This is NOT the first time a community discussion has occurred regarding the Woodland Ponds Property and its future… In July 29, 1991, WBDC Group, planning consultant, recommended the Planning Board encourage the development and the City Council to consider the benefits of a medium density development on this site (Woodlands Ponds Subdivision) rather than the single family plat proposed. In August 23, 1991, the Planning Board’s recommendation from their August 13, 1991 meeting was shared with Flushing City Council. The recommendation consisted of amending the Zoning Ordinance to create a medium density residential zoning district as contemplated by the proposed Master Plan. The Planning Board also recommended that the zoning in the northeast part of the City should be changed from single family residential to the MDR district at the earliest opportunity to provide orderly planning for any new development projects which may be proposed in that area (Woodland Ponds) An ordinance to amend the City of Flushing Zoning Code, to revise Section 15.038 Planned Residential Development District (PRD), (R-4) was adopted in 1992.
On June 29, 2001 a Master Deed for Woodland Ponds was signed and recorded with Genesee County Register of Deeds for the condominium project, Woodland Ponds, Genesee County Subdivison Plan No 266, pursuant to the provisions of the Michigan Condominium Act. Such condominium project did not include the parcel of land to the north of the “Blue Pond” and did not include land fronting Coutant Street.
Community Input Session Woodland Ponds Property May 11, 2016 Flushing City Hall 6:30 pm
Property Description Property No. 55-25-200-052 24.82 acres, and lies north of the Woodland Pond Condominium Development, and includes an area of water entitled “The Blue Pond.” The property is currently zoned R-1, Residential, Single-Family development. The City of Flushing reserves easement for storm water drainage on this property.
City of Acquiring Property The City of Flushing acquired the property in lieu of payment for improvements made to complete the Woodland Ponds Condominium Development. - Paving and road repairs $ 33,612.29 - Complete required sidewalk $ 16,940.00 - Taxes (2008/2009) $ 405 Approximately total: $50,957.29
Water Tower Trail In 2008, a project was taken on to provide a trail from Woodland Pond Court to Waterworks Park
Timeline: Property for Sale January 10, 2011 – Sealed bids were received for several parcels of land (Woodland Ponds). The City Manager recommended placing these parcels back on the market. Bids received were rejected by Flushing City Council. May 9, 2011 – The Flushing City Council authorized administration to accept sealed bids of these city owned parcels with sealed bids due July 31, 2011 November 14, 2011 – City Manager recommended to Flushing City Council to advertise city owned vacant property (Woodland Ponds) for sale with sealed bids due the last Friday of each month, until an offer is accepted by Flushing City Council.
Timeline: Property for Sale June 10, 2013 – The Flushing City Council rejected a sealed bid offer to purchase property July 8, 2013 – The Flushing City Council rejected a sealed bid offer to purchase property July 14, 2014 – The Flushing City Council rejected a sealed bid offer to purchase property and took the property off the market for the time being.
Parks and Recreation Master Plans The topic of creating a trail from Eastview Park through Woodland Ponds subdivision to Springview Elementary School was included in: Flushing Area Recreation Plan1999-2004 Flushing Area Recreation Plan 2005-2009 Promote non motorized connections within existing facilities was a goal in the: Flushing Area Recreation Master Plan 2010-2015 Flushing Area Recreation Master Plan 2015-2020
Community Input Stakeholders have been invited to participate in this community vision session: - Property owners - Parks and Recreation Committee - Boy Scout Troops - Flushing Youth Baseball - Flushing Community Schools - Flushing Lions Club
Break Out Sessions Attendees will be asked to break out into four groups… Property owners – Woodland Ponds Court 1. Property owners – Non Woodland Ponds Court 2. 3. Community Groups (Lions Club and Boys Scouts) 4. Community Groups (School and Youth Baseball) 27 people attended this session
Break Out Sessions Four questions will be asked of each group to provide… - Proposed Actions / Solutions - Concerns - Ideas - Feedback …with their respected perspectives in mind
Four Questions 1. What are the strengths / assets of this parcel of land? 2. What challenges does this parcel of land have? 3. What use of the property has the greatest benefit to the community? 4. Of these uses, what long term impact do they have on the community?
Next Steps Information received today will be consolidated into one document. A representative from each stakeholder group is requested. Those interested can indicate such on their index card. Additional meetings will be held with stakeholder representatives to review and finalize results received today. A final report will be issued to city administration to review and submit before Flushing City Council for final consideration and action. The goal is to present a recommendation to Flushing City Council in August 2016.
Actions after May 11, 2016 Community Input Session
The second input session with designated representatives was held on June 11, 2016. The group reviewed the data collected on May 11, 2016 and concluded the following similarities and differences on the future of the parcel of land: 1. Woodland Condominium property owners are concerned with preservation and liabilities. 2. Non Woodland Condominium property owners are concerned with preservation and having a community asset. 3. Both groups have shared concerns and wants regarding safety/control, maintenance, costs, and creating/maintaining a family orientation atmosphere.
The third input session was held on June 29, 2016 with designated representatives. Discussion surrounded the results of the previous input session and SMART goals were to be drafted for each similarity and difference identified for the future of the parcel of land. Specific goals were not drafted; however the following points of discussion were revisited: 1. Traffic , property values and security are key factors that influence one’s feelings on the future use of the property. 2. Representatives go back and forth on the expectation one may have when the property is described as being used for “public use” verses “private use.” 3. The continuation of a natural buffer is wanted no matter the use of the property
4. Preservation was defined as being rustic by one group and guaranteeing privacy by another group. 5. It was the sentiment of the group there is an inverse relationship between the property’s use and the property values around it. Public use equals lower property values and private use equals higher property values. There was no actual data to support either statement. 6. One stated conclusion on the future of this property is it is a binary decision and has limited opportunity for compromises due to the expectations of the diverse group being affected.
C I T Y O F F L U S H I N G MEMORANDUM Date: August 26 2016 To: Mayor Keane and Flushing City Council From: Brad Barrett, city manager Subject: Woodland Ponds Property – Staff Recommendation Background The City of Flushing acquired a 24.82 acre piece of property north of Woodland Ponds Drive in lieu of payment for improvements made to complete the Woodland Ponds Condominium Development in the early 2000s. The property is zoned single family residential. The property was placed for sale by the Flushing City Council. The council did not accept any offers presented on the property and took the property off the market on July 14, 2014.
Community Input Sessions Three community input sessions were held to collect information, thoughts and opinions on the future use of the 24.82 acres of land. Three distinct interest groups were present at the community input sessions: Parks and Recreation Committee, Woodland Pond Drive Property Owners and Non Woodland Pond Property Owners. Traffic, property values, preservation and security were key factors that influenced one’s opinion on the future use of the property.
Recommend
More recommend
