental contamination.
Research has demonstrated that failed septic systems are one of the largest sources of
ground and surface water contamination.
In some areas of the Village of Ortonville, especially the downtown area, certain site
conditions magnify the threat septic systems place on the environmental and economical
viability of the area.
These conditions include:
•
•
•
•
•
High density property use – With small lots there is limited area for septic fields
including reserve or reconstruction areas. This coupled with number and
proximity of private systems yields little to no opportunity for property
redevelopment or expanded systems to support new property uses. This also
results in septic systems taking up much of the green space around the structure
leaving few options for building modifications, parking, or other accessory uses of
the property.
High groundwater table – Some areas of Ortonville experience a shallow surface
to ground water depth that places septic systems at or below the normal or
seasonal groundwater elevations. Current standards for septic system
construction generally require fields to be at least one foot above the normal
ground water table. These standards place additional property and cost
constraints on the individual property owner.
Nearby surface water resources – Ortonville is fortunate to be situated along one
of Oakland County’s few cold water trout limited stream systems, Duck and
Kearsley Creeks. Failing septic systems adjacent to these creeks usually results
in some stream degradation. There has been documented evidence of septic
discharge into the creeks.
Soil conditions – While some areas of the Village, such as the subdivisions to the
west and north, have sandy, pervious soil conditions, most of the Village and the
downtown area have soil types that are poor to marginal for proper filtration and
treatment of septic discharges.
Proximity to drinking water wells – The current Village housing density and small
lots cause problems for the placement of drinking water wells and septic systems
especially to provide adequate separation distances. In the downtown area, the
situation is compounded by the proximity of septic systems not only on a specific
property but also by those located on adjacent properties. From a regulatory
standpoint, well contamination could be an issue and is a likely factor that could
MASTER PLAN
51
EXISTING CONDITIONS
result in State mandates to address this matter or to place heavy restriction on
future development of the Ortonville area.
Regulatory Issues
Septic systems for individual properties are loosely regulated in Oakland County. Permits for
construction and repair are issued by the Oakland County Health Department (OCHD). With
the development of some new technologies, engineered septic systems make almost all
properties able to obtain permits and rarely are permits for new construction denied, except
in areas of poor soils and high groundwater such as portions of Ortonville which are
struggling with this issue. However, permits for repairs or expansion of existing septic
systems for new or increased property use are routinely denied due to the reasons stated
above. Many of the failing or overused septic systems go unabated for years.
While a legal review of the current County and State regulations and statues in this regard is
warranted, the only recourse the OCHD has at the present time to abate residential and
commercial well or environmental pollution is to issue a moratorium on building permits.
Further, the State of Michigan, through the Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
could intervene and mandate mitigation of the environmental pollution caused by septic
system failures. Considering that these systems are on private property, owned by private
citizens, and were at least at some point approved by OCHD, it is unlikely that MDEQ would
force connection to or construction of a new waste water treatment or conveyance system if
one were readily available and not cost restrictive. However, in the long-term, the State
and/or EPA’s potential involvement can not be overlooked.
Over the past few years there has been an on-going debate on how best to regulate septic
systems. Potential regulations tend to focus on an inspection requirement and time frame,
for example, inspections and certification every 3 years by a qualified licensed plumbing
contractor. However, the most contentious debate has centered on who should be
responsible for establishing the regulations and administering this type of program. The
State says it should be the County. The County offers that it should be the local community.
Finally, local communities say it should be the County who issued the permit in the first
place. This debate wages on. Some communities have addressed this by passing local
ordinances requiring inspections periodically or at the time of the property sale but most
have no regulation despite MDEQ trying to add septic regulation drafting into most Municipal
Separated Storm Sewer System (MS4) permits.
Past Studies
Throughout the years numerous studies have been completed on behalf of the Village of
Ortonville and/or the Charter Township of Brandon regarding sanitary sewage service:
52
•
In 1956, Spicer Engineering presented a report to the Village Council that
summarized “...a sanitary sewer system and treatment facility will be required in
the not too distant future.” For the next thirty years, various discussions and
iterations of this report were contemplated by the Village.
•
In 1987 and 1995, Progressive Engineers updated this report and applied
current and future population data in developing a recommendation for a sanitary
sewer system based on the summary that “Present systems in the village are no
longer adequately treating waste water before it enters the ground water.”
ORTONVILLE
EXISTING CONDITIONS
•
Most recently, in 1999-2000, in a combined effort between the Village and
Brandon Township, Township Engineers Hubbell, Roth & Clark, Inc. presented
both communities with an update on the alternative for sanitary sewer service to
replace failing septic systems including an option to convey sewage flows to
Genesee County through their proposed Kearsley Creek Interceptor or
constructing a local wastewater treatment plant. After several public hearings, it
was determined that installing a system to convey and treat sanitary sewage was
not practicable due to limited availability of a local waste water treatment plant
sites, political issues with connection to Genesee County and due to the
estimated total costs.
During these studies, various water quality tests and investigations into the Village’s septic
systems were completed. Oakland County Health Department (OCHD) studies found:
•
Over 1/3 of permits issued since 1980 for septic system repairs are inadequate
by current standards.
•
60-70% of lots around Bald Eagle Lake and Lake Louise are not adequate for
septic systems based on current OCHD criteria for issuing a permit.
•
Only 4 out of 18 repair permits on Bald Eagle Lake were considered adequate
based on OCHD criteria.
•
Only 14 out of 39 repair permits in the Village appeared to be adequate based on
OCHD criteria.
•
Only 10 out of 26 repair permits on Lake Louise appeared to be adequate based
on OCHD criteria.
•
31 of the septic systems in Belle Ann Falls subdivision were repaired or replaced
within a five year time frame in early 1990’s. (from OCHD reports)
•
5 out of 36 randomly selected wells had detectable nitrate levels which is an
indicator of septic system contamination of the groundwater. A more formal
investigation in 1997 found that a significant percentage of the wells in the
Village tested positive for nitrates and other septic indicative materials.
OCHD’s policy is to issue permits for the repair of failing septic systems, even in cases that
are nonconforming to the current Health Department standards, otherwise alternative repair
or replacement methods could cause unnecessary hardships to the residents.
Available Options
Several alternatives are available to resolve the septic system issue. Those alternatives are
identified below, along with a description of the pros and cons, impact on development, and
implementation issues associated with each option.
MASTER PLAN
53
EXISTING CONDITIONS
DO NOTHING
This option would maintain the status quo. Residents and business owners would be required to
maintain their existing septic fields until such time as they fail or no longer support the current
use. At that time they would be required to make expensive repairs to be OCHD compliant.
Pros: The individual property owners maintain control of their systems and with proper
maintenance can extend the longevity of their systems. Annual maintenance costs are low and
this does not require a capital investment by the Village.
Cons: As mentioned above, the failure rate in poor soils, high ground water conditions, and
densely developed areas create environmental and economical hardships. Most failures go
unnoticed.
Impact on Development: On-site systems are good for low density development in areas with
porous soils, a low water table, and the availability of potable water. Conventional septic systems
are a deterrent for organized moderate to high density growth including light industrial,
commercial, and food service uses.
Implementation: Not applicable.
COMMUNITY SEPTIC SYSTEMS
Areas of the Village, such as individual neighborhoods, blocks, or commercial areas could band
together to create small collection and treatment systems at locations with the best soil and
water conditions.
Pros: Control remains at the local level. Annual costs can be moderate depending on the
individual systems implemented.
Cons: Capital costs can be significant depending on the system type, location, discharge effluent
limitations, etc. Maintenance obligations need to be memorialized between all of the user
properties. This option also can create multiple sewer districts with limited Village control or
oversight. Property owners who own and control the system can obstruct otherwise approvable
development potential by limiting sewage availability.
Impact on Development: Community systems are good for low to moderate density development
where there are reasonable soils, a low water table, and good availability of potable water.
Community septic systems can be a deterrent for organized high density growth including light
industrial, commercial, and food service uses. These types of systems are better suited for
serving a small area of a community and not in conjunction with many other community systems
established to serve the entire village.
Implementation: Community systems could be established in certain areas of the Village in dire
need of an alternative to septic systems and eventually tied together into a more conventional
waster water system with its own plant or conveyance to another system. However, this would
require a robust sanitary sewer master plan so each individual system was developed for ease of
transfer over to a municipal system and abandonment of the individual system at a later date.
54
ORTONVILLE
EXISTING CONDITIONS
REGIONAL TREATMENT PLANT
The Village could collect sanitary sewage within the Village and convey that sewage to a waste
water treatment plant in either Genesee County or the Detroit Water and Sewage Department’s
plant.
Pros: Effluent discharges are not within the Village nor do they pass through the Village. Further,
there is no property acquisition required or local operating responsibly.
Cons: Little to no local control. Fee and regulations are passed on to the Village without input.
Still need to construct local infrastructure and a connection to either system which is a large
capital investment.
Impact on Development: Providing a municipal sanitary sewer system will attract investment and
development to the Village and surrounding Township areas. This system could be sized to meet
the anticipated scale of development set forth in the Village master plan, and further, the system
could be sized to only accommodate development anticipated in the master plan. This would
help limit development proposals that are more intense than the planned or zoned density of the
land and would remove the simple availability of system-wide capacity as an argument for more
intense development than anticipated by the master plan.
Implementation: System could be constructed in phases as funding becomes available or by
using different funding mechanisms to reduce the up front costs. For example, the local
interceptor sewers could be built first with millage monies, and then local sewers (per street or
block) could be installed if and when the residents want them and are willing to pay for them via
Special Assessment District.
* This option has recently been pursued through discussions regarding the Genesee County option through the
Kearsley Creek Interceptor project and DWSD option through connection to the Clinton-Oakland Sewage Disposal
System to the south, although neither of these options is currently available. Regional cooperation for either option is
low.
LOCAL TREATMENT PLANT
The Village could collect sanitary sewage within the Village and convey that sewage to a waste
water treatment plant located in the Village or in Brandon Township if the Village chooses to work
with the Township.
Pros: Complete local control and ownership of the system, costs and fees are under local control.
Cons: Effluent discharge is located within or nearby to the Village. Property needed for the plant.
Area around plant becomes less desirable for development. This option requires a large capital
investment.
Impact on Development: Providing a municipal sanitary sewer system will attract investment and
development to the Village and surrounding Township areas. This system could be sized to meet
the anticipated scale of development set forth in the Village master plan, and further, the system
could be sized to only accommodate development anticipated in the master plan. This would
help limit development proposals that are more intense than the planned or zoned density of the
land and would remove the simple availability of system-wide capacity as an argument for more
intense development than anticipated by the master plan.
Implementation: System could be constructed in phases as funding becomes available or by
using different funding mechanisms to reduce the up front costs. For example, the local waste
water treatment plant and local interceptor sewers could be built first with millage monies and
then local sewers (per street or block) could be installed if and when the residents want them and
are willing to pay for them via Special Assessment District.
MASTER PLAN
55
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Summary
Without proper sanitary sewer service, the Village will continue to experience problems
attracting new development. Further, the existing uses of Village properties could be
restricted, impeding the redevelopment opportunities and hindering the Village’s efforts to
maintain a vibrant downtown. On the other hand, sanitary sewer will bring increased
development and investment to the Village, but that development and investment may not
be limited to the downtown area unless proper restrictions are put into place. It is therefore
very important that if a sewer system is pursued, it be designed according to the Village’s
future vision for itself. This will ensure that any sanitary system be sized to meet the future
development goals of the community without providing excess capacity that could be used
to deviate from the master plan and result in unwanted growth within the community.
The construction of any sanitary sewer system is expensive and will require a multi-source
financing package if it is to be successful. The various components of funding this system,
taxes, assessments, connection charges, and rates, may have individual development
impacts. Therefore, any increase in development/redevelopment opportunities will
undoubtedly be tempered by the financing mechanism utilized. For instance a significant
increase to the Village tax structure may deter new business or residential growth in
Ortonville if nearby lower tax base options exist.
Ultimately, adequate sanitary sewer service is a necessity for the Village of Ortonville.
Providing this infrastructure will set the foundation for future development and
redevelopment within the Village. It is recognized that this matter is most important for the
downtown area. However, a strong downtown is good for the whole Village as well as for
surrounding Brandon Township. Cooperation between the Village and Township on this
common issue is encouraged as it will lower costs and spread future expenses over a larger
user base.
56
ORTONVILLE
4. HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Residents have identified Ortonville’s historic charm as one of the most important attributes
that they would like to see preserved as their community grows. This section summarizes
our survey of the Village’s historic buildings and recommends strategies for preserving them.
A.
SURVEY METHODOLOGY and PURPOSE
A reconnaissance-level building survey was conducted of Ortonville in September 2007 to
identify and assess the important historic buildings in the Village. The guidelines for
conducting historic building surveys outlined by the Michigan State Historic Preservation
Office (MHSPO) were used.
A reconnaissance-level study is a first step in the survey process for historic designations. It
identifies those areas and properties of the Village that are worthy of further study. This kind
of survey identifies buildings that have potential historic value and lays the groundwork for
an intensive-level survey that the Village may choose to conduct sometime in the future. The
intensive-level survey would involve deeper research and determine actual eligibility for
historic designation and boundaries of historic districts. Survey forms were completed for 41
buildings and then transcribed with photographs of each building. These forms are included
with this report as Appendix A. Preliminary research on dates of construction, mapping, and
overall history was conducted through the Ortonville Historical Society to complete the
survey forms and to get as accurate a picture as possible of the architectural heritage of the
Village.
The survey provides three types of information about Ortonville’s historic buildings: basic
data, photographs of each building and mapping of individual resources in specified areas.
The basic data includes:
Approximate age of the structure
Architectural style
Materials (roof, walls, foundations etc.)
Other visible features
The survey also identifies buildings that need further research to determine date and style
because they have been covered over with a facade that hides the original features of the
building.
This basic data coincides with the criteria for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places, which are as follows:
1. Age: Was the building constructed over 50 years ago?
2. Historic Events: Is the building associated with events or people that made a significant
contribution to history?
MASTER PLAN
57
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
3. Architectural Value: Is the building an example of a distinctive style or method of
construction?
4. Integrity of Historic Material: Do the original shape, materials and features of the building
remain intact? A building that has been modified with non-original siding, new windows, or
inappropriate additions may not qualify for historic designation because too much of the
original building is gone. Moving a historic building can jeopardize its listing in the National
Register of Historic Places.
There are three different levels of historic designation that can be pursued: local, state, and
national depending on the significance of the historic district or building. If these resources
have national significance, the national designation can be pursued, if state significance,
the state designation and the same for local. Ortonville’s resources probably do not have
national significance, but may have state significance and definitely have local.
B.
SURVEY RESULTS
The Historic Preservation Survey reveals that there are four areas of historic buildings in
Ortonville:
58
•
Mill Street Commercial District. The Mill Street Commercial District is anchored
on the west by the 1853 grist mill and on the east at Church Street by the former
Township Hall (1868?). Along the length of the street especially east of South
Street are a number of commercial buildings mostly from the late 1800s and
early 1900s that retain their historic style and a significant amount of original
materials. These historic buildings lend a quality of charm and historic richness to
Ortonville’s downtown and together would be ideal for a local historic district.
•
Mill Street Residential Area. Along Mill Street west of the creek and downtown is
a area of wonderful historic homes from the late 1800s. Especially noteworthy
are the three grand houses on the corner of Mill and Narrin. These all appear to
be in good condition with original materials.
•
Residential Area North of Mill Street. The original plat of the village of Ortonville
was north of Mill Street (see 1908 map). Many of the small homes and cottages
from the settlement of the Village in the late 1800s remain intact. Included in this
area is evidence of the region’s agricultural past with a few barns and utility
buildings remaining. The first church constructed in the Village remains on Church
Street--the Methodist Episcopal Church. Some of the homes in this area retain
their original materials; others have been clad with aluminum siding, which
detracts from their historic value.
•
South Street Residential Area. The collection of homes along South Street is
exceptional. These homes were probably constructed in the mid to late 1800s
and are excellent examples of Greek Revival and Italianate styles.
ORTONVILLE
Spruce Hill Ln
Sands Rd
Irmas Blvd
Brandon Twp
Brandon Hills Dr
Arbor Pine Dr
Brandon Twp
Duck
Creek
Evergreen
Rdg
Village Ct
Tall Pine
Pine Tree Ln
le
nvil
Or to
Dr
Granger Rd
Linda K Ln
r
Va
y
sit
Woodbridge Ln
Duck
Creek
Edwards St
South St
Rd
Groveland Twp
Cresent Hill Dr
Mill St
James St
My ron St
Church St
Ball St
Cedar St
Narrin Rd
Cedar
Lake
Timber Woods Trl
Oakwood Rd
Oakwood Rd
Grange r Rd
Brandon Twp
Areas of Historic Buildings
0
Area of Historic Buildings
400
800
Feet
10/13/08
MILL STREET COMMERCIAL AREA BUILDING DESCRIPTIONS
THE OLD MILL 226 Mill Street
Date of Construction:
Architectural Style:
Historical Significance:
1853
Greek Revival
Listed on the National and State Registers of Historic Places
HAGGERTY INSURANCE COMPANY 422 Mill Street
60
1870s – 1890s
Victorian Commercial
Much of the original material is intact. Former bank, former home
of post office and telephone switchboard.
ORTONVILLE
BONNER’S JEWELERS 431 Mill Street
1870s – 1890s
Victorian Commercial
Much of the original material is intact. Delightful façade design.
FORMER CROSSMAN MORTUARY 449 Mill Street
MASTER PLAN
1910 – 1920
Vernacular Commercial
Much of the original material is intact. One of a collection of
interesting false-front commercial buildings. Good example of the
style
61
457 MILL STREET
1870s(?)
Historic integrity of materials lost due to substitute siding, but
could be restored. One of a collection of interesting false-front
commercial buildings.
HAMILTON’S FEED and FUEL 465 Mill Street
62
1910 – 1920
Historic integrity lost due to aluminum siding, but could be
restored. One of a collection of interesting false-front commercial
buildings.
ORTONVILLE
BRANDON TOWNSHIP HALL 476 Mill Street
MASTER PLAN
1868
Greek Revival
Historic government building. Historic integrity lost due to
aluminum siding. Could be restored.
63
MILL STREET RESIDENTIAL AREA BUILDING DESCRIPTIONS
43 MILL STREET
About 1890
Queen Anne
Much of the original material intact. Excellent example of the
style.
109 MILL STREET
64
About 1890
Vernacular Victorian
style.
ORTONVILLE
46 MILL STREET
About 1890
Queen Anne
style.
193 MILL STREET
MASTER PLAN
About 1890
Vernacular Victorian
style.
65
RESIDENTIAL AREA NORTH OF MILL STREET
BUILDING DESCRIPTIONS
UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 90 Church Street
1879
Victorian Gothic with Italianate Influences
Much original material intact. Excellent example of its style and
an important historic building.
105 CHURCH STREET
66
About 1890
Residential Vernacular Bungalow
Original material intact. Potential contributing member to a local
historic district.
ORTONVILLE
131 BALL STREET
About 1890
Residential Vernacular – Cobblestone Cabin
Original material intact. Excellent example of the style.
180 CEDAR STREET
MASTER PLAN
About 1890
Vernacular Cube
Original material intact. May have been a schoolhouse in the past.
67
CEDAR STREET BARN
68
About 1890
Vernacular Barn
Remnant of the agricultural past
ORTONVILLE
SOUTH STREET RESIDENTIAL AREA BUILDING DESCRIPTIONS
152 SOUTH STREET
About 1860
Greek Revival
style.
92 SOUTH STREET
MASTER PLAN
About 1870
Italianate
style.
69
C.
PRESERVATION STRATEGIES
Ortonville is fortunate to have many delightful historic resources. The traditional charm of
the Village is seen in its commercial buildings as well as the residential areas. The Village is
also fortunate that so many citizens have shown a strong appreciation of its history and
have a tradition of caring for its historic buildings. This is evidenced by the careful
preservation of the Old Mill and the continuing activities of the Historical Society. As the
Village charts a path for future growth, the citizens have expressed a strong preference for
preserving its old-fashioned feel. But historic buildings can be lost. In Ortonville some
important older buildings have already been swallowed up by development (the Academy
building) and lost to fire (the old hotel). The historic value of other older buildings has been
compromised by materials added later such as aluminum siding in the residential areas and
new facades in the commercial district.
Individual owners ultimately decide what will happen with their properties, but there is much
that the Village can do to encourage owners to preserve their historic buildings and even to
restore them to their original styles and materials. Taking these steps has economic value
as well as aesthetic. Shoppers and visitors are drawn to areas that have authentic historic
charm and bring their spending dollars with them.
With the appropriate strategies, the Village can assure that 20 years from now, two things
will have happened.
1.
Historic buildings that are in good shape today, will still be in good shape. They
have not been torn down or changed in ways that damages their historic value.
2.
Historic buildings that are not in good shape today because of aluminum siding,
inappropriate additions, or modern facades, have been tastefully restored to their
original historic materials and style.
To reach these goals, the Village needs to:
1. Design Guidelines: Create design guidelines for residential and commercial buildings that
show property owners how to make changes, upgrades and rehabilitations that preserve and
restore historic value. The Village Council can create these guidelines with the technical
assistance of three important preservation programs: Main Street Oakland County, MI
(MSOC), which the Village is already in partnership with, the Michigan Historic Preservation
Network (MHPN), and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
2. Local Historic Districts: Create local historic districts to celebrate buildings that meet the
guidelines. These districts would encourage property owners to bring their buildings up to
standard so that they can be part of local tradition. Present historic district plaques to all
building owners who meet the guidelines so that they can be displayed on the property.
The process of creating local historic districts is administered by SHPO and usually takes 612 months to complete. A detailed description of the process can be found in Appendix C of
this plan. To summarize, it is a multi-step process that begins with authorization by the
Village to conduct a study of a potential district, through the survey, analysis and report, to a
70
ORTONVILLE
public hearing, final report, and culminates in the preparation and adoption of a historic
district ordinance.
3. Facade Program: As part of a local district, the Village can fund a detailed plan for the
renovation of facades for specific buildings so that citizens have a vision of what should be
done.
4. Preservation Incentives: Also as part of formation of local historic districts, the Village
should consider one or more of the following economic incentives:
•
A low-interest loan program that residents can use when renovating their
buildings. To qualify, the renovation plans must follow the preservation
guidelines.
•
The village can hire a historic architect to design facade and building changes so
that renovations meet the guidelines.
•
The Village can institute a design review as part of the building permit process so
that preservation guidelines are followed during any renovation.
5. Celebrate History: The Village already does an excellent job promoting its downtown
through events such as Cruise to Ortonville, Beets, Beats and Eats, Creekfest etc. Continue
these programs and include more that emphasize the historic quaintness of the downtown.
MASTER PLAN
71
PRESERVATION RESOURCES
These are some of the sources of information available to help maintain historic buildings.
National Trust for Historic Preservation: This organization is the national clearinghouse for
preservation information. They hold conferences, publish a journal, own and operate several
historic properties, and often lead the discussion on preservation.
www.nthp.org
National Park Service: Charged with protecting our national heritage, both cultural and natural,
the NPS is the national clearinghouse for technical preservation information. They offer many
services from information to books to maintenance of websites including the following:
Preservation Briefs: This site provides technical information on a variety of subjects,
ranging from Conserving Energy in Historic Buildings, to Roofing, to the Repair of Historic
Wooden Windows.
www.cr.nps.gov/hps/TPS/briefs/presbhom.htm
Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Structures:
www.cr.nps.gov/hps/TPS/tax/rhb
Michigan Historic Preservation Network: The state organization that coordinates
preservation efforts of non-profits, historical societies and others interested in historic
preservation. They provide training, information, conferences and referrals for qualified
architects, engineers and contractors. Their site also has links to dozens of other preservation
organizations.
www.mhpn.org
Michigan State Historic Preservation Office: Offers educational programs, tax incentive
information, national register assistance, technical assistance, and a variety of other programs.
www.michigan.gov/hal/
Traditional Building Magazine: Long-standing publication for specific technical issues.
www.traditional-building.com/
72
ORTONVILLE
5. GOALS and OBJECTIVES
The purpose of the Master Plan is to serve as a guide for Village officials, residents, and
landowners in making future land use decisions. As such, an overall vision for the community
first must be identified. During the planning process, a series of public input initiatives were
conducted to ensure that the Master Plan reflects the vision of Village residents,
representatives, and property owners.
Goals are general in nature and, as related to community planning, are statements of ideals
toward which the Village wishes to strive. They represent the ultimate purpose of an effort
stated in a way that is both broad and immeasurable. Goals also express a consensus of
community direction to public and private agencies, groups and individuals. Goals are longrange considerations that should guide the development of specific objectives.
Objectives are a means to achieve the overall goals of the Plan. Objectives take the form of
more measurable standards, or identify the methods in which the goals of the plan may be
realized. In some instances, they are specific statements which can be readily translated into
detailed design proposals or action recommendations.
Together, the following goals and objectives provide the foundation of the Master Plan and a
framework for future implementation strategies.
DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT
GOAL: Future development in Ortonville should respect the historic character of the
Village while expanding the vitality and range of services available in the downtown area.
OBJECTIVES:
•
Ortonville will create an economic identity for the downtown and begin a long-term
economic and physical revitalization program to capture those businesses and
services that uphold that identity.
•
Sanitary sewer service is a prerequisite for the success and continued development
of downtown. The Village will identify and work towards the most efficient
implementation of a sanitary sewer system.
•
New development in the downtown area should primarily be two stories or lower.
Some three story buildings may be appropriate, as long as they are used only in key
location and are the exception and not the rule.
•
Consider adopting design guidelines to ensure that new development in the
downtown area is consistent with the Village’s existing historic character.
MASTER PLAN
73
GOALS and OBJECTIVES
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
GOAL: Ortonville will retain its identity as a primarily residential community.
OBJECTIVES:
•
New residential development should be single-family in nature.
•
New residential development and redevelopment should respect historic building
patterns, preserving and enhancing them where feasible.
•
Amenities such as neighborhood parks, schools, and open space areas should be
encouraged.
•
New rental and multiple-family housing should be provided in a mixed-use setting
such as on the second floor of buildings in the downtown area, or in buildings with a
single family character in appropriate locations in the Village.
•
Senior housing is desirable in the Village, provided that the building has a proper
scale and character with regard to its setting.
•
Consider adopting design guidelines to ensure that new development in residential
areas is consistent with the Village’s existing historic character.
NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
GOAL: Promote appropriately sited and attractively designed retail, service , and
industrial establishments at appropriate locations within the community.
OBJECTIVES:
74
•
Promote and maintain high standards for site and building design.
•
Provide flexible zoning mechanisms for property owners and tenants to upgrade
existing nonresidential sites.
•
Concentrate commercial development along M-15 at nodes as opposed to a strip
along the entire length of the corridor.
•
Promote access management techniques to reduce points of conflict and improve
traffic safety along M-15.
•
Permit the conversion of obsolete or underutilized industrial areas to
office/research/technology uses.
ORTONVILLE
WALKABILITY
GOAL: Ortonville will become a walkable community.
OBJECTIVES:
•
Provide sidewalks and other pedestrian circulation improvements such that residents
at any location in the Village can reach the downtown area in a safe and direct
manner.
•
Link the Village to the Holly and Ortonville recreation areas and the Oakland County
Linked Path and Trail network via non-motorized pathways.
•
Attend and support regional greenway meetings, sessions, and workshops and
establish and maintain good relationships with adjacent communities and regional
agencies to connect Ortonville to the regional pathway system.
•
Identify federal, state and local applications for funding of the construction of nonmotorized trails.
COMMUNITY IMAGE
GOAL: Ortonville will foster its image as an historic community, featuring mid to late 19th
century architecture, rich cultural history, and important natural features such as the
Kearsley and Duck Creeks.
OBJECTIVES:
•
Improve the visibility of downtown from M-15, and provide a clear sense of entry into
Ortonville along M-15.
•
Improve access and views of the Duck and Kearsley Creeks.
•
Encourage natural landscape plantings and buffers of undisturbed vegetation along
the edges wetlands and streams in the Village to protect water quality.
•
Encourage building owners to restore building fronts to their original styles.
•
Consider creating historic districts and provide information on architectural styles
and appropriate building materials to property owners.
•
Maintain a listing of historic sites and a corresponding map to document important
structures.
•
Provide flexible zoning mechanisms to encourage the reuse of historic resources
while preserving the historically significant aspects of the resource.
MASTER PLAN
75
TRANSPORTATION
GOAL: Encourage an efficient and safe multi-modal transportation network that
integrates various modes of transportation to ensure a higher quality of life for Village
residents.
OBJECTIVES:
•
Pursue strategies that will require the use of accepted traffic calming and access
management techniques where appropriate and necessary.
•
Require transportation infrastructure decisions that support and encourage the land
use recommendations of the Master Plan.
•
Explore innovative traffic designs as an alternative to adding additional traffic lanes.
•
Provide flexible engineering design standards for Village roads to achieve safe and
appropriate road design while ensuring that community character is not
compromised in order to meet strict engineering standards that may not fit the
Village context.
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
GOAL: Maintain, expand, and improve community facilities to improve quality of life for
Village residents.
OBJECTIVES:
76
•
Replace aging infrastructure as necessary.
•
Continue to cooperate with surrounding communities and the County to provide
public services.
•
Consider the most beneficial land use for abandoned or obsolete facilities on a caseby-case basis, considering the impact on neighboring property owners and the Village
as a whole.
ORTONVILLE
NATURAL RESOURCES
GOAL: Preserve intact significant natural features located in the Village and integrate
natural feature preservation into land use decisions.
OBJECTIVES:
•
Preserve wetlands, watercourses (most notably Duck and Kearsley Creeks), and
woodlands as development occurs.
•
Improve exsiting riparian, wetland, water quality, woodland and greenway protection
standards to approach current natural resources protection recommendations.
•
Encourage energy efficient green development, and encourage that new buildings
and building renovations be certified by a green building rating system such as
Energy Star or an appropriate LEED standard. Consider including incentives in the
zoning ordinance to encourage such compliance.
•
Implement site appropriate structural and non-structural storm water best
management practices to prevent or minimize the impact of development on water
quality.
•
Provide greenway connections between natural areas in and adjacent to the Village
though a combination of protection and restoration.
PLANNING and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
GOAL: Ensure ongoing community planning and the implementation of the Master Plan.
OBJECTIVES:
•
Review and update the Master Plan every five years to address changing conditions,
redevelopment opportunities, and the changing needs of the community.
•
Cooperate with nearby communities, Oakland County, the school district, and other
governmental organizations through the exchange of information on development
and redevelopment issues and other shared interests, such as community facilities
and services, conservation developments, and development along shared
boundaries.
•
Revise the zoning ordinance to be compatible with the recommendations of this plan.
MASTER PLAN
77
78
ORTONVILLE
6. CIRCULATION PLAN
The primary goal of the Roads and Circulation plan is to provide a circulation plan that
meets the needs of residents and businesses located in the Village. The circulation plan
considers both vehicular and non-motorized transportation, and provides recommendations
for the future development of the Village’s circulation system.
A.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
ROAD JURISDICTION
TRAFFIC COUNTS
The road network in the Village consists of State,
County and Village roads.
Road design is affected in large part
by the volume of traffic that uses the
road. The following are the latest
available average daily trip statistics
for major roads in the Village:
State Roads
The Michigan Department of Transportation has
jurisdiction over M-15 (Ortonville Road). M-15 is
the primary north-south route, and provides Village
residents with access to I-75 and Oakland County
to the South, and I-69 and Genesee County to the
north.
MDOT recently completed an access management
plan for M-15 that includes a range of
recommended road improvements. These road
improvement projects will not alter the character of
M-15, and are compatible with the
recommendations of this Master Plan.
County Roads
Oakwood and Granger Roads are under the
jurisdiction of the Road Commission for Oakland
County (RCOC), which is responsible for
maintenance and repairs to these Roads.
Oakwood and Granger are the primary roads
providing access to the east. Currently, these roads
do not have sufficient pedestrian circulation
facilities.
Village Streets
All other roads and streets in the Village are under
the jurisdiction of the Village, which is responsible
for repairs and maintenance.
MASTER PLAN
M-15: 17,100
Granger: 1,800
Oakwood: 6,800
HIGH-CRASH INTERSECTIONS
The Southeast Michigan Council of
Governments (SEMCOG) provides
detailed crash data. The following is a
summary of high-crash intersections
where four or more vehicle crashes
occurred during the 2005 and 2006
two-year period. These intersections
are worthy of further study for
improvements:
South Street at M-15: 23 crashes
Mill Street at M-15: 11 crashes
Granger Road at M-15: 10 crashes
Hubbell, Roth & Clark investigated
these three locations and found that
the predominate crash pattern is rearend crashes. This crash pattern is
typically a symptom of stop and go
traffic related to congested traffic
conditions.
79
CIRCULATION PLAN
B.
CIRCULATION PLAN
At its most basic level, a transportation system provides a means of moving people and
goods within a geographic area. A transportation system may be made of up multiple
modes of transportation, such as roads, railroads, bikeways, airports, and seaports. Mass
transit is sometimes available, either via buses or other types of transit that use roads, or
light-rail or subway transit that ride on dedicated rails. The circulation system in Ortonville
currently consists of roads that, with the exception of roads in the downtown area, are
almost exclusively dedicated to automobile travel.
The roads and circulation plan, presented on the following page, highlights the classification
of each road in the Village (see page 83), design guidelines for each type of road (page 84),
recommended intersection improvements (see page 86), and recommended non-motorized
pathway system improvements (see page 87).
Note that the circulation plan shows the location of planned road and non-motorized
pathway improvements. The proposed improvements are intended to be general guidelines.
The exact location of improvements will be determined as the improvements are built based
on existing conditions in the vicinity. For instance, it may be appropriate for pedestrian
improvements to be built on both or just one side of a street, depending upon factors such
as nearby land uses or right-of-way constraints.
80
ORTONVILLE
Brandon Twp
Evergreen
Rdg
Tall Pine
¶
Pine Tree Ln
Duck/
Kearsley Creek
Trail
¶
k
j
Cresent Hill Dr
Pond St
¶
Groveland Twp
Brandon Hills Dr
Pedestrian/
Road
Improvements
¶
Schoolhouse
Villa ge Pine Ln
Village Ct
"
Mill
James St
Myr on
Church St
Kearsley
Creek
Cedar St
Francis
Ball St
Kearsley
Creek
Narrin Rd
East Ridge Dr
Arbor Pine Dr
Allen St
Timber Woods Tr l
Cedar
Lake
Cedar
Lake Ln
Brandon Twp
Sherman Ct.
"
Oakwood Rd
Spruce Hill Ln
Sands Rd
Irmas Blvd
"
¶
¶
Connect to
Ortonville
State Recreation
Area
le
nvil
Or to
Kearsley Ct
ce
C
em
t
Granger Rd
Brandon Twp
Regional Arterial
Circulation Plan
Regional Thoroughfares
Avenues
Neighborhood Streets
Pedestrian Improvements
da
Linda K Ln
n- C o
Mo n
to n ec
riz t
ed to
P a Reg
t h io
wa na
yS l
ys
Ca
t
n
Woodbridge Ln
Granger Rd
Edwards St
South St
k
j
k
j
y
sit
Dons Ct
"
¶
Duck
Creek
r
Va
Dr
t
Crescent C
"
Print date: 10/22/2008 E:\Projects\Oakland\Ortonville\Circulation_Plan_11x17.mxd
Rd
Connect to
Holly State
Recreation Area
No
Potential
Road
Connection
j
k
0
500
1,000
Feet
New Roads
Intersection Improvements
10/13/08
CIRCULATION PLAN
C.
ROAD CLASSIFICATION
Classification of the roads is necessary in order to communicate the function of each road in
the overall transportation network. This plan classifies roads based on the surface, number
of lanes and the average daily traffic (ADT). The classification of each road also identifies
the operational capabilities and expectations of the amount of traffic each road is expected
to convey in the future.
The following road classifications are based on established systems of state and national
transportation authorities and tailored to the road characteristics present in the Village. The
classifications take into account the Federal Highway Administration’s Functional
Classification Guidelines as utilized by the Michigan Department of Transportation. The
basic difference between types of road is that some roads are intended to carry through
traffic that is heading towards a destination outside of the Village, and those that carry local
traffic within the Village. It is generally desirable to separate the two types of road to the
greatest extent possible.
The circulation plan includes 4 types of roads:
ROAD TYPE
REGIONAL ROADS
•
•
LOCAL ROADS
•
•
ROADS
Regional Arterials are designed to carry a large volume of traffic over
long distances, and provide a connection to the interstate system.
Regional arterials have design speeds of 50 mph or greater and have
daily traffic volumes of 15,000 ADT or greater. Regional arterials also
M-15
provide access to abutting property, which makes them desirable
locations for automobile-oriented commercial development. The
movement of traffic is the primary function of a regional arterial, while
access to land is a secondary function. Regional arterials are
equivalent to an arterial in the FHA classification guidelines.
Regional Thoroughfares carry traffic from the local road system to
regional destinations. Regional thoroughfares differ from regional
arterials mainly in design speed and the traffic volumes that they carry.
Regional thoroughfares will have design speeds of 35-45 mph and will Oakwood Road
Granger Road
have daily traffic volumes less than 15,000 ADT. The movement of
traffic and access to land are equal functions of a regional
thoroughfare. Regional thoroughfares are equivalent to an arterial in
the FHA classification guidelines.
Avenues are walkable, low to medium speed (25-35 mph) streets
whose primary purpose is to provide access to land. Avenues may
Mill St.
distribute traffic from the regional road system to neighborhood
Church St.
streets. Avenues are designed to accommodate vehicles, bicycles, and
South St.
pedestrians. Avenues are equivalent to a collector street in the FHA
classification guidelines.
Neighborhood Streets are low speed (25 mph) streets that provide
access to land and connect residential neighborhood areas with other
All other Village
residential neighborhoods and the regional road system.
streets
Neighborhood streets are equivalent to a local street in the FHA
classification guidelines.
MASTER PLAN
83
CIRCULATION PLAN
D.
ROAD DESIGN GUIDELINES
The design characteristics of each type of road will, in large part, determine the character of
that road. It is important that roads are designed commensurate with their function in order
to ensure that roads are not over or under-built, and also to ensure that each street meets
the needs of all persons who will use that street, including motorists, pedestrians, and
bicyclists.
In general, roads can be divided into two primary areas – the travelway and the roadside.
The travelway accommodates travel lanes, turn lanes, parking lanes, and bicycle lanes. The
roadside accommodates landscape areas; street trees (planted either in a tree lawn or in
tree grates); pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks or non-motorized pathways; streetscape
improvements such as decorative lighting or street furniture; and uses associated with
nearby buildings such as outdoor cafés.
Illustration of Road Design Areas
Source: Context Sensitive Solutions in Designing Major Urban Thoroughfares, Institute of Traffic Engineers
84
ORTONVILLE
CIRCULATION PLAN
ROAD DESIGN GUIDELINES
General road design guidelines are included in the following table. The table should guide
future road improvement plans to ensure that the road system is not over or underbuilt:
Road Type
Lanes
Roadside
Area Width
Regional Arterial
3+
16 ft. min.
Regional Thoroughfare
2-3
12 ft. min.
Avenue
2-3
12-18 ft.
Neighborhood Street
2
12 ft. min.
Roadside Area
Improvements
Sidewalk or nonmotorized trail ,
landscape area
Sidewalk or nonmotorized trail,
landscape area
Sidewalk, street tree
plantings, street
furniture
Sidewalk, landscape
area
Bicycle
Lane
On-Street
Parking
No
No
Permitted
No
Permitted
Yes
N/A
Yes
The above table includes recommendations for the width and improvements permitted in
the roadside area. The roadside area is the portion of the right-of-way located between the
curb or edge of pavement and the edge of the right-of-way. How this area is treated will in
large part determine the character of the road. It is recommended that all roads in the
Village have sidewalks or non-motorized pathways in the future. In addition, additional uses
can be provided along Avenues to complement the uses in adjacent buildings. See the
image below for an example of a properly designed Avenue roadside area.
Wide roadside area incorporating street furniture,
public space, and with the potential for outdoor
cafes or other uses:
MASTER PLAN
85
CIRCULATION PLAN
E.
RECOMMENDED M-15 IMPROVEMENTS
The following intersection improvements are recommended in MDOT’s M-15 Access
Management Plan. The recommended road improvements are included in this Master Plan
for ease of reference to the reader. However, the following is only a summary of the
recommended improvements, so the reader is encouraged to consult the M-15 Access
Management Plan for a detailed description of recommended improvements.
Granger/South Street/M-15 Area
The following improvements are recommended in this area:
•
Examine the need for, and expected improvements due to, signalization of the
Granger/M-15 intersection.
•
Relocate South Street to improve intersection design at the South/M-15
intersection. Any South Street relocation or intersection improvements must be
designed to preserve the A&W – a potential historic building.
•
Limit commercial driveway access to M-15 along the west side of the road. This
can be done by closing unnecessary driveways, or by constructing a service drive.
Mill/M-15 Area
86
•
Consider the construction of a passing or bypass lane and/or a left turn lane in
this area.
•
Consider closing the Narrin/M-15 intersection and constructing a cul-de-sac at
the south end of Narrin Street.
•
Optimize traffic signal timing at the Mill/M-15 intersection.
ORTONVILLE
CIRCULATION PLAN
F.
NON-MOTORIZED PATHWAY SYSTEM
The creation of a linked pedestrian pathway system throughout Ortonville was identified as a
key goal at Future Days and throughout the community input process. The Circulation Plan
recommends pedestrian improvements, including non-motorized trails, to provide the
framework for a comprehensive pedestrian circulation system throughout the Village. It will
act as a blueprint, guiding decision makers on important land use, transportation,
circulation, and recreation issues for several decades into the future.
While it is the recommendation of this plan that five-foot
Sidewalks. 5-foot wide
sidewalks should be provided
wide sidewalks be provided along all roads in the Village,
along all roads and streets in
the Circulation Plan also recommends non-motorized
the Village.
pathway improvements. Non-motorized pathways are
proposed to connect the local sidewalk system to the
Oakland County Linked Path and Trail System, along with regional points of interest such as
the Ortonville and Holly State Recreation areas. Non-motorized pathways accommodate
pedestrians and bicyclists, and should have a minimum width of 6 feet. The pathways can
be paved or a compacted aggregate surface.
Non-Motorized Pathway Configurations
There are three major configurations for non-motorized pathways as defined by the
American Association of State Highway Officials:
•
•
•
Dedicated pathways separated from vehicle traffic lanes,
Bicycle lanes that are part of the roadway,
Shared roadways where motorized and non-motorized users share the
same space on the roadway.
Each of the above configurations is appropriate in certain instances, and a non-motorized
pathway system can consist of a combination of pathway configurations.
The following is a description of the pathway configurations and a summary of when each
configuration is appropriate, which should serve as a guide as the Village implements a nonmotorized pathway system.
DEDICATED PATHWAY
Description: a pathway physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic by an open space or a
barrier and located either within a road right-of-way or in an independent right-of-way.
Users: Dedicated pathways are appropriate for any non-motorized user, including pedestrians,
joggers, bicyclists, rollerbladers, etc.
Design: Dedicated pathways normally accommodate two lanes of travel and should be at least
10 feet wide. Motor vehicle crossing points, including road and driveway crossings, should be
kept to a minimum.
MASTER PLAN
87
CIRCULATION PLAN
BICYCLE LANE
Description: a portion of the roadway that has been designated by striping, signing, and pavement
markings for the preferential and exclusive use of bicycles.
Users: Bicycle lanes are most appropriate for bicyclists, although any non-motorized user,
including pedestrians, can use a bicycle lane in the absence of a sidewalk and if the lane is
sufficiently wide to permit a bicycle to pass a pedestrian walking in the lane without encroaching
on a motorized vehicle lane.
Design: Bicycle lanes normally accommodate one way travel in the same direction as adjacent
motor vehicle traffic and are typically four or five feet wide. It is important that highly visible
demarcations separating motorized and non-motorized traffic be maintained at all times.
SHARED ROADWAY
Description: A situation where motorized and non-motorized traffic share a street with no special
treatment for non-motorized traffic except for signage.
Users: Appropriate for any non-motorized user, including pedestrians, joggers, bicyclists,
rollerbladers, etc.
PATHWAY DESIGN GUIDELINES
Design: Shared roadways are only appropriate on low-volume, low-speed streets such as
neighborhood streets. Shared roadways require minimum 12-foot wide travel lanes.
88
Road Condition
Dedicated Pathway
Bicycle Lane
Shared Roadway
Vehicular Traffic
Volume (ADT)
Medium to High
(5,000 to 20,000+
trips)
Medium to High
(5,000 to 20,000+
trips)
Low
(less than 5,000 trips)
Speed Limit
35 to 45 mph
25 to 45 mph
25 mph or less
Regional Arterial
Avenue
Sufficient to
accommodate 10-foot
wide separate path
Avenue
Neighborhood Street
Neighborhood Street
4-foot minimum
12’ foot travel lanes
required
Street Type
ROW/Lane Width
Mixture of Traffic
Heavy truck and
automobile traffic
Light truck traffic,
heavy automobile
traffic
Residential
Curb Cuts
Best with few curb cuts
Use where there are
numerous
Residential curb or
driveway cuts only
ORTONVILLE
7. IMPLEMENTATION
The Master Plan represents a vision for the future of Ortonville – a vision to preserve and
enhance the best characteristics of the Village while making the most of opportunities that
come with new development. The Plan in itself is a vision and provides goals and objectives
that should be considered in daily decision-making. Successful implementation of the Plan
will be the result of actions taken by elected and appointed officials, Village staff, public
sector agencies, and private citizens and organizations.
Finally, this chapter concludes with a chart summarizing the recommended actions or
strategies, and the entities primarily responsible for implementing each action or strategy.
A.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter identifies and describes actions and tools available to implement the vision
created in this Master Plan. Broadly stated, the Plan will be implemented through:
Planning and Zoning: Evaluation of the Village’s Zoning Ordinance, and if necessary,
amendments to Village regulations is necessary to implement the recommendations of this
Plan. Continuous evaluation of the recommendations of this Plan must occur at regular
intervals to ensure that the overall vision for the future development of the Village remains
relevant.
Civic Improvements: Improvements such as parks, public spaces, and utility systems fall
into this category. Civic improvements are generally funded through public funds and are
tangible “bricks and mortar” projects.
Circulation Improvements: Improvements to the Village’s motorized and non-motorized
circulation system fall into this category.
Economic Development: This category includes the economic and physical development of
the Village. These improvements include a wide range of activities from physical
development activity to promotion and marketing, and may be completed by public or
private entities, or some combination thereof.
B.
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
The chart on the following page presents a detailed summary of all of the recommended
implementation activities, who is responsible for completing the activity, and available
funding resources for each activity.
MASTER PLAN
89
IMPLEMENTATION
PLANNING and ZONING
PROJECT
PRIORITY TIMEFRAME
RESPONSIBILITY
Other
TIF/
Village Gov’t Private Public Private DDA
Revise the Zoning Ordinance to be consistent
with this Plan
A
1
PC
Create historic building design guidelines
A
1
PC/VM
MS
A
2
PC
MS
B
2
PC
B
2
VC/VM
MS
B
2
VC
BT
B
2
PC/VC
B
3
VC/VM
C
5
PC
Review this Master Plan every 5 years
C
5
PC
Encourage LEED/Energy Star certification for
new or renovated buildings
C
5
PC
Create architectural design standards for the
Downtown
Create architectural design standards for the
Commercial Corridor area
Create and adopt local historic districts
Adopt/Update Parks and Recreation Plan every
5 years.
Rezone properties according to the Ortonville
Plan and new Zoning Ordinance
Develop and enforce a storm water
management program
Raise awareness of the benefits of green
building standards
FUNDING
z
PO
z
z
CIVIC IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT
PRIORITY TIMEFRAME
Explore and implement community sanitary
sewer improvements
Build Village Center Plaza on north side of the
Mill/South Street intersection
Create more significant community entrance
gateways at M-15 at Mill and South Streets
RESPONSIBILITY
FUNDING
Other
TIF/
A
2
VC/VM
BT
z
z
z
B
3
VM
MS
DDA
z
z
z
B
4
VM
DDA
z
z
z
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT
Encourage infill development in the Downtown
Develop and promote Downtown activities
such as the Farmers’ Market, Cruise to
Ortonville, and Beats, Beets, and Eats.
Create a business recruitment strategy to
attract new businesses to locate Downtown
Create a parking plan to ensure appropriate
quantity and location of parking in the
downtown area
Create a façade program to fund building
façade improvements to Downtown buildings
90
PRIORITY TIMEFRAME
RESPONSIBILITY
FUNDING
Other
TIF/
MS
PC
PO
z
z
z
DDA
A
5
A
5
MS
DDA
A
5
MS
DDA
C
4
PC
MS
DDA
C
5
PC
MS
DDA
z
z
z
z
PO
z
z
ORTONVILLE
IMPLEMENTATION
CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT
PRIORITY TIMEFRAME
RESPONSIBILITY
FUNDING
Other
TIF/
Develop a community non-motorized pathway
system to connect all parts of the Village to
Downtown
A
2
PC/VC
GI
OCP
z
Construct sidewalks on all Village streets
A
4
VM
PO
z
B
4
PC/VC
B
5
PC/VC
B
5
VM
C
5
PC/VM MDOT
C
4
PC/VC
C
4
PC/VC
Develop consistent streetscape improvements
along Mill and South Streets
Connect to the Oakland County Linked Path
and Trail System
Ensure that road improvement projects are
designed consistent with the
recommendations of this Plan
Implement the recommendations of the M-15
Access Management Plan
Create new street connection between
Edwards and South Streets
Create new street connection between Mill
Street and Timber Woods Trail
DDA
GI
OCP
MDOT
RCOC
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
PO
z
z
z
PO
z
z
KEY
Priority
A
B
C
Most Important
Very Important
Important
1
2
3
4
5
Timeframe
Responsibility (Color)
W/in one year
1-3 years
3+ years
As Available
Ongoing
Project Lead
Key Participant
Contributor
Responsibility (Abbreviation)
BT
CC
DDA
GI
MDOT
MS
Brandon Township
www.brandontownship.us
Chamber of Commerce
www.ortonvillechamber.com
Downtown Development Authority
www.ortonvilledda.com
GreenWays Initiative
greenways.sfsem.org
Michigan Department of Transportation
www.michigan.gov/mdot
Main Street
www.ortonvilledda.com
OCP
Oakland County PEDS
www.oakgov.com/peds/
PC
Ortonville Planning Commission
PO
Property Owners
RCOC
Road Commission for Oakland County
www.rcocweb.org
VC
Ortonville Village Council
VM
Village Manager/Administration
Funding
Public
Includes public funds from the Village operating budget, County, and State funding. May also include local
government bonds.
Private
Includes funds from private sources such as grant monies, corporate funding, or property owners
DDA/TIF
Tax increment financing provided by an authorized body. Please refer to the summary of economic
development tools on page 92.
MASTER PLAN
91
IMPLEMENTATION
C.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOOLS
Tax Increment Financing is a funding method that authorized bodies may use for public
purposes. When a TIF district is established, the total state equalized value for property in
the district is recorded. Every year thereafter, the property tax revenue generated by
increases in the total state equalized value is captured by the TIF. In this manner, the TIF is
funded only by increases in property values and the Village‘s general fund is not affected by
the tax capture of the TIF.
The following is a summary of bodies that can use tax increment financing and other funding
resources:
•
Downtown Development Authority (Public Act 197 of 1975). A Downtown
Development Authority (DDA) is a non-profit development corporation which exists for
the purpose of promoting a desirable environment for businesses and residents, and
implementing economic development projects. A variety of financing techniques are
available to DDAs, including bond issues, Tax Increment Financing (TIF), and public
and private contributions.
In order to establish a DDA, the Village must demonstrate evidence of stagnant or
declining property values within the boundary of the proposed DDA. The Village has
an existing DDA encompassing the Downtown area.
•
Corridor Improvement Authority (Public Act 280 of 2005). This recently passed
legislation establishes a new method of improving older commercial corridors without
establishing a DDA. The Corridor Improvement Authority Act allows local
governments to create one or more Corridor Improvement Authorities (CIA) to
address established, deteriorating commercial corridors located outside their
downtown areas. The primary benefit of this tool is to provide local governments with
the option of using TIF for improvements in the district(s), and to undertake a wide
range of activities to promote economic development and redevelopment in
commercial areas.
In order to be eligible to create a CIA, the development area must have a minimum
size of 5 acres, consist of at least 50% commercial property, and be zoned to allow
mixed-uses, including “high-density” residential use. A municipality must also
expedite the local permitted and inspection process in the development area and
promote walkable nonmotorized interconnections throughout the development area.
An advantage of this act is that it allows more than one CIA to be established in a
community, in addition to the one DDA that a community is typically permitted to
establish.
The M-15 corridor and the South Street gateway area would be natural places to
create a CIA, as the Village already has a DDA and the Ortonville Plan calls for mixed
uses and walkable nonmotorized connections along M-15 and South Street.
92
ORTONVILLE
IMPLEMENTATION
Therefore, the Master Plan already complies with the requirements of Public Act 280
of 2005.
•
Brownfield Redevelopment Authority (Public Acts 381, 382, and 383 of 1996).
Communities are authorized to create one or more Brownfield Redevelopment
Authorities (BRA) in the community. BRAs may be used to finance the cleanup and
reuse of contaminated property. Costs that can be funded by a BRA include the
demolition of buildings necessary to remove hazardous substances and new
construction if needed to protect against exposure to hazardous substances that are
to remain.
A BRA may use a TIF to pay back a developer for activities needed to facilitate the
redevelopment of the site. Once the developer has been paid back for initial site
remediation, the additional captured property taxes may go into a local site
remediation fund to pay for cleanup and rehabilitation activities on other brownfield
sites in the community.
An important feature of a BRA is the ability to capture state and local school taxes,
but only from the taxes paid by the user of the redeveloped contaminated site. BRAs
may also issue revenue and TIF bonds and notes or borrow from the MDEQ’s
Revitalization Loan Fund.
A BRA may be of limited use in Ortonville, as the Village does not contain any
obviously contaminated properties. However, it is a tool that may be appropriate in
the future.
•
Principal Shopping District/Business Improvement District (Public Act 120 of 1961).
This Act provides for the establishment of principal shopping districts and for the
undertaking of certain activities within these districts. Municipalities are permitted to
complete street and pedestrian improvements, acquire property for and construct
parking facilities (including parking garages), along with other facilities that “serve
the public interest.”
The municipality may also create a board for the management of certain ongoing
activities, including various initiatives to promote economic development (i.e. market
studies, public relations campaigns, and retail and institutional promotions). In
addition, the maintenance, security, and operation of the principal shopping district
may be carried out through this board. For ease of description, this board is often
referred to as a Downtown Management Board (DMB) and the area it represents as
the Principal Shopping District (PSD).
The DMB is composed of a number of members determined by the Village at the time
of authorization with a majority of the members being nominees of individual
businesses within the PDS. One member is a representative of the adjoining
residential neighborhoods and one member is a representative of Village
government. All board members are appointed by the chief executive officer of the
Village with the concurrence of the governing body.
MASTER PLAN
93
IMPLEMENTATION
The DMB may be funded through grants and contributions and may also use the
proceeds of special assessment levied by the governing body on property within the
PSD specifically for maintenance, security, and operation purposes. All assessments
are levied in accordance with the Village’s special assessment policies and
procedures.
PSDs are a useful tool for addressing issues such as parking structure construction
and operation by shifting responsibility and accountability to a single organization.
The organization is business driven, yet closely linked to the Village through the
appointment process and funding arrangements. It is therefore an organizational
expression of the partnership between the Village and business interests. Its powers
to conduct cooperative advertising and promotion, public relations, maintenance,
and general operations are broad enough to address many of the previous strategies.
PSD’s do not, however, possess the authority to conduct broad redevelopment or
public infrastructure development activities. It also does not have access to a
dedicated property tax millage or the ability to undertake TIF.
•
Commercial Rehabilitation Act (Public Act 210 of 2005). The Commercial
Rehabilitation Act enables local units of government to create one or more
rehabilitation districts in which rehabilitated commercial property may receive
property tax reductions for one to 10 years from the municipality (excluding personal
property and the land upon which the rehabilitated facility is located).
These tax reductions or abatements may be used to encourage redevelopment in the
community; however, they do reduce the amount of tax revenues collected by the
Village. Therefore, this tool should be used judiciously.
•
Local Development Financing Authority (Public Act 281 of 1986). A Local
Development Financing Authority (LDFA) is intended to assist industrial development,
to promote economic growth, and prevent unemployment. Eligible activities include
the support of business investment in districts where the primary activity is the
manufacture of goods or materials, agricultural processing, or high-tech activities
such as product development, engineering, product testing, or research and
development.
A LDFA may use TIF, and only one LDFA may be created in the community. The area
along M-15 and encompassing the workplace area of the Ortonville Plan would be
the most natural locations in Ortonville to create a LDFA to assist in economic
development.
94
ORTONVILLE
Appendix A
Summary of Public Input
On October 20, 2007, McKenna Associates and the Village hosted Ortonville Future Days at Old
Township Hall. Future Days was a day-long public input open house that included focus group
sessions with residents, business owners, and other interested persons; a visual preference survey;
walking tours of the Downtown area; and a survey/comment sheet for participants to provide us
with input. McKenna Associates also prepared information stations summarizing the results of the
data gathering and analysis completed prior to Future Days.
Approximately 60 people participated in the event through the course of the day, with the results of
the public input activities summarized as follows:
Focus Group Results
Future Days included two focus group sessions that were informally structured opportunities for
participants to identify their most and least liked aspects of Ortonville and their vision for the future.
Most of the session was structured as a brainstorming session, and each group concluded by
identifying its top issues.
The following are the two groups’ top issues, in no particular order:
•
Special events – bring people downtown
•
Utility improvements needed – sewer and water
•
Business mix downtown – create a destination downtown
•
Improve downtown’s visibility from M-15
•
Preserve community architectural character
•
Preserve the history and heritage of Ortonville
•
Improve pedestrian connectivity throughout the community
•
Limit multiple-family housing
•
Encourage senior housing downtown
MASTER PLAN
A.1
A.1
APPENDIX A
Participant Survey Results
Survey Results
The participant survey included nine questions meant to get a better picture of who attended future
days, why they chose to live in Ortonville, and where they work, shop, and recreate. The results of
those nine questions are as follows:
1. What is your age?
70 o r o l d er
0
4
60-69
50 - 59
Lots of Baby Boomers, with a
couple of Gen. X and
Millennials.
13
3
40-49
2
30-39
0
19 - 2 9
2
U nd er 19
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2. Where do you live?
1
O t her
Elsew her e
G enessee C o .
Not surprisingly, most of the
respondents are residents of
Ortonville, but other
communities were
represented, as well.
2
El sewher e
Oakl and C o .
1
G r o veland
T o w nshi p
2
B r and o n
T o wnshi p
0
18
O r t o nvi ll e
0
5
10
15
20
3. What is the single most important reason you chose to live where you live?
2
O t her
4
R ur al char act er
2
Hist o r i c vi l lag e char act er
While there were a variety of
responses to this question, the
quality and pace of life was the
most popular response to this
question.
0
Envi r o nment al q uali t y
8
Q ual i t y and p ace o f li f e
Lo w cr ime
1
C o st o f li vi ng / ho usi ng co st s
1
3
Scho o l s
1
F ami l y near b y
0
C l o se t o w o r k
0
A.2
A.2
2
4
6
8
ORTONVILLE
10
APPENDIX A
4. How long have you lived where you live?
11
mo r e t han 15 year s
4
11- 15 year s
Most respondents have lived
in the community for more
than 10 years, although a
significant amount of
respondents have lived here 35 years.
1
6 - 10 year s
7
3 - 5 year s
1- 2 year s
0
less t han 1 year
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
5. How long do you intend to live where you live?
16
mo r e t han 15 year s
3
11- 15 mo r e year s
Most respondents intend to
stay where they’re at. Clearly,
those who are invested in the
community are the ones who
showed up for Future Days.
6 - 10 mo r e year s
2
3 - 5 mo r e year s
2
1- 2 mo r e year s
0
l ess t han 1 mo r e
year
0
0
5
10
15
20
6. Where is the location of your primary employment?
0
W ayne
2
G enessee
Most respondents work in
northern Oakland County –
defined as Ortonville, Holly,
Oxford, etc.
Li vi ng st o n
0
M aco mb
0
1
So ut hw est Oakland
2
So ut heast Oakland
1
C ent r al Oakland
13
N o r t her n Oakland
0
MASTER PLAN
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
A.3
A.3
APPENDIX A
7. In the past 5-10 years, Ortonville has become:
3
D o n' t kno w
Good news – most
respondents seem happy with
how Ortonville has grown and
changed (or not changed) over
the past decade or so.
R emained t he
same
9
Less o f a p lace I
w ant t o l i ve
3
M o r e o f a p lace I
w ant t o li ve
8
0
2
4
6
8
10
8. Where do you most often go for entertainment/dining out/recreation, etc.?
O t her
Ortonville holds its own, but
many residents are traveling to
other communities for
entertainment or dining.
There is an opportunity to fill
that niche within the Village –
and to attract residents from
other communities.
7
9
A ub ur n Hi l l s/ Po nt i ac
Lake O r io n
0
O xf o r d
0
Ho l l y
0
2
C l ar kst o n
5
O r t o nvi ll e
0
2
4
6
8
10
9. Where do you most often go to shop?
5
O t her
There is an opportunity to
capture some of the dollars
that are being spent outside of
the community IF new
commercial businesses locate
in Ortonville.
A ub ur n
Hil l s/ Po nt i ac
12
0
Ho l ly
1
C l ar kst o n
4
M - 15
0
O r t o nvi l le
0
A.4
A.4
2
4
6
8
10
12
ORTONVILLE
14
APPENDIX A
General Comments
Participants were also given the opportunity to provide written comments pertaining to the
information presented at Future Days. The following is an unedited reporting of those comments:
Demographics and Housing Comments
•
I’m surprised the average household size is 2.8. I thought it would be bigger since the
chart says many of the households are families.
•
Limit multiple housing.
•
We love our home and the Village – I wouldn’t trade it to be closer to work and the
traffic that goes with it!
•
Blight needs to be addressed! Visual appearance is extremely important! Drive by
perception affects Ortonville’s image!
Existing Land Use Comments
•
No Sam’s Club or “big box” stores.
•
Need more shopping – larger districts in the downtown. Need better quality of face of
buildings and sidewalks.
•
Limit sprawl! Business owners should comply with putting money back into their
business to improve appearances!
•
Leave as is, with more sidewalks to connect existing neighborhoods to downtown.
•
No trails and walkways in the woods! Use the existing trails off sands and trails at the
Hadley Road Park.
Natural Features Comments
•
I’m very interested in the non-motorized trails. I would be interested in “safe pathways,”
equestrian pathways, any version of the trails.
•
Still lots of open area and large residential lots – like 2.5 acres.
•
Keep Village as natural as possible. Keep or improve the small town charm!
•
Kearsley/Duck Creek corridors are sensitive habitats that really need to be evaluated for
water quality protection, wildlife habitat, streambank conditions, maybe trails or some
way for people to get close to the creek and enjoy it. Then if some changes are needed or
wanted, a riparian corridor plan could be developed. Same for the Village parklands,
although the issues and concerns are somewhat different.
•
Leave most as is. No trails are needed, we have an abundance of existing trails now.
MASTER PLAN
A.5
A.5
APPENDIX A
Utilities and Sewer Comments
•
We need a new sewer plan in order to grow our business district, specifically the DDA
district.
•
Sewer is the #1 must have.
•
I feel it is necessary for the Township – not just the Village.
•
We need sewer yesterday!
•
We need it.
•
The plan needs to include village residents. Bring them along for the planning ride! It
will improve voting participation and help for an informed vote.
•
Most people believe that public sewer systems, and maybe the public water system, are
necessary to accommodate business and residential growth or development. This may be
true. Another reason for sewage treatment is to protect the quality of water in the creeks
and lakes, and groundwater.
•
Sewers are a must environmentally. But they also can bring unwanted growth –
residential and commercial.
•
Need to look at all aspects/solutions. Business District NEEDS something NOW!
Opportunities and Constraints Comments
•
I don’t believe business will want to come out here until we solve the sewer issue. Would
also like to see Ortonville/Brandon get hydrants/water for better fire rating.
•
All communities need to work together. DDA/Brandon Township/Village
Council/Planning Commission.
•
How can we make it easer or more desirable to attract people into downtown? Are there
any obstacles to bringing in new businesses? Public sewage and water apparently are
obstacles. What about availability of space for any new commercial buildings or senior
apartments, etc.?
•
Need to develop more uniform storefronts/landscaping downtown.
•
Great opportunities, but need better promotion.
Historic Resources Inventory Comments
A.6
A.6
•
I’d love to see an Historic District
•
Need to be kept.
•
Keep preserved all historic sites and buildings.
ORTONVILLE
APPENDIX A
Visual Preference Survey Results
The Visual Preference survey showed a series of 100 images that represented different development
possibilities for the Village. Respondents were asked to rate the image based on how appropriate
they though it was for Ortonville – in other words, highly rated images represent a desirable
development pattern for the future of Ortonville while lowly rated images indicate what should not
be permitted in the Village.
The rating scale ranged from -10 for wildly inappropriate images to +10 for very appropriate images.
The images were categorized into three groups – residential, community character, and nonresidential/mixed-use. What follows are the top 5 and bottom 5 images within each category, along
with a brief description of what the image is showing and what the implications are for Ortonville’s
future development.
A note regarding the standard deviation – the standard deviation is a measure of how wide the
“spread” of scores was for a particular image. Basically, you can assume that the vast majority of
scores were located within one standard deviation of the mean. If an image received very similar
scores from all respondents, the standard deviation will be a small number; however, if the standard
deviation is a large number, it indicates that there was a large range of scores given to a particular
image. In other words, a high standard deviation means that different respondents had very
different opinions of the image.
MASTER PLAN
A.7
A.7
APPENDIX A
IMAGE
MEAN
7.0
(2.4)
HIGHEST RATED RESIDENTIAL IMAGES
COMMENTS
(STD. DEV.)
6.8
(2.5)
5.6
(4.1)
•
Historic character is the common thread
that unites 4 out of the 5 most preferred
residential images.
•
Historic Michigan small-town building
details, including the use of clapboard
siding, was well received by respondents.
•
Potential building design guidelines for the
Village should encourage vernacular
architecture that respects the historic
character of existing neighborhoods.
•
The image of the residential street includes
the following key characteristics:
o Narrow pavement width (no more
than 26 feet wide from back of curb to
back of curb)
o Curb and gutter
o Sidewalks
o Ample street trees
o On-street parking on both sides of the
street
5.5
(3.3)
5.4
(3.7)
A.8
A.8
ORTONVILLE
APPENDIX A
IMAGE
MEAN
COMMENTS
(STD. DEV.)
•
-3.1
Residents clearly felt that single-use
multiple family residential buildings are not
appropriate in the Village.
LOWEST RATED RESIDENTIAL IMAGES
(5.1)
-3.8
(5.7)
-3.9
(5.4)
-3.9
(5.8)
-4.3
(5.5)
MASTER PLAN
A.9
A.9
APPENDIX A
IMAGE
MEAN
COMMENTS
(STD. DEV.)
•
The highest rated community character
images depict unspoiled natural features
and pedestrian oriented community
amenities.
•
Preservation of natural features in the
Village must be a high priority.
•
Completion of a network of sidewalks and
pedestrian pathways that provide access to
all points in the Village, as well as connect
to regional trail systems and points of
interest, must also be a high priority.
7.2
HIGHEST RATED COMMUNITY CHARACTER IMAGES
(2.2)
6.7
(2.7)
6.5
(2.9)
6.0
(3.0)
5.9
(3.4)
A.10
A.10
ORTONVILLE
APPENDIX A
IMAGE
MEAN
COMMENTS
(STD. DEV.)
•
The lowest rated community character
images all depict very suburban
development patterns and elements, with
the exception of the traditional town
square.
•
Respondents reacted negatively to
“standard” development character from
suburban communities.
•
It is likely that the 4-story building in the
town square image and its connotation of
density had something to do with the low
scores for that image.
0.0
LOWEST RATED COMMUNITY CHARACTER IMAGES
(5.1)
-0.9
(6.5)
-0.9
(6.1)
-2.2
(5.1)
-4.8
(5.2)
MASTER PLAN
A.11
A.11
APPENDIX A
IMAGE
MEAN
COMMENTS
(STD. DEV.)
•
The highest-rated non-residential/mixeduse images all depict pedestrian-scale
downtown development.
•
Importantly, all of the images include
primarily 2-story buildings, with a few 3story buildings being the exception, not the
rule.
•
The results indicate that new nonresidential or mixed–use development in
Ortonville should have a pedestrian
orientation with traditional building
proportions and relationships to the street.
•
New non-residential or mixed-use
development should not be too massive or
tall, however. Refer to the lowest rated
non-residential/mixed-use images on the
following page for confirmation of this
fact.
•
Buildings shown in these images can
contain multiple-family residential units.
•
Strip commercial should be limited in the
Village.
HIGHEST RATED NON-RESIDENTIAL/MIXED-USE IMAGES
4.5
(5.1)
4.1
(5.0)
4.1
(4.5)
3.1
(4.4)
2.9
(6.4)
A.12
A.12
ORTONVILLE
APPENDIX A
IMAGE
MEAN
COMMENTS
(STD. DEV.)
•
The lowest rated non-residential/mixeduse images include both automobileoriented single-use commercial
development and urban-scale mixed-use
buildings.
•
The lowest rated images were the urbanscale mixed-use buildings, suggesting that
there is no tolerance for density in the
Village. As noted on the previous page,
smaller scale “main-street” buildings were
well received, but images with building
heights of 3 or more stories were deemed
inappropriate.
•
Typical suburban-style commercial
buildings were also poorly received.
LOWEST RATED NON-RESIDENTIAL/MIXED-USE IMAGES
-3.5
(4.6)
-4.1
(5.0)
-4.2
(4.7)
-4.6
(5.4)
-4.8
(4.8)
Conclusions
MASTER PLAN
A.13
A.13
APPENDIX A
Sanitary sewer is a very important issue. Future Days participants were very much in favor of
bringing sewer to the Village.
New development in the downtown area should primarily be two stories or lower. Some
three story buildings may be appropriate, as long as they are used only in key location and are the
exception and not the rule.
Many area residents are traveling to other communities for shopping, dining out, entertainment, etc.
There are opportunities to provide additional services in downtown Ortonville, although
without sewer potential for new development or new uses is limited.
Improving pedestrian connectivity throughout the Village, and linking the Village to regional
points of interest such as the Holly and Ortonville recreation areas and the Oakland County trail
network should be a high priority.
New residential development in the Village should be compatible with existing character.
The Village may want to consider adopting design guidelines to encourage appropriate development.
New residential development should be single-family in nature.
Multiple-family housing is not desired, although there may be opportunity to accommodate new
upstairs apartments in the downtown area.
Senior housing is desirable, provided that the building has a proper scale and character. A highrise senior tower would not be appropriate in Ortonville.
A.14
A.14
ORTONVILLE
Appendix B
Historic Preservation Survey Forms
The following pages contain the historic preservation survey forms documenting potentially historic
structures in the Village.
MASTER PLAN
A.15
A.15
Village of Ortonville Master Plan
Building Survey
Date of Survey:
9/27/07
Surveyor: Lorri Sipes, FAIA
Building Number: 1
Address: 5 Church Street, Ortonville, Brandon Township, Oakland County, Michigan
Historic Name: unknown
Common Name: unknown
Approximate Date of Construction: 1890’s
Architectural Style: Victorian Vernacular
Foundation: Stone
Walls: Aluminum siding
Roof: Gable and hip with asphalt shingles
Descriptive Notes: This is a two-story residence at the eastern end of the main
commercial street. It is currently occupied. It retains its original use as a residence. It is
in good condition.
Historic Assessment: Although the building is over 50 years old, it historic integrity has
been lost with the addition of aluminum siding and numerous changes. It might be a
contributing building in a potential downtown or residential historic district.
Building Survey
Date of Survey:
9/27/07
Building Number: 25
Address: 90 Church Street, Ortonville, Brandon Township, Oakland County, Michigan
Historic Name: Methodist Episcopal Church
Common Name: Ortonville United Methodist Church
Approximate Date of Construction: 1879, moved to this site in 1887
Architectural Style: Victorian Gothic with Italianate influences
Foundation:
Walls:
Roof:
Not visible
Horizontal wood siding
Gable with asphalt (standing seam metal on additions).
Descriptive Notes: This is a two-story church. It is currently occupied. It retains its
original religious use. It is in good condition.
Historic Assessment: Although some portions have been remodeled, much of the
original material remains intact. This is an excellent example of its style and an
important historic building.
Building Survey
Date of Survey:
9/27/07
Building Number: 15
Address: 331 Mill Street, Ortonville, Brandon Township, Oakland County, Michigan
Historic Name: Burt Auto Dealership
Common Name: Village Guitar
Approximate Date of Construction: 1915 (rear portion) and 1960’s (front portion)
Architectural Style: Modern
Foundation:
Walls:
Roof:
Concrete block
Vertical plywood with Mansard roof with asphalt shingles.
Arched trusses (rear) with asphalt shingles.
Descriptive Notes: This is a one-story commercial office building set back from the
sidewalk, giving it a sub-urban orientation with parking on site. It is currently occupied.
It retains its original commercial use. It is in good condition.
Historic Assessment: Although the rear portion of the building appears to be over 50
years old, with its addition and current exterior materials, this building does not have
historic value.
Building Survey
Date of Survey:
9/27/07
Building Number: 14
Common Name: Health Care Reimbursement Solutions
Approximate Date of Construction: 1970-1980
Foundation:
Walls:
Roof:
Not visible
Horizontal wood siding, painted.
Gable with asphalt shingles.
Descriptive Notes: This is a one-story commercial office building set back from the
Historic Assessment: This building does not have historic value.
Building Survey
Date of Survey:
9/27/07
Building Number: 18
Address: Mill Street, Ortonville, Brandon Township, Oakland County, Michigan
Historic Name: _________________________________________________
Common Name: Mill Street Psychiatric and Medical Clinic
Approximate Date of Construction: unknown
Architectural Style: Commercial
Foundation:
Walls:
Roof:
Not visible
Plywood (T-111) plywood, painted
Flat (pitched to rear).
Descriptive Notes: This is a one-story commercial building. It is currently occupied. It
retains its original commercial use. It is in good condition.
Historic Assessment: The date of construction of this building cannot be assessed. It
would not be a contributing building in a potential downtown historic district.
Building Survey
Date of Survey:
9/27/07
Building Number: 13
Common Name: Art of Life
Foundation:
Walls:
Roof:
Not visible
Brick, aluminum siding, Mansard roof with asphalt shingles.
Flat with rubber roofing
Descriptive Notes: This is a two-story commercial office building set back from the
Historic Assessment: This building does not have historic value. It appears to have
been built adjacent to the former Sinclair gas station to the west.
Building Survey
Date of Survey:
9/27/07
Building Number: 12
Historic Name: Brandon Township Hall (original location of DUR depot)
Common Name: Brandon Township Hall
Foundation:
Walls:
Roof:
Not visible
Brick, asphalt shingles on mansard roof and alum. siding
Descriptive Notes: This is a one-story civic office building that sits behind the buildings
on Mill Street in a sub-urban setting (on-site parking). It is currently occupied. It retains
its original civic use. It is in fair condition (asphalt roofing has failed).
Historic Assessment: This building does not have historic value.
Building Survey
Date of Survey:
9/27/07
Building Number: 11
Historic Name: Inscho Tavern
Common Name: Village Pub
Approximate Date of Construction: 1900
Architectural Style: Victorian Commercial suspected beneath remodeling
Foundation:
Walls:
Roof:
Not visible
Plywood and Mansard roof over original brick (as seen on back)
Descriptive Notes: This is a two-story commercial building that has been severely
remodeled. It is currently occupied. It retains its original commercial use. It is in good
condition.
Historic Assessment: Although the building appears to be over 50 years old, it’s historic
integrity has been lost with the addition of a mansard roof, sliding glass doors and a
plywood front. It would not be a contributing building in a potential downtown historic
district.
Building Survey
Date of Survey:
9/27/07
Building Number: 10
Common Name: Northwest Heating and Cooling Inc.
Architectural Style: Modern Commercial
Foundation:
Walls:
Roof:
Not visible
Brick, fixed aluminum windows, canopies
Flat with rubber roofing - metal copings are rusting
Descriptive Notes: This is a new (infill) two-story commercial building that appears to be
one of three built at the same time in this block. It is currently occupied. It retains its
original commercial use. It is in good condition.
Historic Assessment: This is a new building that was designed to fit well within the
historic character of the block with narrow store fronts. It would not be a contributing
building to a downtown historic district.
Building Survey
Date of Survey:
9/27/07
Building Number: 9
Common Name: The Village Photographer
Foundation:
Walls:
Roof:
Not visible
Building Survey
Date of Survey:
9/27/07
Building Number: 19
Historic Name: State Bank of Ortonville
Common Name: Hagerty Insurance Company
Approximate Date of Construction: 1870-1890’s. Concrete window sills and steel lintels
however may push the date of construction toward 1910.
Architectural Style: Victorian Commercial
Foundation:
Walls:
Roof:
Masonry
Brick
Flat with rubber (pitched to rear).
Descriptive Notes: This is a two-story commercial building. It is currently occupied. It
retains its original commercial use. It is in good condition but has lost its original upper
cornice. It has a wonderful storefront in original design.
Historic Assessment: Much of the original material remains intact. Its associative value
(Post Office, telephone switch board) make it a contributing building in a downtown
historic district.
Building Survey
Date of Survey:
9/27/07
Building Number: 8
Common Name: Papa Bella’s Pizza
Foundation:
Walls:
Roof:
Not visible
Building Survey
Date of Survey:
9/27/07
Building Number: 7
Historic Name: Brigham-Kohn Drug Store
Common Name: Bonner Jewelers
Approximate Date of Construction: 1870-1890’s
Architectural Style: Victorian Commercial
Foundation:
Walls:
Roof:
Not visible
Brick
Flat with rubber roofing (extending over coping stones)
Descriptive Notes: This is a delightful two-story commercial building. It is currently
occupied. It retains its original commercial use. It is in fair condition with brick
deterioration due to water infiltration on the east facade.
Historic Assessment: Although the storefront has been remodeled, much of the original
material remains intact. This building would be the centerpiece of a downtown historic
district.
Building Survey
Date of Survey:
9/27/07
Building Number: 6
Common Name: Brandon Martial Arts
Approximate Date of Construction: unknown
Architectural Style: Vernacular Commercial but severely remodeled
Foundation:
Walls:
Roof:
Not visible
Plywood siding, painted
Descriptive Notes: This is a one-story commercial building. It is currently occupied. It
retains its original commercial use. It is in fair condition.
Historic Assessment: Although the building appears to be over 50 years old, all
evidence of original materials have been lost. It may be part of the collection of falsefront commercial structures in this block, but without further research it is impossible to
tell. In its current condition it would probably not be a contributing building in a potential
downtown historic district.
Building Survey
Date of Survey:
9/27/07
Building Number: 5
Common Name: Bead Shop
Approximate Date of Construction: Between 1940 and 1950
Architectural Style: Vernacular Commercial
Foundation:
Walls:
Roof:
Concrete block
Concrete block, painted
Flat (pitched to rear) with built-up roofing, clay tile parapet coping.
Descriptive Notes: This is a very simple one-story commercial building. It is currently
occupied. It retains its original commercial use. It is in good condition.
Historic Assessment: Although the building appears to be over 50 years old, it would
probably not be a contributing building in a potential downtown historic district.
Building Survey
Date of Survey:
9/27/07
Building No: 4
Historic Name: Crossman Mortuary
Common Name: None
Foundation:
Walls:
Roof:
Concrete
Clay tile, painted
Standing seam metal
Descriptive Notes: This is a two-story commercial building. It is currently un-occupied.
Historic Assessment: The building appears to be over 50 years old and the original
historic material remains intact. It would be a contributing building in a potential
downtown historic district. It also appears to be part of an interesting collection of falsefront commercial buildings in this block of Mill Street, and is a good example of that style.
Building Survey
Date of Survey:
9/27/07
Building No: 3
Historic Name: C.F. Smith Grocery Store - John Waltz, Proprietor
Common Name: Mill Street Market
Foundation:
Walls:
Roof:
Not visible
Fiber siding on horizontal shiplap wood siding
Gable with asphalt shingles
retains its original commercial use. It is in fair condition.
Historic Assessment: Although the building appears to be over 50 years old, it has been
covered with aluminum siding and it is unknown if original material is underneath. It
might be a contributing building in a potential downtown historic district. It also appears
to be part of an interesting collection of false-front commercial buildings in this block of
Mill Street, and may be an excellent example of that style if restored.
Building Survey
Date of Survey:
9/27/07
Building Number: 2
Common Name: Hamilton’s Feed and Fuel
Approximate Date of Construction: 1870’s (similar building at this site appears on 1877
plat map)
Foundation:
Walls:
Roof:
Not visible
Aluminum Siding
Gable with asphalt shingles
Descriptive Notes: This is a one-story commercial building at the eastern end of the
main commercial street. It is currently occupied. It retains its original commercial use. It
is in good condition. It has a gambrel roofed barn behind.
Historic Assessment: Although the building appears to be over 50 years old, it has been
covered with aluminum siding and it is unknown if original material is underneath. It
might be a contributing building in a potential downtown historic district. It also appears
to be part of an interesting collection of false-front commercial buildings in this block of
Mill Street.
Building Survey
Date of Survey:
9/27/07
Building No: 20
Historic Name: Ortonville Post Office
Common Name: Mabelena Quilting
Architectural Style: Colonial Revival
Foundation:
Walls:
Roof:
unknown
Brick
Gable with asphalt
Descriptive Notes: This is a one-story free-standing commercial building. It is currently
occupied. It is in good condition.
Historic Assessment: The building is over 50 years old and the original material remains
intact. It may have historic associative value and might be a contributing building in a
potential downtown historic district.
Building Survey
Date of Survey:
9/27/07
Building No: 21
Historic Name: Ortonville Library
Common Name: Ortonville Village Offices
Architectural Style: Colonial Revival
Foundation:
Walls:
Roof:
unknown
Brick
Gable with asphalt
Descriptive Notes: This is a one-story free-standing commercial building. It is currently
occupied. It is in good condition.
Historic Assessment: The building is over 50 years old and the original historic material
remains intact. It may have associative historic value and might be a contributing
building in a potential downtown historic district.
Building Survey
Date of Survey:
9/27/07
Building No: 22
Address: ??? Mill Street, Ortonville, Brandon Township, Oakland County, Michigan
Historic Name: Brandon Township Hall
Common Name: Township Hall
Approximate Date of Construction: 1868 with later additions
Architectural Style: Victorian Vernacular with non-original Greek Revival porch
Foundation:
Walls:
Roof:
Stone
Vertical metal siding over original wood, probably horizontal
Gable with asphalt
Descriptive Notes: This is a one-story civic building. It is currently occupied. It was built
as a civic building. It is in good condition. The front porch is non-original (galvanized
metal columns).
Historic Assessment: The building is clearly historic for its function, however its integrity
has been lost with the addition of metal siding and addition of the porch. It may be a
contributing building in a potential downtown historic district if restored.
Building Survey
Date of Survey:
9/27/07
Building Number: 23
Address: 26 South Street, Ortonville, Brandon Township, Oakland County, Michigan
Historic Name: Ortonville Lodge No. 339 F&A.M.
Common Name: Ortonville Lodge No. 339 F&A.M
Approximate Date of Construction: 1910 (building cornerstone)
Foundation:
Walls:
Roof:
Concrete
Concrete block covered on the front with brick and siding.
Shallow gable with asphalt.
retains its original commercial use. It is in good condition. The front parapet has been
severely modified.
Historic Assessment: Although this building is over 50 years old, its historic integrity has
been lost with the addition of a new facade. It would be a contributing building to a
downtown historic district if restored.
Building Survey
Date of Survey:
9/27/07
Grondin House
John Narrin House
Building Numbers:
32, 30, 31, 35 and 34
Address: Mill Street, Ortonville, Brandon
Township, Oakland County, Michigan
James and Clara Staples
House
Historic Name of District: unknown
Common Name: Mill Street Residential District
Building Survey
Date of Survey:
9/27/07
Bungalow
Vernacular Cube
Vernacular Cobblestone
Vernacular Barn
Early Ranch
Bungalow
Building Numbers: 27, 28, 29, 33, 36, 41
Addresses: Church, Cedar and Ball Streets, Ortonville, Brandon Township, Oakland
County, Michigan
Building Survey
Date of Survey:
9/27/07
Amos Orton started construction in late
1850s. Samual Markham finished it in
1870s.
Sears kit house built in the 1920s.
Building Numbers: 37, 38, 39 and 40
Address: 92, 108, 152 and 162 South Street, Ortonville, Brandon Township, Oakland
County, Michigan
Common Name: South Street Residential District
Architectural Styles: Variety including Greek Revival and Bungalow
Foundations: unknown
Walls: Wood Siding
Roofs: Gable and hip with asphalt shingles
Building Survey
Date of Survey:
9/27/07
Building Number: 17
Historic Name: Mann School
Common Name: Mann School
Approximate Date of Construction: 1879 - moved to this location in 1996.
Architectural Style: Vernacular School
Foundation:
Walls:
Roof:
Concrete (new)
Wood board/batten siding, painted.
Descriptive Notes: This is a one-story civic building that was moved to this site 11 years
ago. It is owned by the Ortonville HIstorical Society. It is in good condition. The
outhouse was also moved to the site.
Historic Assessment: This is an important building in local history, but because it has
been moved from its original setting, it is not eligible for historic designation.
Building Survey
Date of Survey:
9/27/07
Building Number: 16
Historic Name: The Ortonville Mill
Common Name: The Old Mill
Approximate Date of Construction: 1856 (plaque)
Architectural Style: Greek Revival
Foundation:
Walls:
Roof:
Stone
Wood siding, painted (horizontal on earliest portions, board/batten
additions).
Descriptive Notes: This is a three-story commercial office building set flush to the street
with parking behind. It is currently occupied by the Ortonville Historical Society. It is in
good condition. There are four additions to the original building.
Historic Assessment: Listed on the National and State Registers of Historic Places, this
is the building that established downtown Ortonville and remains the centerpiece of its
history.
Appendix C
Establishing a Local Historic District
It is important that the process for establishing a local historic district be closely followed when
creating a local historic district to ensure a solid legal foundation for the district. One of the reasons
an existing historic district can be eliminated, if its creation is ever challenged in court, is that it was
created using improper procedures. Public Act 169 of 1970, as amended (PA 169) does not stipulate
a timeframe for conducting the study. The study process will usually take six months to a year to
complete. It is important for the committee to be timely in completing the work. Dragging the
process out will result in the community’s loss of confidence in and enthusiasm for the project. The
study committee should always act in a professional manner. If they are unable to complete the
work in a year, at the end of that time they should provide to the local unit of government a written
report on the committee’s progress to date and include a reasonable timeframe for completion of
the work.
Step 1:
Obtain Resolution from Local Unit of Government to Conduct a Historic
District Study
Any individual or group can approach the legislative body of a local unit of government (city,
township, or county) and request that an area be studied to determine its historic significance. If the
legislative body votes to approve the request for the study, they adopt a resolution that gives the
authority to conduct the study to a historic district study committee. Contact the clerk’s office of the
local unit of government where the proposed historic district is located to find out the procedure for
requesting a resolution for a historic district study.
Step 2: Appointment of a Historic District Study Committee
The legislative body of the local unit of government is responsible for appointing the members of
the historic district study committee. PA 169 as amended requires that the study committee “contain
a majority of persons who have a clearly demonstrated interest in or knowledge of historic
preservation.” The individual or group requesting the historic district study may provide the
legislative body with the names of potential committee members when the request for a resolution is
made since local officials may not be familiar with individuals that have the qualifications to serve on
the committee. However, the final decision on membership is up to the local unit of government. If
it chooses to do so, a community can appointment a standing committee to study proposed historic
districts.
PA 169 does not specify the number of study committee members that should be appointed. This
depends on the size and complexity of the district, how much time people have to devote to the
project, and the type of expertise needed to complete the study. Typically, study committees range in
size from five to seven members. Study committee members do not have to be residents of the
proposed district under study or even the local community. For example, if the study required the
expertise of a professional on a specific subject, such as railroads, a professor at a university outside
MASTER PLAN
A.43
A.43
APPENDIX C
of the community could be asked to sit on the committee. It is, however, a good idea to include at
least one resident of the proposed district on the study committee so that the neighborhood has
input into the official process. Try to include members on the historic district study committee that
have a wide range of skills, such as computer technology, photography, planning, research, or
knowledge of architectural styles or local history, that will be of use in the collection, analysis, and
organization of historic data.
If a community already has a designated local historic district and wishes to establish a new one, it is
acceptable to have a representative from the historic district commission serve on a historic district
study committee. However, it is NOT recommended that the two bodies be made up of exactly the
same members. It could be perceived as a conflict of interest if the regulatory body (the historic
district commission) and the body making recommendations for a district’s establishment (the
historic district study committee) are composed of the same individuals.
Step 3:
The Historic Resource Survey: Photographic Inventory and Historic
Research
PA 169 requires the historic study committee to do a photographic inventory of resources in the
proposed district. This inventory is called a historic resource survey and instructions for conducting
the survey can be found in the Manual for Historic and Architectural Surveys in Michigan (available from
the State Historic Preservation Office). Each resource in the district is photographed and the
photograph is linked to a data sheet that provides information about the resource and its history.
The data sheets are bound together, with a narrative history of the district, to create a historic
resource survey report. It is important to remember that the historic resource survey report is NOT
the historic district study committee report. The survey provides the raw data and background
information that is then analyzed and presented in the study committee report. The study committee
report should summarize the information found during the survey and highlight specific properties
in the district.
The study committee can do the photographic inventory or research work itself or use volunteers. A
municipality will often hire a professional consultant to do the work. No matter who collects the
data, it is the responsibility of the historic district study committee to monitor the quality of the
work to make sure it meets the requirements set forth in Section 399.203 of PA 169.
Step 4:
Evaluate the Resources in the Proposed District
Resources in a proposed district are evaluated individually using the criteria established by the
Secretary of the Interior for the National Register of Historic Places to determine if they are historic
(contributing) or non-historic (non-contributing). These criteria include: association with a
significant person or event, significant design and construction, or the ability to yield more
information. Evaluation also requires assessing a resource using the seven aspects of integrity
established by the Secretary of the Interior: location, design, setting, workmanship, feeling, materials,
and association. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation
discusses the criteria in detail.
The end result of the evaluation will be:
A.44
A.44
ORTONVILLE
APPENDIX C
•
•
•
a list of the historic (contributing) and a list of non-historic (non-contributing) properties
in the district by street number and address,
the proposed boundaries for the district, and
a significance statement for the district that states which National Register criteria the
district meets and why.
There is no set formula or percentage for determining how many individual historic resources a
proposed district must have to be determined historically significant. However, the evaluation
should show that a strong concentration of resources retaining material integrity exists.
Step 5:
Prepare a Preliminary Historic District Study Committee Report
Michigan’s Local Historic Districts Act cites six minimum requirements for inclusion in the historic
district study committee report: 1) charge of the committee, 2) composition of the study committee
membership, 3) the name of the historic district studied, 4) a written and visual depiction of the
district boundaries, 5) the history of the proposed district, and 6) significance of the district as a
whole and individual representative resources in the district. Criteria established by the State Historic
Preservation Office in 2002 require that the written boundary description in the report be a legal
description and that the report includes a boundary justification statement. The criteria also require
the inclusion of streetscape photographs for individual resource districts. A separate chapter on how
to write a historic district study committee report is included in this publication.
Step 6:
Transmittal and Review of the Preliminary Study Committee Report
PA 169 requires that the study committee report be officially transmitted (mailed) to the following:
•
Local Planning Body. The purpose of transmitting the report to the local planning
body is to call attention to the fact that there is a potential historic district in an area.
This allows planners to take historic resources into consideration when reviewing
planning issues or development projects that might affect those resources.
•
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The SHPO reviews the report to ensure
that it fulfills the six requirements set forth in PA 169; is a document that can stand up in
court should the establishment of the district ever be challenged; is a well-organized,
stand-alone document; and provides a strong significance statement and boundary
justification so that readers understand why a property was included in or excluded from
the district.
•
The Michigan Historical Commission and the State Historic Preservation Review
Board. The members of these boards may have specialized knowledge of the proposed
district and can offer comments about where sources of information can be found. Or,
they may question how boundaries were determined. The Michigan Historical
Commission meets monthly while the State Historic Preservation Review Board meets
three times a year. The SHPO serves as the liaison between the historic district study
committee and these advisory boards. One copy of the study committee report should
be submitted to the SHPO. The SHPO is responsible for distributing the report to the
Commission and Review Board.
MASTER PLAN
A.45
A.45
APPENDIX C
None of the reviewing agencies is approving or rejecting the report. They are only offering
comments and suggestions, based on their areas of expertise, in an effort to strengthen and improve
the report.
Step 7:
Public Hearing
The historic district study committee is required to hold a public hearing to allow the public to
comment on the preliminary historic district study committee report. The study committee must
wait at least 60 calendar days after the date the preliminary report is transmitted to the four agencies
listed above before the hearing can be held. Property owners in the district must be notified of the
hearing by first class mail at least 14 days before the date of the hearing. The hearing must be held in
accordance with the Open Meetings Act, Public 276 of 1976. See Section 399.203 of Public Act 169
of 1970 as amended for details of the hearing notification process.
Educating the public about the historic significance of the proposed district is a primary
responsibility of the historic district study committee. The public hearing should not be the first time
the public is informed of the study. The committee should include the public in the study process
from the beginning, as soon as the decision is made by the local unit of government to undertake
the study. Including the public in the process will help to increase their understanding and
acceptance of the district designation.
At the public hearing, in addition to presenting the history of the district the study committee should
be prepared to answer questions about what it means to live in a historic district—the benefits and
drawbacks, how a historic district commission operates, and the type of work the commission
reviews. Committee members should be prepared for both positive and negative responses to
establishing a district. It may be helpful to have on hand a representative from an existing historic
district commission that can speak with experience about procedures and issues relating to local
historic districts.
Step 8:
Prepare the Final Historic District Study Committee Report and Draft
Historic District Ordinance
The historic district study committee has up to one year from the date of the public hearing to
prepare a final report that incorporates the comments and suggestions from the public and the four
agencies to which the report was officially transmitted. During that time, a historic district ordinance
must be prepared so that it is ready and available for the local unit of government to adopt should it
vote to establish the historic district. The historic district study committee, in conjunction with the
attorney for the local unit of government, usually prepares the local historic district ordinance. The
SHPO has developed a model historic district ordinance that can be adapted for a community. A
local historic district ordinance should follow the language of Public Act 169 as closely as possible to
ensure procedures are consistent with the law.
A.46
A.46
ORTONVILLE
APPENDIX C
Step 9:
Adoption of the Historic District Ordinance and Appointment of the
Historic District Commission
The local unit of government makes the decision to adopt or reject the establishment of the local
historic district at the time the final report is presented to them. If the local unit votes to establish a
local historic district, then a historic district ordinance must be adopted and a historic district
commission must be appointed at the time the district is approved.
The study committee should provide a list of potential historic district commission candidates that
meet the qualifications set forth in PA 169 to the local unit of government along with the ordinance.
The process for establishing a local historic district is found in Section 399.203 of Michigan’s Local
Historic Districts Act, Public Act 169 of 1970, as amended.
MASTER PLAN
A.47
A.47
Community Planning Consultant
McKENNA ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED
Community Planning – Urban Design – Landscape Architecture
235 East Main Street, Suite 105
Northville, Michigan 48167
Telephone: 248-596-0920
Fax: 248-596-0930
Website: www.mcka.com
Phillip C. McKenna, PCP, AICP ........................................................................President
Sara J. Hodges, AICP..............................................................................Project Director
James C. Breuckman, AICP ................................................................. Project Manager
Charles F. Smith, ASLA, AICP.............................................................Downtown Design
Sabah Aboody-Keer ................................................................................... GIS Mapping
Andrew Robertson..................................................Graphic Support and Cover Design
Kacy Smith................................................................................. Administrative Support
Lisa Zanetti ................................................................................ Administrative Support
SUBCONSULTANTS
Lorri Sipes, FAIA ............................................................................Historic Preservation
Hubbell, Roth & Clark ............................................ Transportation & Civil Engineering

ORTONVILLEMASTERPLAN-2015extended

Transcription

Similar documents

Listing Flyer - 1221 S Ortonville Rd

Belstone - Dartmoor National Park

Offham Parish Council “Our Village” photo competition

VM - Village Market

versione PDF - Appartamenti Casa vacanza Kaporo

Operation Re a šomaContinues……..

Where Historic Charm Meets Modern Comfort. Historic Smithton Inn

AIRTROL - FLUID POWER

Dalmatisch stenen huis | U823 (6+2)

Bluffton-Low Country Village Flyer.indd