ML20148B080
| ML20148B080 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 04/10/1978 |
| From: | MIDLAND COUNTY, MI |
| To: | MIDLAND COUNTY, MI |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7810310061 | |
| Download: ML20148B080 (3) | |
Text
_
l O
+.
i
^
,5W' 'g
/VllOtA v D I aer E.
C0L). -
- g. # 4 r -
g,3 v,
s of S~0 - 3 3 c i
i il L
!U1!F ? UY DEEXif PLANNING
,J 4thjga# 2 CLIFFORD G. STEFF, DIRECTOR TO: Midland County. Planning Commission L FROM: Midland County Department of County, Development e DATE: April 10, 1978'
SUBJECT:
Land Use in Midland County 1
l Attached to this meno is a preliminary chart on results of a land use i
1 survey completed last year.
It is being sent to you as a member of the Midland County Planning Commission for your review and comment prior to the April 25 Planning Commission meeting, along with the following pro-posed.nalysis and comment. Perhaps the chart, comments and your views may then be adopted as a part of the overall County planning program.
Such may then be adopted as an update to Memo Report #8 on existing land use.
The chart is significant on several accounts.
It is interesting in itself
-)
and in the data it lists.
It can be seen that the number of-mobile homes, i
in particular, have increased dramatically during the severn-year interim j
period from 1969 to 1976.
Figures on multi-family units and farmsteads are j
perhaps rather misleading and may, in fact for our purposes, he ignored.
This is not to say they are wrong, though.
However, some of the most interesting data is not on the chart, but must be read between the lines.
For instance, while the actual number of trailers has-increased by. leaps and bounds, the ratio of mobile homes as a percent of total dwelling units has only increased from 13.0% to 18.5%.
Th'is leads to speculation on just how " permanent" these homes are.
Should the nuclear plant be completed or if construction is halted, would these trailers be moved out? How much impact does " nuke" have in fact? Would (or could) one expect the number of one-family homes to be decreased / increased in the future? Or will the number be stabilized? What effect will this have on population projections?
(A comparison of three reliable population studies is enclosed for your review.)
In' the absence of records on building activity in the out-county, such data on land,use in Midland County is very significant. Many questLons can be based.on this information that are very crucial to Midland County's.f uture.
The comments of Planning Commissioners on this subject will be drawn into a section updating the Midland County General Development Plan and as an j
element of the planning program.
iThis' memo was prepered prior to the Planning Commission meeting on March 28 and is being mailed at present to solicit review cnd comment for the April meeting.).
k 781031oo6/-
\\
j QpNNIN$ $oMMIS5foN 8 PARKS 3. RECREATloN CoMMI55loN ;
4 A COMPARISON OF POPUI.ATIO2 STUDIES AND PRnTECTION5 tNIT OF 00VFur"ENT 1980 1990 2000 1990 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000.
1970 II+S-H.C.D.C.D.
Michitan 0.M.B.
I.C.M.P.D.R.
census Edenville Township 1.285 1.444 1.609 1.400 1.600 1.850 1.169 Ceneva Township 718 611 885 550 550 550 683 F
creendale Township 1.212 1.380 1.547
, 1.050 950 900 1.105 Homer Township 4.489 5.065 5.488 4.550 4.900 5.400 3.959 Hope Township 1.037 1.101 1.253 1.050 1.100 1.150 945
_. 2.350 2.300 2.250 2.285 Ingersoll Township 2.526 2.828 3.087 700 650 650 826 Jasper Township 910 1.010 1.095 Jerome Township
- 3.482 3.834 4.190 4.000 4.640 5,500 3.154
~
- I larkin Township' 2.826 3.212 3,604 2.700 2.800 2.900, 2.509 1.ee Township 2.893 3.341 3.782
+
2.900 3.150 3.450 2.531 i
Lincoln Township 1.609 1.864 2.095 1.600 1.700 1.850 1.417 2.521 Midland Township 2.838 3.162 3.438 1
Mills Township 1.106 1.235 1.348 1.100 1.150 1.200 1.005 Mt. Haley Township 1.407 1.602 1.817 1.300 1.200 1.200 1.262 I
-t l
j Porter Township 979 1.108 1.238 800 700 700 899 Warren Township 1.431 1.575 1.686 1.250 l'.150 1.050 1.253 City of Coleman 1.344 1.488 1.629 1.250 1.150 1.100 -
1.295 City of Midland 39.151 43.747 48.070 42.150 44.650 48.250 34.921 Midland County 71.243 79.807 87.861 71.000 76.000 79.000 70.700 74.350 79.950 63.769 j
j
- Includes Village of Sanford s
'I
- l'idisad Township included with City of Midland total
.'s t
3/78 n
1
A COMPARIS03 of LAND USE 1969.
ya 1976
~
Single Family
& lti-Family Units
_ Mobile Homes Farmsteads
- 2 Total Dwelling t' nits '
Commercial
. 70'ASMP
.1969 1976 Change 1969 1976 Change 1969 1976 Change 1969 1976 Ctange 1969 1976-Change 1969 1976 Chante Edenville 363.
536
+48%
0 4
+1002 123 225
+ 83%
30 37
+ 23%
516 802
+ 55%
~ 14 23
~+ 64% ~
Ceneva 137 208
+32%
0 0
37 80
+116%
73 83
+ 14%
267 371
+ 39%
1 3
+200%
Creendale 228 263
+15%
1 2
+1002 57 126
+121%
11 18
+ 64%
297 4 09
+ 36%
8 6
- 25%
- Home 965 1,076
+12%
18 22
+ 22%
78 103
+ 322 27 56
+107%
1,088 1,257
+ 16%
25 34
+ 36%
Nope 305 369
+21%
0 0
50 83
+ 66%
38 55
+ 45%
393 507
+ 29%
4-10
+150%
Itgerso11 436 555
+14%
7 19
+170%
53 58
+ 9%
123 188
+ 53%
669 820
.+ 23%
13 14
+ 81
'jssper 112 163
+46%
0 0
33 94
+185%
109 111
+ 2%
254 368~
+ 44%
8 3
- 38%
Jerone 730 821
+121 0
0 91 184 -
+102%
8 16
+100%
829 1,021
+ 23%
11 13
+ 18%
.Lirkin 557 718
+29%
2 0
-1002 45 61 <
+ 36%
53 52 657 831
+ 26%
19 25
+ 32%
Lee-427 587
+37%
0 0
185 326
+ 76%
21 33
+ 57%
633 946
+ 49%
6 10
+ 671 Lincoln 261 350
+34%
0 3
+100%
68 109
+ 607 14 21
+ 50%
343 483
+ 41%
15 30
+100%
Midland 607 652
+ 7%
1 15 38
+153%
10 11
+ 10%
633 7 02
+ 11%
12 15
+ 25%
Mills **
185 261
+411 0
0 66 136
+1062 16 22
+ 69%
267 419
+ 57%
5 5
Mt. Baley 225 268
+19%
1 2
+100%
42 87
+107%
84 90
+ 72 352 447
+ 27%
4 1
- 75%'
Porter **
102 167
+ 64%
0 0
25 74
+164%
98 86
+ 14%
228 327
+ 43%
2
?
' Warren 273 340
+25%
1 0
-1001 42 117
+179%
96 112
+ 17%
412 569
+ 38%
14 21
+ 57%'
%C AL 5.983 7.334
+23%
31 53
+71%
1,013 1,902
+ 88%
811 990
+ 22%
7.838 10,279
+ 31%
161 216
+ 342.
- includes rural, non-farm homes
- co=pleted spring, 1977
~
. -. ~ -..
. ~. - -. -
s
+
+
1 l
l am
.n~,
-