Prepared by the City of Clawson Planning Commission with the Assistance of McKenna Associates

235 East Main Street, Suite 105 Northville, Michigan 48167 t: 248.596.0920 f: 248.596.0930 www.mcka.com

2017 MASTER PLAN CITY OF CLAWSON, MI

i 2 0 1 7 M A S T E R P L A N C I T Y O F C L A W S O N , M I

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The participation and cooperation of community leaders and residents in the preparation of the 2017 Clawson Master Plan is greatly appreciated. In particular, we acknowledge the efforts of the following individuals:

Mayor Deborah Wooley

City Council Howie Airriess – Mayor Pro-Tem Paula Millan Matt Ulbrich Susan Moffitt

Planning Commission Greg Kucera, Jr. – Chair Annie Fenton Scott Jones Jim McHale Reese Scripture Melissa Prowse – Secretary Glenn Shepard – Vice-Chair Scott Watson George Jacobsen In grateful recognition of the work of Chair Bob Blanchette, 1956-2017.

City Manager Mark Pollock

City Attorney Jon Kinsepp, Esq.

City Clerk Michael Smith

City Planner Greg Elliott, Esq., AICP – McKenna Associates

Director of Building & Planning James Albus

Economic Development Coordinator Susie Stec

D R A F T · F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 1 8 ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................................................................ I Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................................................................... Iii

I NTRODU CTI ON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Regional Setting .......................................................................................................................................................................... 6Historical Development ............................................................................................................................................................. 8Basis for the Master Plan and Purpose .................................................................................................................................. 10

COMMUNITY PROFI L E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Demographics ............................................................................................................................................................................. 11Housing Characteristics ............................................................................................................................................................ 16Existing Land Use....................................................................................................................................................................... 19Community Facilities ................................................................................................................................................................ 24

TRANSPORTATI ON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Roadway Classification and Responsibility .......................................................................................................................... 30Administrative Jurisdiction / Federal Aid .............................................................................................................................. 30Functional Classification .......................................................................................................................................................... 30Pedestrian Crossings ............................................................................................................................................................... 35Parking ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 36Public Transit.............................................................................................................................................................................. 36Non-Motorized Transportation ............................................................................................................................................... 37

COMPL ETE STREETS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1Complete Streets Policy .......................................................................................................................................................... 42Protecting Vulnerable Users ................................................................................................................................................... 42

ECONOMI C B ASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3Tax Base ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 44

RETAI L G AP ANALY SI S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5Trade Area.................................................................................................................................................................................. 46Gap Analysis .............................................................................................................................................................................. 48Retail Typologies ........................................................................................................................................................................ 51Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................................................ 52

PUBLI C PARTI CI PATI ON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Goal Priorities Survey ............................................................................................................................................................... 54Roundtable Discussions .......................................................................................................................................................... 54Online Survey ............................................................................................................................................................................ 58

G OALS AND OBJ ECTI VES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

FU TU RE L AND U SE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65Single Family Residential ......................................................................................................................................................... 69Downtown .................................................................................................................................................................................. 69Multiple Family Residential...................................................................................................................................................... 69Business ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 69Mixed Use ................................................................................................................................................................................... 70Office ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 71Industrial ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 71

iii 2 0 1 7 M A S T E R P L A N C I T Y O F C L A W S O N , M I

Public/Quasi-Public .................................................................................................................................................................... 71Recreation/Open Space ........................................................................................................................................................... 71

SU STAI NABI L ITY AND G REEN INFRASTRUCTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73Environmental Sustainability and Green Infrastructure ..................................................................................................... 73Sustainable Design ................................................................................................................................................................... 74Green Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................................................. 75Future Actions............................................................................................................................................................................ 76

I MPLEMENTATI ON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7Keeping the Plan Up-to-Date .................................................................................................................................................. 78Funding ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 78Project Priorities ........................................................................................................................................................................ 79Zoning Plan ................................................................................................................................................................................. 81

APPE NDI X A: SU RVEY RESU L TS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

List of Maps Map 1: Regional Location................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Map 2: Existing Land Use .................................................................................................................................................................. 21 Map 3: Community Facilities ............................................................................................................................................................. 25 Map 4: Road Condition Survey ........................................................................................................................................................ 31 Map 5: Existing Transportation ........................................................................................................................................................ 33 Map 6: Linked Bike Routes ............................................................................................................................................................... 39 Map 7: Drive Times from Downtown Clawson (City of Clawson Retail Trade Area) .............................................................. 47 Map 8: Future Land Use .................................................................................................................................................................... 67

List of Figures Figure 1: Clawson Population Growth (1930—2040) .................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 2: Total Population in Clawson and Surrounding Communities (1990-2040) ............................................................ 13 Figure 3: Population Distribution by Age Group (2014) ............................................................................................................... 14 Figure 4: Population Distribution by Age Group (2040) .............................................................................................................. 15 Figure 5: Residential Building Permits 2000 – 2017 ................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 6: Median Home Value 2010 ............................................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 7: Home Value 2014 .............................................................................................................................................................. 18 Figure 8: Labor Force Characteristics ............................................................................................................................................ 44 Figure 9: Sustainability Pillars ........................................................................................................................................................... 74

List of Tables Table 1: Household Size in Clawson and Surrounding Communities (1970-2040) ................................................................ 14 Table 2: Age of Clawson’s Housing Stock..................................................................................................................................... 17 Table 3: Clawson Existing Land Use ............................................................................................................................................... 23 Table 4: Assessed and Equalized Property Values ..................................................................................................................... 44 Table 5: Percentage of Unmet Retail Demand ............................................................................................................................. 49 Table 6: Demand for New Stores .................................................................................................................................................... 50 Table 7: Retail Typologies Favored by Businesses with Unmet Demand ............................................................................... 51 Table 8: Future Land Use Evaluation Factors ............................................................................................................................... 78 Table 9: Ordinance, Guidelines, Plans, and Policies.................................................................................................................... 80 Table 10 ................................................................................................................................... 81

5 2 0 1 7 M A S T E R P L A N C I T Y O F C L A W S O N , M I

INTRODUCTION In the summer of 2016, the City of Clawson Planning Commission initiated an update to the City’s Master Plan, to act as a guide for future decisions affecting planning and land use in the community. Environmental, social, political, and economic conditions that affect the natural and built environment are continuously changing. Therefore, the planning process, which seeks to anticipate the impacts of those changes, must also be continuous. This Master Plan update is intended to capitalize on what is currently working in the City, address what could be improved, and aspire to a greater future for its residents, business persons, and visitors.

1

D R A F T · F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 1 8 6

REGIONAL SETTING The City of Clawson is located in the southeast quadrant of Oakland County about one mile west of the Interstate 75 expressway. The community is 2.4 square miles in area and is bounded by the cities of Madison Heights, Royal Oak and Troy.

Clawson is a second ring, established suburb centered in a highly populated and prosperous area of Oakland County (See Map 1). Since incorporation as a home rule city in 1940, the City has been fully developed, such that change will come from reuse and redevelopment opportunities.

Clawson is best described as a community of neighbors that offers a friendly, small-town atmosphere where all amenities are, potentially, within walking distance. Residents enjoy easy access to community’s facilities and amenities, such as the library, community center, historical museum, shops, parks, and schools.

Clawson features a number of small town amenities, including affordable housing, a variety of downtown shops and restaurants, a stable government, high quality community services, and volunteer participation in community programs, while maintaining desirable access to state and interstate road networks as well as job centers in the Detroit metropolitan area.

Clawson has received recognition as a Tree City USA and features reasonably-priced homes in a range of architectural styles. The school district demonstrates leading and learning with higher test scores and smaller class sizes. In 2016, Clawson was recognized as a MDHHS Community for a Lifetime, for its aging-friendly character, and in 2017 Clawson was ranked #20 as the 2017 Best Place to Raise a Family in Michigan from wallethub.com. The website’s data team compared the 104 most populous cities in Michigan based on 21 key indicators of family-friendliness.

Clawson

UV53

UV53

UV3

UV3

UV153

UV3

UV39

UV8

UV97UV39

UV10

UV3

UV24

UV102UV102

UV53

UV153

UV1

UV53

UV1

UV102

UV15

UV10

UV24

UV85

UV3

UV102

UV3

UV19

UV5

UV39

UV97

UV97

UV3

UV1

UV29UV59

UV59

UV3

UV102

UV14

UV10

UV5

UV59

UV53

UV53

UV59

£¤24

£¤10

£¤12

§̈¦96

§̈¦94

§̈¦375

§̈¦75

§̈¦94

§̈¦275

§̈¦696

§̈¦75

Richmond TwpArmada TwpBruce Twp

Lenox TwpRay TwpWashingtonTwp

ChesterfieldTwp

Macomb TwpShelby Twp

Utica

Harrison TwpClinton TwpSterling

Heights

Mt Clemens

Fraser

St ClairShores

RosevilleWarren

Center Line

Eastpointe

Lake Twp

Addison TwpOxford TwpBrandon TwpGroveland Twp

Oakland TwpOrion TwpIndependenceTwpSpringfield

TwpClarkston

RochesterHills

Auburn HillsRochester

Waterford Twp

Lake Angelus

Pontiac

WhiteLake Twp

Troy

SylvanLake

KeegoHarbor

WestBloomfield

TwpBirmingham

Commerce Twp

OrchardLake Bloomfield

Hills

WalledLake

Wixom

Royal Oak MadisonHeights

BloomfieldTwp

SouthfieldTwp

FarmingtonHills

NoviSouthfield

BerkleyLathrupVillage Huntington

Woods

Oak Park HazelParkFerndale

Pleasant RidgeFarmington

RoyalOak Twp

Novi Twp

GrossePointe Twp

GrossePointeWoods

HarperWoods

DetroitRedford

TwpLivonia

GrossePointeFarms

NorthvilleTwp

Northville

HighlandPark

GrossePointe

HamtramckGrossePointeParkPlymouth Twp Plymouth

DearbornHeights

DearbornWestlandCanton Twp

Garden City

Inkster

Allen ParkMelvindale River

Rouge

Wayne

LincolnPark

Taylor EcorseRomulusVan Buren Twp

WyandotteSouthgateBelleville

M A C O M B

O A K L A N D

W A Y N E

0 20 40Mile

Clawson !

Interstates

US Highways

State Highways

County Boundaries

Clawson

Surrounding Municipalities

LEGEND

June 21, 2017 DRAFT

Base Map Source: MichiganGeographic Framework, MichiganCenter for Geographic Information,Version 9aClawson, Michigan

Map 1Regional Location

D R A F T · F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 1 8 8

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

The area now known as Clawson was first established in the 1820s when settlers purchased land identified as sections 3 and 4 of Town 1 North, Range 11 East; Royal Oak Township, and sections 33 and 34 of Town 2 North, Range 11 East; Troy Township. By 1827, the area that is now Clawson was known as Troy Township. Troy Township encompassed the area from 8 Mile Road (Baseline) to South Boulevard and from Dequindre to Greenfield (in Royal Oak) and Adams (in Troy). In 1832, the area south of Townline Road (14 Mile) became Royal Oak Township. The community remained in Troy and Royal Oak Townships until the Village of Clawson incorporated in 1920.

During the first 100 years after settlement, farming was the primary industry. Small businesses and industry, including two (2) sawmills, began to arrive in Clawson in the 1830s with the construction of roads. The first road, now known as Main Street, was built in 1827. In 1829, Paint Creek Trail, now Rochester Road, was made a plank toll road from an existing Indian trail. Townline Road, later known as Clawson Road, and now known as 14 Mile, was finished in 1874.

The first post office was opened on August 16, 1880 and was named “Clawson”. Although accounts vary on the origin of this name, with the post office, the area became known as Clawson. After the Interurban Railway was built through Clawson in 1899, developers began to subdivide Clawson. The railroad gave Clawson access to other communities and residents the opportunity to work in Detroit but live where lots were cheap.

9 2 0 1 7 M A S T E R P L A N C I T Y O F C L A W S O N , M I

In 1940, Clawson incorporated as a home rule city and really began to grow. By 1949, 500 new homes were built, and there were also new factories, new commercial buildings, and a weekly newspaper. In the 1950’s and 1960’s additional homes, commercial buildings, schools, churches, and municipal buildings were built.

The City’s downtown surrounds the intersection of Main Street and 14 Mile Road. A Downtown Development Authority (DDA) was established in 1977 with the intent of “halting property value deterioration and promoting economic growth of the downtown.” After several years of limited activity, a Tax Increment Financing Plan (TIF) was completed in 1990. The TIF and an ISTEA grant enabled the DDA to plan and implement streetscape improvements that were installed in 1996. After the streetscape was completed, the DDA went dormant to reduce expenses and in hopes that private investment would spur growth in the downtown. In 2002, the DDA was reconstituted. In recent years, the downtown has experienced significant private investment in the restoration of vintage style buildings, new specialty retail stores, and unique restaurants/taverns. To this date, there exists a continuing interest in the community of the development of the downtown area.

In 2017, Clawson has a reputation one of the most pleasant places to live and work in Southeast Michigan. Numerous businesses call the City home, and economic activity abounds along the commercial corridors of 14 Mile Road, Main Street, Crooks Road, Maple Road, and Rochester Road. This year the City’s Housing Market was listed as the 10th healthiest in the nation in SmartAsset.com’s Healthiest Housing Markets Study. The City’s walkability and sense of community make it true to its motto, “The Little City with a Big Heart!”

D R A F T · F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 1 8 10

BASIS FOR THE MASTER PLAN AND PURPOSE

The Michigan Planning Enabling Act, Public Act 33 of 2008, as amended, provides, among other things, the authority for Michigan municipalities to prepare and adopt a master plan. It further provides for a master plan to be reviewed every five years. The Michigan Zoning Enabling Act, Public Act 110 of 2006, as amended, provides for zoning to be based on a plan. This master plan, and the City’s related planning documents, constitute that plan.

The City of Clawson 2017 Master Plan presents the City’s vision for its future. It serves as a policy guide for the community, and informs the decisions of City officials and administrators, governmental agencies, organizations, and private individuals. It is designed to provide a flexible roadmap for future development, redevelopment, and land use, and to ensure that such activities are pursued in a manner that is consistent with the community’s goals and objectives. The recommendations presented in the text and shown graphically form the basis for the City’s zoning regulations and various other land use controls.

This plan is long range in that it examines past trends and makes projections for the next five to twenty years. This allows the City to plan ahead and anticipate future needs. It should be noted, however, that projections are most accurate in the short term, and many factors that will shape the future cannot be anticipated. For this reason, not less than every five years, the plan needs to be reviewed to determine if amendments are needed or a new plan should be undertaken.

11 2 0 1 7 M A S T E R P L A N C I T Y O F C L A W S O N , M I

COMMUNITY PROFILE

DEMOGRAPHICS A key element to planning a community’s future land use and community facilities needs is an analysis of its demographic characteristics. This section includes discussions of trends in population characteristics, age structure and composition, and household composition, and their impacts on the City’s demographics. The data and trends identified in the analysis of each factor provides a base from which to develop strategies to address the needs of Clawson’s residents.

2

D R A F T · F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 1 8 12

POPULATION The City of Clawson experienced a significant population boom from 1950 to 1970. In two decades, the population increased 239 percent. This spike was a common occurrence throughout the nation, as it reflects the Baby Boomer period after the end of World War II. However, since the 1970’s, Clawson has experienced a steady decline in population, decreasing an average 9.3 percent each decade. That trend has now reversed slightly, with the 2015 population of the City estimated to be 12,015 by the American Community Survey.

The Southeastern Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) predicts that by the year 2040, the City of Clawson can expect to have a population of 12,373 (see Figure 1). The incremental increase in population is not enough to warrant significant housing and infrastructure plans, but it does suggest that Clawson has a stable population. Further, it suggests that planning and development efforts have been successful in appealing to new and existing residents.

Figure 1: Clawson Population Growth (1930—2040)

The pattern of population decline noted in Clawson 1990 - 2010 is parallel to that of surrounding communities in southeast Michigan. However, during this same period, Oakland County grew from 1,083,592 to 1,202,362 in total population, an 11.0 percent increase.

Between 2010 and 2040 all communities shown in Figure 2 are expected to experience increases in total population. Each community is expected to increase to or surpass year 2000 population levels, suggesting that these areas are rebounding after the economic decline and fallout of the Great Recession. SEMCOG predicts that each community will increase or stay relatively the same levels through 2040. Oakland County is expected to incrementally increase in population between 2010 and 2040, by approximately 3.7 percent or 44,501 new residents.

13 2 0 1 7 M A S T E R P L A N C I T Y O F C L A W S O N , M I

Figure 2: Total Population in Clawson and Surrounding Communities (1990-2040)

HOUSEHOLDS According to the 2014 American Community Survey, the City of Clawson has 5,417 households. As Table 1 indicates, the household size in Clawson increased by 1.9 percent from 2010 to 2014. After several decades of decline, Clawson and several surrounding communities are experiencing an increase in household size.

According to the 2010 Census, the City of Clawson has 5,460 households. As Table 1 indicates, the household size in Clawson was 2.14 persons per household in 2010, and is projected to be 2.32 persons per household in 2040. The table also shows that since the 1970s’, household size has decreased in Clawson, adjacent communities, and Oakland County. However, similar to population trends in these areas, household size is predicted to increase by 2040. The changes in family dynamics are reflected in the historical decline of household size. In 2015, household size was estimated at 2.16 persons per household by the ACS.

D R A F T · F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 1 8 14

Table 1: Household Size in Clawson and Surrounding Communities (1970-2040)

Community 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2014 2040

Clawson 3.68 2.76 2.48 2.26 2.14 2.18 2.32

Berkley 3.10 2.79 2.56 2.32 2.27 2.28 2.32

Ferndale 2.50 2.65 2.54 2.23 2.08 2.14 2.16

Madison Heights 3.52 2.77 2.49 2.33 2.32 2.31 2.39

Royal Oak 3.09 2.55 2.29 2.06 2.03 2.05 2.06

Troy 3.23 2.92 2.78 2.69 2.63 2.67 2.50

Oakland County 3.40 2.82 2.61 2.51 2.46 2.47 2.42

HOUSEHOLD TYPE According to the 2014 ACS, 52.7 percent of the City’s population lives in family households. This percentage is less than the County as a whole, which is 65.3 percent. The remainder of the population is composed of non-family households. Non-family households are those that comprise a group of unrelated persons or one person living alone. Of all housing units, 69.2 percent where owner-occupied in 2015.

AGE COMPOSITION As depicted in Figure 3, 43.5 percent of residents in Clawson are between ages 35 and 64. Approximately 15 percent are over the age of 65 and the remaining 41 percent are below the age of 35. By 2040 the age distribution in Clawson is projected to change significantly in the 65+ range. By 2040, approximately 25 percent of residents will be ages 65 and older, 35 percent will be between the ages of 35-64, 29 percent will be between the ages of 18- 34, and 18 percent will be between the ages of 0-17. In other words, relatively larger percentages of residents will be in an age range that would tend to be in one or two person households, i.e. those approaching or beyond child-rearing.

Figure 3: Population Distribution by Age Group (2014)

15 2 0 1 7 M A S T E R P L A N C I T Y O F C L A W S O N , M I

Figure 4: Population Distribution by Age Group (2040)

INCOME The City of Clawson has experienced a decrease in affluence over the past two decades. The median household income in 2010 was $60,300 and $54,900 in 2014 (2016 dollars). The household income decrease is due to the national economic crisis in which the unemployment rate rose to 8.0 percent in Clawson in 2014; a dramatic increase from 1.6 percent unemployment in 2000. In 2014, 5.5 percent of families were living below the poverty rate.

EDUCATION The City’s population is well-educated. According to US Census, over 65 percent of Clawson residents over 25 years of age have college or advanced education.

LAND USE IMPLICATIONS

• Decreasing population directly relates to the reduced number of persons per household. This has been the trend in Clawson; though SEMCOG projections indicate that there may be a slight increase in the number of persons per household in the future. To maintain a stable population, it is likely that the City will need to add housing units.

• By 2040, there will be an increase in average household size and persons under the age of 17.

• In the future, relatively larger percentages of residents will be in an age range that would tend to be in one or two person households, i.e. those approaching or beyond child-rearing.

• The changing population distribution and household size is likely to lead to a demand in a greater variety of housing types for Clawson’s residents.

D R A F T · F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 1 8 16

HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS

There are 5,729 housing units in the City of Clawson in 2014; a 1.1 percent decrease from the 5,791 units reported in 2010. There were 5,791 housing units in the City of Clawson in 2010; a 2.0 percent increase over the 5,676 units reported in 2000.

As per Figure 5, the City of Clawson has issued 137 new residential building permits, including one (1) apartment building (44 units) since 2000. The issuing of permits for new residential housing has typically amounted to only a handful each year, as one would expect from a built-out city, and some years saw no new development. Nonetheless, new home construction after the Great Recession is markedly less than it was before it.

Figure 5: Residential Building Permits, 2000 – 2017

17 2 0 1 7 M A S T E R P L A N C I T Y O F C L A W S O N , M I

HOUSING UNIT TYPE The predominant housing type in the City of Clawson is an owner-occupied, single-family home. Of the 5,791 total housing units, 4,452 (76.9 percent) are single-family detached dwellings, 191 (3.3 percent) are single-family attached dwellings, 1,087 (18.8 percent) are apartments, and 49 (.08 percent) are two-family dwellings or duplexes. Approximately 69 percent of the dwelling units in Clawson were owner-occupied in 2015. Just under 5% of housing units were vacant, with the balance being rented.

The percentage of owner occupied housing units has remained relatively unchanged in recent years, in spite of pressures on home ownership that were created by the Great Recession. However, the renter-occupied and vacancy rates have increased. This is due to the economic hardships felt throughout the region.

AGE OF HOUSING STOCK As depicted in Table 2, the majority of the housing stock in the City of Clawson was built before 1969. The aging housing stock can bring a sense of character and charm to the community; however, it is necessary for those homes to be managed and maintained.

Table 2: Age of Clawson’s Housing Stock

Year Structure Built Number Percent

Built 2010 or Later 6 0.1%

Built 2000 to 2009 119 2.1%

Built 1990 to 1999 175 3.1%

Built 1980 to 1989 264 4.6%

Built 1970 to 1979 804 14.0%

Built 1960 to 1969 1,016 17.7%

Built 1950 to 1959 2,286 39.9%

Built 1940 to 1949 431 7.5%

Built 1939 or earlier 628 11.0%

D R A F T · F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 1 8 18

MEDIAN HOME VALUE Home values in Clawson average $100,000 to $200,000 in 2010. Median home value is $179,847 (2016 dollars). This is comparable to surrounding communities with housing stock of similar age.

The City’s Housing Market was listed as the 10th healthiest in the nation in SmartAsset.com’s Healthiest Housing Markets Study.

Figure 6: Median Home Value 2010

Figure 7: Home Value 2014

19 2 0 1 7 M A S T E R P L A N C I T Y O F C L A W S O N , M I

LAND USE IMPLICATIONS

• Residential building activity has decreased significantly since the end of the 2006 construction season.

• Because the City adopted large lot zoning regulations that serve to limit the number of new lots that can be created, new residential building activity will mostly occur through the demolition of an existing structure.

• The City is experiencing design inconsistencies between newly constructed homes and the neighborhoods into which they are being inserted.

• The housing stock is older (most constructed prior to 1969), which results in some functional obsolescence.

• Housing value is comparable to neighboring communities, but the velocity of the housing market is likely to lead to increasing home prices that will, at a certain point, put smaller, existing houses at risk of becoming teardowns.

EXISTING LAND USE A major part of a community master plan is to identify existing land use patterns. This task not only identifies the locations of particular land use activities, but it highlights the areas with future growth potential and areas where land use conflicts exist. The City’s existing land uses were field verified in September 2016 and this information was used for decisions on future land uses and development potential.

The existing land uses are illustrated on Map 2 by the delineation of the following land use categories. Based upon that map the following development patterns were observed:

• Single Family Residential: This classification includes parcels having one-family detached dwelling units. Over 70 percent of Clawson’s total land area is covered by single-family dwelling structures and uses.

• Multiple Family Residential: At 5.10 percent, Multiple Family Residential includes land areas that are occupied by predominately residential structures containing dwelling units for two or more households. The multiple family residential use category now includes two family residential, which were considered independently in the 2009 Master Plan.

• Office / Services: At 2.10 percent, Office / Services land uses has increased since the previous Master Plan. Located on major thoroughfares, office and services land use are intended to serve Clawson residents and those in nearby communities.

• Commercial / Business: Commercial Business uses are located throughout the City, along the major roadways. Parcel sizes tend to vary throughout Clawson, with the larger parcels located outside of the Central Business District. These uses tend to include chain retails or strip malls, as they require larger parcels to accommodate larger establishments and private parking.

• Central Business: Land uses within the Central Business District are located in Downtown Clawson, at the intersection of 14 Mile Road and Main Street. These parcels are small in size and are locally owned businesses that service the community. Streetscape and façade design regulations are vital to the Central Business District. Revitalization efforts have been focused on Downtown Clawson in the past few years to redevelop as a walkable and pedestrian friendly community.

• Quasi-Public: Quasi-Public land uses include churches, private clubs and schools. Since the previous Master Plan, land uses within this category has increased by one percent throughout Clawson.

• Public: Public land uses have remained relatively the same since 2010. These uses include municipal purposes and schools.

• Recreation: Just over three percent of Clawson’s land use is designated for Recreation purposes. Expansion, development, and updates are detailed in the 2013 Parks and Recreation Master Plan.

D R A F T · F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 1 8 20

• Industrial: Industrial land uses are scattered in pockets along Rochester Road, 14 Mile Road and Crooks Road. The total land area has decreased minimally since the previous Master Plan. Most of the parcels classified as Industrial are the larger properties within the City.

• Public Parking: Vehicular parking is generally provided by surface lots. Besides on-street parking, the majority of public, surface parking in the City is within its City Center District. Currently, 12.2 percent of the land within the City that is zoned City Center is used for surface public parking.

• Vacant: There is considerable less acreage designated as vacant parcels within the City; currently less than one percent. The properties are generally well maintained by the owners.

MARC

KENI

LWOR

TH

OAKL

EY

SHENANDOAH

N. C

USTE

R

STEP

HEN

GORDON CT.

LANGLEY

LANG

LEY

LERNER

KEY WEST

W. SELFRIDGE

COOLIDGE

COUNCIL

GLADWIN

GARDNER

N. C

HOCO

LAY

PARE

PARKLAND

ROTH

E. BAKER

ALLEN

DONALD

SHEN

ANDO

AH

ELMSFORD

BOWERS

N. B

ATCH

EWAN

A

W. BAKE R

KNOLLWOOD

ANDERSON CT.

H IG H LAN D

E LM S F O RD

E. ELMWOOD

PAR K

HIGH

BOWERS

ESSE

X

HUNT

LEY

DARB

EE C

T.

STRA

UB

GERA

LD

S. MA

NITO

U

BAUMAN

HIGHLANDCURT

IS

GARG

ANTU

A

BADDER

WILS

ON

S. MA

RIAS

N.WA

SHIN

GTON

N. M

ANITO

U

HIGH

CHUR

CH

S. BY

WOO

D

REDR

UTH

S. WE

BIK

PATT

ERSO

N

WALPER

S. BA

TCHE

WANA

RENS

HAW

LEROYS.

CHOC

OLAY

MASSOIT

FLOR

ENCE

N. W

EBIK

SCHOOL

W. ELMWOOD

LEPLA

DREON

WRI

G HT

W. TACOMA

CHARLEVOIX

MASSOIT

NAKOTA

TECUMSEH

CHIPPEWA

PHILLIPS

GARDNER

SAMOSET

JEFFERSON

N. M

ARIA

S

MAPL

E-GR

OVE

HENDRICKSON

FISHER COURTGRANT

HENDRICKSON

W. BAKER

JOHN M

BELL

EVUE

BROADACRE

MADISON

W. MAPLE

NAHM

A

W. FOURTEEN MILE

N. BY

WOOD

SCHOOL

N. C

ROOK

S

NORMANDY

LINCOLN

N. R

OCHE

STER

GOODALE

N. M

AIN

N.SE

LFRID

GEKI

NROS

S

S. CU

STER

BOSC

HMA

WILS

ON

S. RO

CHES

TER

LERN

ER

E. FOURTEEN MILE

MICHAELCT.ALYSSA LN.

NAKOTA

OAKGROVE

N. C

USTE

R HIGH

GOOD

ALE

CT. HU

DSON

BAUMAN

RENS

HAW

E. TACOMA

N. B

YWOO

D

S. MA

IN

GROVE

S. CR

OOKS

T r o yT r o y

R o y a l O a kR o y a l O a k

Clawson, Michigan

Map 2Existing Land Use

Base Map Source: Oakland County GIS, 3rd Quarter Update, 2006.

0 500 1,000 FEET

LEGEND

Single Family Residential

Multiple Family Residential

Office/Services

Commercial

Central Business District

Quasi-Public

Public

Recreation

Industrial

Public Parking

Vacant

City Boundary

DRAFT

June 21, 2017

23 2 0 1 7 M A S T E R P L A N C I T Y O F C L A W S O N , M I

Table 3 provides an analysis of land use acreage and percent of total area of the City. To ensure that the current inventory can be compared to the previously adopted Master Plan, the same land classifications were employed. Since the previous Master Plan, land use patterns have remained relatively stable, with slight changes the result of development or more accurate measurement techniques.

Table 3: Clawson Existing Land Use

Existing Land Use Acreage Percent of Total Area

Single Family Residential 784.36 70.82%

Multiple Family Residential 56.43 5.10%

Office / Services 23.25 2.10%

Commercial 64.76 5.85%

Central Business District 7.82 0.71%

Quasi-Public 24.14 2.18%

Public 40.09 3.62%

Recreation 33.35 3.01%

Industrial 60.34 5.45%

Public Parking 3.94 0.36%

Vacant 9.12 0.82%

Total 1,107.61 100.00%

LAND USE IMPLICATIONS

• There has been a substantial decrease in vacant land remaining in the City. Many of those that remain are the result of land speculation. The City has focused efforts to ensure that vacant parcels are maintained by its owners so as to prevent blighted, overgrown, but the City should look for other means to address the unproductive use of prime real estate.

• Redevelopment of commercial sites within the City is of critical importance to community appearance and quality of life. Main Street and 14 Mile Road are the main commercial corridors through the City, with Rochester Road, Crooks Road, and, to a lesser degree Maple Road, providing additional commercial properties.

• The designation for Multiple Family Residential has remained stable since the 2009 Master Plan. However, recent national trends indicate that young professionals are interested in housing options outside of the traditional single-family home. Attracting young professionals to reside in Clawson will likely include expanding the housing options to include apartments within walkable districts, flats, and townhouses. In order to keep single-family areas intact, such new housing options will typically be appropriate when located along main thoroughfares, within mixed-use districts.

• The foregoing notwithstanding, there is a large module of underutilized land to the south of the Clawson Center shopping plaza (within the Westgate District), which would be appropriate for additional, multiple-family housing.

D R A F T · F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 1 8 24

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

Map 3 illustrates the location of the major community facilities within the City of Clawson. A description of existing facilities is provided below.

MARC

KENI

LWOR

TH

OAKL

EYSHENANDOAH

N. C

USTE

R

STEP

HEN

GORDON CT.

LANGLEY

LANG

LEY

LERNER

KEY WEST

W. SELFRIDGE

COOLIDGE

COUNCIL

GLADWIN

GARDNER

N. C

HOCO

LAY

PARE

PARKLAND

ROTH

E. BAKER

ALLEN

DONALD

SHEN

ANDO

AH

ELMSFORD

BOWERS

N. B

ATCH

EWAN

A

W. BAKE R

KNOLLWOOD

ANDERSON CT.

H IG H LAN D

ELM SF ORD

E. ELMWOOD

PAR K

HIGH

BOWERS

ESSE

X

HUNT

LEY

DARB

EE C

T.

STRA

UB

GERA

LD

S. MA

NITO

U

BAUMAN

HIGHLANDCURT

IS

GARG

ANTU

A

BADDER

WILS

ON

S. MA

RIAS

N.WA

SHIN

GTON

N. M

ANITO

U

HIGH

CHUR

CH

S. BY

WOOD

REDR

UTH

S. WE

BIK

PATT

ERSO

N

WALPER

S. BA

TCHE

WANA

RENS

HAW

LEROY

S. CH

OCOL

AY

MASSOIT

FLOR

ENCE

N. W

EBIK

SCHOOL

W. ELMWOOD

LEPLA

DREON

WRI

G HT

W. TACOMA

CHARLEVOIX

MASSOIT

NAKOTA

TECUMSEH

CHIPPEWA

PHILLIPS

GARDNER

SAMOSET

JEFFERSON

N. M

ARIA

S

MAPL

E-GR

OVE

HENDRICKSON

FISHER COURTGRANT

HENDRICKSON

W. BAKER

JOHN M

BELL

EVUE

BROADACRE

MADISON

W. MAPLE

NAHM

A

W. FOURTEEN MILE

N. BY

WOOD

SCHOOL

N. C

ROOK

S

NORMANDY

LINCOLN

N. R

OCHE

STER

GOODALE

N. M

AIN

N.SE

LFRID

GEKI

NROS

S

S. CU

STER

BOSC

HMA

WILS

ON

S. RO

CHES

TER

LERN

ER

E. FOURTEEN MILE

MICHAELCT.ALYSSA LN.

NAKOTA

OAKGROVE

N. C

USTE

R HIGH

GOOD

ALE

CT. HU

DSON

BAUMAN

RENS

HAW

E. TACOMA

N. B

YWOO

D

S. MA

IN

GROVE

S. CR

OOKS

T r o yT r o y

R o y a l O a kR o y a l O a k

!6

!13

!2

!7

!14

!15!12

!1 !5!8

!3

!9

!17

!10

!11!16

!4

Base Map Source: Oakland County GIS, 2016.

0 500 1,000 FEET

LEGEND

City Boundary

1 City Hall Police Department2 Department of Public Works + Fire Station Compound3 Hunter Community Center4 Fire Department Main Station5 Library and Historical Museum

12 Post Office

6 City Park7 Baker Park8 Memorial Park9 Hunter Park10 Grant Park11 Parkland Park

13 Schalm Elementary14 Clawson Public Schools Administration15 Clawson Middle School + High School16 Kenwood Elementary

17 Guardian Angels School

Municipal Building

Public Parks

Post Office

Public Schools

Private Schools

Clawson, Michigan

Map 3Community Facilities

August 22, 2017

27 2 0 1 7 M A S T E R P L A N C I T Y O F C L A W S O N , M I

CITY HALL AND MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS City Hall, built in 1963, occupies a 1.4-acre site located on the west side of Main Street, two blocks north of 14 Mile Road. The building contains the general City offices, council chambers, and police department.

Located across Main Street from City Hall is Blair Memorial Library and Clawson Historical Museum. The City owns and maintains the Hunter Community Center that contains the Parks and Recreation Department offices and is used for adult education courses and other community activities.

PARKS AND RECREATION Within Clawson’s boundaries is 45.8 acres of park land that is owned and maintained by the City. The largest park is City Park (36.9 acres). There, families and friends can enjoy lighted recreation facilities for active sports, such as, football, basketball and tennis. There is also open green spaces for picnicking and other leisure activities.

The City of Clawson City Hall, City Park, Hunter Park, Parkland Park, Grant Park, Baker Park and Memorial Park comprise the City of Clawson parks facilities. There are also indoor and outdoor recreational facilities located at Kenwood and Schalm elementary schools, Clawson Middle School, and Clawson High School.

Clawson City Council adopted the Parks and Recreation Master Plan in 2013.

SCHOOLS The Clawson Public School District serves more than 1,800 students and includes four (4) schools:

• Schalm Elementary – serves K-5 grade students living north of 14 Mile Road and west of Rochester Road

• Kenwood Elementary – serves K-5 grade students living south of 14 Mile Road and east of Rochester Road

• Clawson Middle School

• Clawson High School

There is one (1) private elementary school within the City. Guardian Angels Catholic School serves kindergarten through eighth grade. Guardian Angels school is located on 14 Mile Road, west of Rochester Road and east of downtown.

D R A F T · F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 1 8 28

POST OFFICE The local U.S. Post Office is located on North Main Street, south of City Hall.

WATER SERVICE The City of Clawson owns and maintains the municipal water system that services the entire City. Clawson purchases its water from the Southeastern Oakland County Water Authority (SOCWA) at three locations. SOCWA provides Detroit water through its member distribution systems to a population of 210,000 within a 56-square mile area. Current members are: Berkley, Beverly Hills, Bingham Farms, Birmingham, Clawson, Huntington Woods, Lathrup Village, Pleasant Ridge, Royal Oak, Southfield and Southfield Township, Bloomfield Hills, and Bloomfield Township.

SANITARY AND STORM SEWERS The City of Clawson owns and maintains the local combined sanitary and storm sewer system that discharges at various points into sewers owned and maintained by the Oakland County Water Resources Commission (OCWRC).

SOLID WASTE The City of Clawson contracts a private company for trash collection and removal. Clawson is a member of the Southeastern Oakland County Resource Recovery Authority (SOCRRA), a municipal corporation founded in the early 1950’s. The City also provides an extensive recycling program for residents and curbside yard waste collection during compost season (April – December).

OTHER UTILITIES Within Clawson, electric power is provided by DTE Energy, telephone service is provided by AT&T, and natural gas is provided by Consumers Energy. Several cable television and internet service providers exist within the community, including Wireless Oakland.

LAND USE IMPLICATIONS

• The City provides approximately 167 square feet of park land per resident (based upon the 2014 American Community Survey.

• Public schools are within walking distance for many of the school age children within the City.

• Municipal water and sewer are available to all residents and businesses within the City, although its age has resulted in the need to continually update the system.

• Given the inherent limitations of the City’s combined sewer system, efforts should be made to eliminate impervious surfaces wherever possible and new development should not result in an increased rate of storm water discharge. Likewise, landscaping with the potential to absorb and utilize storm water should be encouraged.

29 2 0 1 7 M A S T E R P L A N C I T Y O F C L A W S O N , M I

TRANSPORTATION The City of Clawson was settled according to the grid established by the American Rectangular Land Survey System of 1785. Clawson’s road network generally follows the grid pattern established by this land survey system, except where topography has required otherwise.

3

D R A F T · F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 1 8 30

ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION AND RESPONSIBILITY Administrative jurisdictions identify roads in terms of governmental responsibility for construction and maintenance. Road classifications are also used to determine eligibility for federal aid.

ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTION / FEDERAL AID Act 51 of the Public Acts of 1951, as amended, charges county road commissions with the responsibility of classifying county primary and local roads. Roads designated as primary roads must be of the “greatest importance”. This determination is based on traffic volumes, primary generator of traffic served and other factors.

The Road Commission for Oakland County (RCOC) has administrative jurisdiction over the following County primary roads within the City of Clawson: Maple Road, Crooks Road north of 14 Mile, Rochester Road north of 14 Mile and 14 Mile east of Rochester Road.

The remaining streets in the City of Clawson are under the jurisdiction of the City of Clawson. Map 4 depicts the current road conditions in the City.

FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION Functional classifications are used to group streets and highways into classes, or systems, according to the character of traffic service they are intended to provide. There are three (3) highway functional classifications:

• Arterial: Provides the highest level of service at the greatest speed with the longest uninterrupted distance, with some degrees of access control.

• Collector: Provides a less highly developed level of service at a lower speed for shorter distances by collecting traffic from local roads and connecting them with arterials.

• Local: Consists of all roads not defined as arterials or collectors; primarily provides access to land with little or no through movement.

The majority of streets within the City of Clawson are classified as urban local streets. Portions of Maple, Crooks, Rochester, and 14 Mile Roads are classified as urban principal arterials/County primary roads. Main Street and a portion of 14 Mile Road and Crooks Road are designated as an urban minor arterial and Normandy Road is designated as an urban collector. Map 5, the existing transportation network, illustrates the classifications for roadways within the City of Clawson.

MARC

KENI

LWOR

TH

OAKL

EYSHENANDOAH

N. C

USTE

R

STEP

HEN

GORDON CT.

LANGLEY

LANG

LEY

LERNER

KEY WEST

W. SELFRIDGE

COOLIDGE

COUNCIL

GLADWIN

GARDNER

N. C

HOCO

LAY

PARE

PARKLAND

ROTH

E. BAKER

ALLEN

DONALD

SHEN

ANDO

AH

ELMSFORD

BOWERS

N. B

ATCH

EWAN

A

W. BAKE R

KNOLLWOOD

ANDERSON CT.

H IG H LAN D

E LM SF ORD

E. ELMWOOD

PAR K

HIGH

BOWERS

ESSE

X

HUNT

LEY

DARB

EE C

T.

STRA

UB

GERA

LD

S. MA

NITO

U

BAUMAN

HIGHLANDCURT

IS

GARG

ANTU

A

BADDER

WILS

ON

S. MA

RIAS

N.WA

SHIN

GTON

N. M

ANITO

U

HIGH

CHUR

CH

S. BY

WOOD

REDR

UTH

S. WE

BIK

PATT

ERSO

N

WALPER

S. BA

TCHE

WANA

RENS

HAW

LEROY

S. CH

OCOL

AY

MASSOIT

FLOR

ENCE

N. W

EBIK

SCHOOL

W. ELMWOOD

LEPLA

DREON

WRI

G HT

W. TACOMA

CHARLEVOIX

MASSOIT

NAKOTA

TECUMSEH

CHIPPEWA

PHILLIPS

GARDNER

SAMOSET

JEFFERSON

N. M

ARIA

S

MAPL

E-GR

OVE

HENDRICKSON

FISHER COURTGRANT

HENDRICKSON

W. BAKER

JOHN M

BELL

EVUE

BROADACRE

MADISON

W. MAPLE

NAHM

A

W. FOURTEEN MILE

N. BY

WOOD

SCHOOL

N. C

ROOK

S

NORMANDY

LINCOLN

N. R

OCHE

STER

GOODALE

N. M

AIN

N.SE

LFRID

GEKI

NROS

S

S. CU

STER

BOSC

HMA

WILS

ON

S. RO

CHES

TER

LERN

ER

E. FOURTEEN MILE

MICHAELCT.ALYSSA LN.

NAKOTA

OAKGROVE

N. C

USTE

R HIGH

GOOD

ALE

CT. HU

DSON

BAUMAN

RENS

HAW

E. TACOMA

N. B

YWOO

D

S. MA

IN

GROVE

S. CR

OOKS

T r o yT r o y

R o y a l O a kR o y a l O a k

Base Map Source: Oakland County GIS, 2016.

0 500 1,000 FEET

LEGEND

Percentage of City RoadsPaser Rating

34.4%

54.1%

9.0%

2.4%

0.1%

DRAFT

Road Not Maintained by Clawson

City Boundary

1-3

4-5

6

7-8

9-10

Clawson, Michigan

Map 4Road Condition Survey

June 21, 2017

MARC

KENI

LWOR

TH

OAKL

EYSHENANDOAH

N. C

USTE

R

STEP

HEN

GORDON CT.

LANGLEY

LANG

LEY

LERNER

KEY WEST

W. SELFRIDGE

COOLIDGE

COUNCIL

GLADWIN

GARDNER

N. C

HOCO

LAY

PARE

PARKLAND

ROTH

E. BAKER

ALLEN

DONALD

SHEN

ANDO

AH

ELMSFORD

BOWERS

N. B

ATCH

EWAN

A

W. BAKE R

KNOLLWOOD

ANDERSON CT.

H IG H LAN D

E LM S FO RD

E. ELMWOOD

PAR K

HIGH

BOWERS

ESSE

X

HUNT

LEY

DARB

EE C

T.

STRA

UB

GERA

LD

S. MA

NITO

U

BAUMAN

HIGHLANDCURT

IS

GARG

ANTU

A

BADDER

WILS

ON

S. MA

RIAS

N.WA

SHIN

GTON

N. M

ANITO

U

HIGH

CHUR

CH

S. BY

WOOD

REDR

UTH

S. WE

BIK

PATT

ERSO

N

WALPER

S. BA

TCHE

WANA

RENS

HAW

LEROYS.

CHOC

OLAY

MASSOIT

FLOR

ENCE

N. W

EBIK

SCHOOL

W. ELMWOOD

LEPLA

DREON

WRI

GHT

W. TACOMA

CHARLEVOIX

MASSOIT

NAKOTA

TECUMSEH

CHIPPEWA

PHILLIPS

GARDNER

SAMOSET

JEFFERSON

N. M

ARIA

S

MAPL

E-GR

OVE

HENDRICKSON

FISHER COURTGRANT

HENDRICKSON

W. BAKER

JOHN M

BELL

EVUE

BROADACRE

MADISON

W. MAPLE

NAHM

A

W. FOURTEEN MILE

N. BY

WOOD

SCHOOL

N. C

ROOK

S

NORMANDY

LINCOLN

N. R

OCHE

STER

GOODALE

N. M

AIN

N.SE

LFRID

GEKI

NROS

S

S. CU

STER

BOSC

HMA

WILS

ON

S. RO

CHES

TER

LERN

ER

E. FOURTEEN MILE

MICHAELCT.ALYSSA LN.

NAKOTA

OAKGROVE

N. C

USTE

R HIGH

GOOD

ALE

CT. HU

DSON

BAUMAN

RENS

HAW

E. TACOMA

N. B

YWOO

D

S. MA

IN

GROVE

S. CR

OOKS

T r o yT r o y

R o y a l O a kR o y a l O a k

Base Map Source: Oakland County GIS, 2016.

0 500 1,000 FEET

LEGEND

County Primary Road

Arterial Street

Collector Street

Bike Route

City Boundary

Traffic Signal

DRAFT

Clawson, Michigan

Map 5Existing Transportation

June 21, 2017

35 2 0 1 7 M A S T E R P L A N C I T Y O F C L A W S O N , M I

PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS

14 MILE ROAD In 2014, the City of Clawson received a grant from MDOT to construct three median islands on 14 Mile Road in the downtown district to help pedestrians cross the busy roadway. The three islands are uniquely designed to protect pedestrians and bicyclists while making drivers more vigilant as they enter Downtown Clawson. The raised median islands with marked crosswalks, flashing lights and crossing beacon is intended to provide safe access for shoppers and visitors, as well as to reduce the potential for vehicular and pedestrian accidents. Additionally, the pedestrian crossings are meant to have a positive effect on economic development in Downtown Clawson, as the investment has both functional and aesthetic benefits.

The mid-block pedestrian crossings on 14 Mile Road have received mixed reviews, based on community feedback. Those that were in favor of the islands had first-hand knowledge and experience with the crossings and found that drivers were considerate and obeyed the flashing beacons. Several users were residents from Clawson Towers and used the medians to cross the main roadway without having to walk to the main intersection, which may be a cumbersome venture for many. Others, found the pedestrian crossings to be confusing, as the beacons are activated when prompted and each of the three have differing designs, or generally felt unsafe utilizing them.

ROCHESTER ROAD Rochester Road is comparable to 14 Mile Road, in terms of the rate of vehicular traffic on the roadway each day. According to SEMCOG, the Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) count along Rochester Road, 14 Mile Road to Maple was 12,410 vehicles (2010). Fourteen Mile Road west of Rochester Road had 13,310 vehicles (2015) on its roadways per day, and 14 Mile Road east of Crooks had 11,583 (2012) per day.

These “city highways” can pose dangers to pedestrians and bicyclists. Mid-block crossings contributed to the redevelopment and revitalization of Downtown Clawson and they might do the same for the Rochester Road corridor. Installing designated pedestrian crossings would further encourage a cohesive corridor design throughout the community.

Raised median pedestrian crossings, like those installed on 14 Mile Road, would not be prudent on Rochester Road without the presence of a center turn lane; however, it is possible to install designated pedestrian crossings with painted or bricked crosswalks with flashing beacons that would achieve similar results.

D R A F T · F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 1 8 36

There are several benefits to installing pedestrian crossings on Rochester Road north of 14 Mile Road including:

• Encourage a cohesive community roadway design • Develop a pedestrian and bicyclist friendly environment • Traffic-calming efforts to reduce vehicular crashes • Encourage streetscape design efforts to revitalize the corridor • Redirect and focus economic development efforts along the

roadway • Create a sense of place through public art crossing design

Public input revealed that people generally feel like Rochester Road is not an integral part of Clawson, and encouraging pedestrian linkage here could help rectify that.

SOUTH MAIN STREET South of 14 Mile Road, Main Street currently presents a significant obstacle to pedestrian activity. This is particularly concerning given the number of dining options on either side of that stretch of road and the issue it creates for the connectedness of the neighborhoods on either side. In the future, additional, signalized crossings should be considered. Likewise, on-street parking should be extended further south in this area, both to provide additional parking options for those wanting to park and enjoy what this area of the City has to offer and to encourage slower traffic movement through the area. A uniform pattern of street tree planting in this area will also promote these goals.

PARKING Parking availability has become a popular discussion point in the City of Clawson. Parking pressures from downtown can have an effect on nearby neighborhoods. In order to create vibrant, pedestrian corridors that can be utilized by visitors to the City and residents who do not happen to reside nearby, there need to be convenient parking options to serve those areas as part of a range of motorized, public, and non-motorized options for accessing the City’s businesses and amenities. At the same time, unnecessary pavement is not desirable, and the City should review its current parking regulations and address alternative means for calculating standards appropriate for each use. Shared parking, in lieu parking fees, more on-street parking, and low impact design techniques (LID) should all be considered.

PUBLIC TRANSIT The Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transit (SMART) currently provides fixed route bus service along Main Street and 14 Mile Road in Clawson. Other services provided by SMART include Connector Service and Community Transit to the Clawson Senior Center (both are available by advanced reservation). Seniors participating in our roundtable discussion valued SMART’S services very highly. Conversely, high school students surveyed generally had never utilized a SMART bus, pointing to a disconnect in service delivery to younger residents and those with other transportation options. The City should encourage programs and practices that advance awareness of public transit options.

37 2 0 1 7 M A S T E R P L A N C I T Y O F C L A W S O N , M I

NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION A system of bike routes is currently designated within the City of Clawson and is being revised to link the existing route with neighboring Troy and Royal Oak. As shown in Map 6, the areas circled in red are going to be removed from the existing plans and the areas highlighted in green are how the City is going to link with Troy and Royal Oak

In Troy, at Kirts and Main/Livernois, additional signage would be added to continue Troy’s route south along Main/Livernois on the west sidewalk to Park Drive, then west along Park Drive where it would join the existing bike route at Park Drive and Washington.

In Royal Oak, the route will be linked in three different locations. Currently Royal Oak's bike route goes north on Crooks from Normandy and ends at West 14 Mile Road. Changes in signage are planned and continuing the bike route east along West 14 Mile to join the existing bike route at Bywood.

Royal Oak's bike route also ends at East 14 Mile Road and Campbell in Madison Heights. Changes in signage to continue the bike route north across East 14 Mile Road and onto Sheffield in Troy. From there, the bike route would continue north to Grant, then west along Grant to join the existing route at Grant and Wilson.

Signage is also planned at Normandy and South Main to continue Royal Oak's Bike route north, on the sidewalk along South Main, to join the existing bike route at Charlevoix/Walper and South Main.

The City of Clawson's bike route is a unidirectional route that goes in a counter clockwise circle and Royal Oak and Troy's are bi-directional routes. Additional signage is planned to correct this and make the City of Clawson's bike route bi-directional.

Residents surveyed did not express much support for on-street bike routes. The implications of this are discussed in the City’s Complete Streets Policy, below.

CITYSPORTING FACILITIES

CITYPARK

GRANTPARK

PARKLANDPARK

W.

SE

LF

RI D

GE

COOLIDGE

ROTH

NO

SLI

W

N.

WA

SH

ING

TO

N

UO

TIN

AM .

N

W. FOURTEEN MILEW. FOURTEEN MILE

N. C

ROO

KS

DO

OW

YB .

SD

OO

WY

B .N

WALPER

WA

HS

NE

R

PARK

EC

NE

RO

LF

NO

TG

NIH

SA

W .N

PHILLIPS

SAMOSET

FISHER COURT

BROADACRE

MADISON

W. MAPLE

AM

HA

N

NORMANDY

N. R

OCH

ESTE

R

S. R

OCH

ESTE

R

GOODALE

N. M

AIN

HGI

H

EL

AD

OO

G

S T E P H E N

GARDNER

YELK

AO

SHEN AN DOAH

RETS

UC .

N

GORDON

LAN GLEY

YELG

NAL

LERNER

W. SELFRIDGE

COUNCIL

GLADWIN

YALO

CO

HC .

N

GROVE

PARE

PARKLAND

ROTH

E. BAKER

ALLEN

DONALD

ELMSFORD

BOWERS

AN

AWE

HCTAB .

N

W. BAKER

KNOLLWOOD

HIGHLAN D

E. ELMWOOD

HGI

H

BOWERS

ESSE

X

HU

NTL

EY

EEBRA

D

BU

ARTS

DLARE

G

UO

TIN

AM . S BAUMAN

HIGHLAND

SITR

UC

AU

TN

AGR

AG

BADDER

SAIR

AM .S

HCR

UH

C

DO

OWYB .S

HT

URDER

KI BEW . S

NOSRE

TTAP

AN

AWE

HCTAB . S

LEROY

PARK

YALO

CO

HC . S

MASSOIT

KIBEW .

N

SCHOOL

W. ELMWOOD

LEPLA

W. TACOMA

CHARLEVOIX

MASSOIT

NAKOTA

TECUMSEH

CHIPPEWA

PHILLIPS

GARDNER

SAMOSET

JEFFERSON

SAIR

AM .

N

-ELPA

MEV

ORG

HENDRICKSON

GRANT

HENDRICKSON

W. BAKER

BELL

EVU

E

BROADACRE

AM

HA

N

LINCOLNKIN

ROSS

S. C

UST

ER

AM

HCS

OB

NOSLI

W

RENREL

ALYSSA LN.

NAKOTA

OAKGROVE

RETS

UC .

N

HGI

H

HGI

H

NOS

DU

H

BAUMAN

WA

HSNER

E. TACOMA

DO

OWYB .

N

KEY WEST

HTR

OWLI

NEK

SHEN

AND

OAH

SCHOOL

ANDERSON

ELMSFO RD

DREON

WRI

GH

T

N. S

ELFR

IDG

E

MAR

C STEP

HEN

N. B

YWO

OD

JOHN M

Grace ApostolicChurch

HunterCommunityCenter

Guardian Angel Church and School

Church of Christ

BethanyBaptistChurch

TrinityLutheranChurch

KenwoodSchool

IntercessionsWord Ministry

ClawsonMiddleSchool

ClawsonHigh School

Post Office

Blair Memorial Library

Historical Museum

FireDepartment

St. AndrewsEpiscopal Church

City HallPolice Dept.

ClawsonMethodist Church

SchalmSchool

D.P.WCompound

Board of Education

CLAWSON, MICHIGAN

BIKE ROUTE MAP

0 500 1,000 ft

BIKE ROUTES

On street

On sidewalk

On street, downtown

Proposed on-street links to other communities

City bike racks

JULY 2011

KIRTS

MAP 6

41 2 0 1 7 M A S T E R P L A N C I T Y O F C L A W S O N , M I

COMPLETE STREETS Complete Streets is a comprehensive transportation policy and design approach that requires all streets to be designed, planned, constructed, and operated with all users considered regardless of their ages and abilities and for all modes of transit. Complete Streets enables safe, convenient and comfortable travel and access for those walking, biking, driving cars, driving delivery vehicles, or riding public transit.

Complete Streets includes: 1) pedestrian infrastructure including sidewalks, curb-cuts, bump-outs, improved cross-walks, and ADA compliant facilities; 2) traffic calming measures including shorter curb radii, center medians, angled face-out parking, and road diets; 3) bicycle facilities including protected bike lanes, shared-use paths, signage, bicycle parking facilities; and 4) public transit improvements.

4

D R A F T · F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 1 8 42

COMPLETE STREETS POLICY There is no single formula or prescription for a Complete Street in Clawson. Streets are “complete” when they fit in the context of the surrounding area. Not all city streets will include all of the elements below, but this list represents what Clawson will strive to achieve when evaluating future transportation projects.

In 2010, Clawson City Council adopted a resolution in support of Complete Streets. Downtown Clawson has undergone significant transformation in the past decade to make the area more walkable and pedestrian friendly. However, the same emphasis for downtown development and design standards does not continue outside of the DDA, and the City should pursue enhancements citywide, based upon the principles that follow.

• Pedestrians: Clawson’s streets will include sidewalks with unobstructed walking space, adequate lighting, benches, trees, shading, roadway separation and on-street parking, easy access to walkable destinations, and safe and frequent crossings.

• Bicyclists: Clawson’s streets will include spaces to bike comfortably. Public engagement showed a marked preference for utilization of sidewalks for biking, and this appears to be what most people do. Legal barriers to doing so should be removed, and State law should guide (i.e. bicyclists may use sidewalks but must yield to pedestrians). In some cases, marked bike lanes, or the use of “sharrows” (pavement markings within a travel line alerting drivers to an area where bicycles may be riding), will be appropriate, especially where streets articulate with designated bike routes in neighboring communities. The City’s Parks and Recreation Department has identified potential biking routes through the City, which represents one possible route around and to some City facilities. However, it is anticipated that many bicyclists will have the City’s downtown core as a destination, and appropriate wayfinding techniques should be employed in the shorter term to assist bicyclists in getting there. In the longer terms, the City should consider implement appropriate design changes to accommodate use of sidewalks and streets by bicyclists.

• Vehicles: Clawson’s streets will be safe and convenient for driving. Signals will be timed to reduce congestion, on-street and off-street parking will be easily accessible and appropriately priced, and streets will be designed to promote safe driving speeds.

• Streets are places: Clawson’s streets will be places. They will not simply link destinations; they will be destinations in themselves, and include places for social gathering, exercising, and relaxing. Street trees are encouraged to add to the sense of place, while also adding to the urban tree canopy that attracts future homebuyers.

• Adding value: Clawson’s streets will enhance property value and be coordinated with land use development standards to support commerce though connectivity, design aesthetics, street life, and access.

• Transit: Clawson’s streets will support access to existing and future transit systems in the region.

Supporting Complete Streets in Clawson will complement existing development patterns, enhance the attractiveness and use of the City’s business districts, complement traditional neighborhood development patterns, and further a more vibrant City life.

PROTECTING VULNERABLE USERS It is generally recognized that traffic volumes on the major streets through Clawson are high. While higher traffic volumes are desirable for some businesses, excessive volumes and higher speeds cause downtowns and commercial corridors to become less attractive for users and investment. The City’s street system should evolve to be a comfortable environment for all, not just those using a motor vehicle.

43 2 0 1 7 M A S T E R P L A N C I T Y O F C L A W S O N , M I

ECONOMIC BASE Consideration of the local economic base is included in the planning process to ensure that land reserved for commercial and industrial uses is of adequate size to meet the aspirations of the community. However, new commercial and industrial uses must also be and adequately served with public utilities, service and transportation systems. Factors considered in the evaluation of the local economy include labor force characteristics, existing employment within the City, and tax base.

5

D R A F T · F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 1 8 44

Figure 8: Labor Force Characteristics

TAX BASE Real property assessments are broken into various use classifications and include residential, commercial and industrial development.

Table 4 presents the 2016 distribution of assessed and equalized real and personal property values for Clawson and its surrounding cities. The comparison indicates that Clawson’s assessed, equalized, and taxable values for real and personal property are in line with the community of Berkley, whose total population is the most comparable to that of Clawson.

Table 4: Assessed and Equalized Property Values

CITY REAL PROPERTY PERSONAL PROPERTY

Assessed Equalized Taxable Assessed Equalized Taxable

Clawson $411,994,470 $411,994,470 $319,038,200 $12,251,880 $12,251,880 $12,251,880

Berkley $621,798,340 $621,798,340 $496,694,610 $11,356,570 $11,356,570 $11,349,570

Ferndale $648,409,190 $648,409,190 $492,602,610 $41,945,910 $41,945,910 $41,945,910

Madison Heights $805,090,710 $805,090,710 $660,813,910 $102,531,420 $102,531,420 $102,506,120

Royal Oak $2,730,208,790 $2,730,208,790 $2,312,254,100 $123,603,040 $123,603,040 $123,548,190

Troy $5,244,907,820 $5,244,907,820 $4,158,063,320 $381,971,050 $381,971,050 $381,971,050

45 2 0 1 7 M A S T E R P L A N C I T Y O F C L A W S O N , M I

RETAIL GAP ANALYSIS Clawson’s downtown district has undergone a transformation and revitalization in the past decade, attracting the attention for business owners to open a local brewery, one-of-a-kind, high-end lifestyle store, and a plethora of dine-in restaurants. With national and local retail trends changing, Clawson must address what the future of its shopping districts will look like. This section will analyze the market for additional commercial space.

6

D R A F T · F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 1 8 46

For the purpose of this analysis, the center of the downtown district (intersection of 14 Mile and Main Street) is the point at which drive times have been measured. The two-minute drive radius includes all of the downtown district and its neighbors, however, we will not be focusing on the downtown district in this analysis. The retail market is analyzed in depth in the Downtown Master Plan, which was adopted in 2015.

This section will analyze the market for additional commercial space in the City of Clawson by conducting a “Gap Analysis.” Gap Analysis compares the supply of a certain good or service within a community to the demand for that good or service, based on the spending power of residents. If the number is positive, that indicates pent-up demand for a new retail location. If the number is negative, that indicates an oversupply of a certain type of commercial business.

Then, the “gap” is converted from a spending power amount (in dollars) to a number of additional square feet of retail space demanded (based on per-square-foot sales for each category of retail). Finally, the number of additional square feet will be compared to the average size of a store in each category to determine the number of new stores demanded.

In considering the results of these retail gap calculations for purposes of the Master Plan, it is important that the numbers not be viewed as an absolute determinant of the community’s future. Retail gap is only one aspect. Local variations in buying preference, buying power, community desires, and other local characteristics and assets will greatly impact the future and outcome. The purpose of this analysis is, therefore, to give some insights which can contribute to a balanced approach in future economic development efforts and to create realistic expectations for the types of new retail development the City can hope to attract.

TRADE AREA Customers and potential customers for Clawson businesses come approximately from the three “rings” surrounding Clawson. For purposes of analysis, they are measured from the heart of downtown Clawson (14 Mile and Main Street). The first ring, within a two-minute drive, covers the entire downtown district and most of the City itself.

The second ring, within a four-minute drive, captures the remainder of the City, as well as portions of several surrounding communities. Within the second ring, Clawson’s retail centers compete with Royal Oak and Birmingham commercial corridors.

The third ring, within a six-minute drive, extends to the larger commercial areas of nearby communities. Within the six-minute drive radius is Oakland Mall and the Troy Suburban Collection. The Somerset Collection is located just outside the six-minute drive, however, it is worth noting as it attracts shoppers and tourists throughout the metro Detroit area. The abundance of shopping establishments in the six-minute radius suggests that it would not be beneficial to compete with the larger malls for economic expansion in Clawson. It would be best to focus on the four-minute drive radius surrounding Clawson in order to attract new businesses.

47 2 0 1 7 M A S T E R P L A N C I T Y O F C L A W S O N , M I

Map 7: Drive Times from Downtown Clawson (City of Clawson Retail Trade Area)

D R A F T · F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 1 8 48

GAP ANALYSIS With the trade areas for the community established (in this case, approximately estimated as the six-minute drive around Downtown Clawson, with sub-areas at two and four minutes for more detailed analysis), a gap analysis can be performed.

As noted above, a positive gap indicates that there is more demand than supply and that a new store may be necessary to fill a particular need. A negative gap indicates that there is more supply than demand, meaning either that existing stores may be in danger of going out of business or that additional demand is coming from outside the identified trade area.

For the purposes of this analysis, the gap will be expressed as a percentage of demand – i.e. the percentage of demand that is not being met by the existing supply. A negative percentage indicates a negative gap, i.e., a surplus of retail space in that category and no demand for additional stores of that type. Displaying the gap as a percentage allows a quick-glance analysis and easy comparison between categories.

The gap can be used to project the demand for new stores in various retail categories. The gap will be divided by the average sales per square foot for each type of retail, and the resulting figure will be compared to the approximate size in square feet of an establishment that could open in Clawson.

Because Clawson competes with other communities and several large-scale multi-story shopping malls, it will not be able to attract all of the new stores that are demanded within the trade area. The exact proportion of retail demand that will be absorbed in Clawson will be based on many factors, such as transportation improvements, land use policies, and economic development strategies. The six-minute drive time is the total demand base that Clawson can tap into as it grows in the future.

Table 5 below shows the percentage gaps based upon the supply and demand within the trade areas. A positive gap (in green) means that there is unmet demand that could be filled by new businesses. A negative gap (in red) means the market is already oversupplied.

49 2 0 1 7 M A S T E R P L A N C I T Y O F C L A W S O N , M I

Table 5: Percentage of Unmet Retail Demand

Category Two Minute Drive Four Minute Drive Six Minute Drive

Automobile Dealers 93.1% 35.5% -31.2%

Other Motor Vehicle Dealers 100.0% 34.7% 41.1%

Auto Parts Stores -0.1% -40.3% -19.2%

Furniture Stores 51.2% 15.1% 2.2%

Home Furnishings Stores -102.0% -105.9% -81.4%

Electronics and Appliance Stores 87.7% -18.2% -61.0%

Building Material and Supplies Dealers -101.8% 9.1% 13.8%

Lawn and Garden Equipment Stores 100.0% 61.0% -24.6%

Grocery Stores 78.2% 46.5% -81.3%

Specialty Food Stores -209.6% -20.7% -0.5%

Beer, Wine and Liquor Stores -4.3% 66.5% 37.8%

Health and Personal Care Stores -82.1% -95.0% -100.5%

Gas Stations 12.8% 31.2% -6.8%

Clothing Stores 37.3% -85.9% -88.2%

Shoe Stores -8.2% -124.9% -87.9%

Jewelry or Luggage Stores 53.9% -78.4% -77.0%

Sporting Goods, Hobby, Music Stores -3.4% 52.6% 28.9%

Book Stores 22.3% 63.5% 67.1%

Department Stores 100.0% 51.8% -3.4%

General Merchandise Store 52.7% 65.3% 68.5%

Florists -149.0% -68.6% -78.6%

Office Supplies -373.9% -124.4% -121.7%

Used Merchandise Stores 27.8% 69.6% 41.2%

Full-Service Restaurants -196.4% -23.2% -34.5%

Fast Food Restaurants -88.3% -50.1% -45.5%

Bars -83.7% 55.1% 63.7%

D R A F T · F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 1 8 50

Table 6 below shows the gap converted to a demand for additional stores, based on the size of the potential market and the usual square footage of stores in the category. The number of stores is presented as a range.

Table 6: Demand for New Stores

Category Two Minute Drive Four Minute Drive Six Minute Drive

Automobile Dealers 0-1 0-1 0

Other Motor Vehicle Dealers 0 0 0

Auto Parts Stores 0 0 0

Furniture Stores 0 0 0

Home Furnishings Stores 0 0 0

Electronics and Appliance Stores 0 0 0

Building Material and Supplies Dealers 0 0 0

Lawn and Garden Equipment Stores 0 0 0

Grocery Stores 0-1 1-2 0

Specialty Food Stores 0 0 0

Beer, Wine and Liquor Stores 0 0-1 0-1

Health and Personal Care Stores 0 0 0

Gas Stations 0 1-2 0

Clothing Stores 0 0 0

Shoe Stores 0 0 0

Jewelry or Luggage Stores 0 0 0

Sporting Goods, Hobby, Music Stores 0 0-1 1-2

Book Stores 0 0-1 1-2

Department Stores 0-1 2-3 0

General Merchandise Store 0 2-3 5-6

Florists 0 0 0

Office Supplies 0 0 0

Used Merchandise Stores 0 0 0-1

Full-Service Restaurants 0 0 0

Fast Food Restaurants 0 0 0

Bars 0 0 0-1

51 2 0 1 7 M A S T E R P L A N C I T Y O F C L A W S O N , M I

RETAIL TYPOLOGIES Clawson has successful examples of two of the three major retail typologies: indoor mall, suburban strip/big box, and walkable urban. There are several suburban strip malls on the main roads in Clawson, and the downtown district has undergone recent revitalization for a walkable environment. The City does not contain an indoor mall, however, Oakland Mall and the Somerset Collection are located 2.1 miles to the east and 4.1 miles to the northwest, respectively.

Table 7 below shows the retail typologies generally favored by the retail types that show demand within the trade area. Of the retail types with unmet demand, all would be comfortable in a suburban strip setting. Very few, however, would commonly locate in an indoor mall. Retail types usually found in malls (clothing stores, shoe stores, etc.) are saturated in Oakland County.

Table 7: Retail Typologies Favored by Businesses with Unmet Demand

Retail Typology Suburban Strip/

Big Box Indoor Mall Walkable Urban

Automobile Dealers X

Grocery Stores X X

Beer, Wine and Liquor Stores X X

Gas Stations X

Sporting goods, Hobby, Music Stores X

Book Stores X X

Department Stores X X

General Merchandise Stores X X

Used Merchandise Stores X

Bars X X

D R A F T · F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 1 8 52

CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions can be drawn from the data regarding retail demand in Clawson.

• There is demand within Clawson and its immediate surroundings for department stores, but the market is saturated within a six-mile drive. The Oakland Mall is located within a five-minute drive of downtown Clawson, and would satisfy most community residents. The Oakland Mall is located in an area with several suburban strip malls that will draw Clawson residents.

• All retail types that are associated with automotive sales or repairs have saturated markets in Troy, the northern neighbor of Clawson. Located northwest of Clawson on Maple Road is the Troy Motor Mall, a plethora of automotive dealerships and other motor vehicle dealers. Planning for the large amount of space needed for car dealerships should not be a priority of Clawson, as the City would not likely detract residents from frequenting the dealerships in which they have established relationships.

• There is a significant demand for general merchandise stores in Clawson and its immediate surroundings. General merchandise stores refer to a wide array of products, but it mainly pertains to stores that do not sell grocery items or alcohol. Frequently, these stores are satisfied as “dollar stores.” While these establishments are not exclusive to lower-income areas, care should be given as to whether to cater to this category of retail.

• Clawson is in a particularly difficult position in regards to retail supply and demand. The City is centrally located among several popular and established cities, such as Royal Oak, Birmingham and Troy. However, in this case being neighbors with several shopping centers and indoor malls does not leave Clawson with retail demand in which to draw residents and other shoppers.

• Commercial districts should provide for a flexible mixture of uses, to allow the available land to be used as the market demands.

53 2 0 1 7 M A S T E R P L A N C I T Y O F C L A W S O N , M I

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION During the creation of this Master Plan, it was vital to engage the public in order to understand the strengths, weaknesses, and goals of the community. To create a framework for public participation, a goal and priorities survey of the Planning Commission, four roundtable discussions, and a public online survey were conducted to help identify issues and opportunities that are important in order to facilitate positive change.

7

D R A F T · F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 1 8 54

GOAL PRIORITIES SURVEY At the kick-off meeting between McKenna consultants and the Clawson Planning Commission, commissioners were asked to review goals and objectives relating to community facilities, economic development, neighborhoods, transportation, and downtown. The Goals Priority Survey was based on the goals and strategies from the 2009 Master Plan.

For each objective, respondents were asked to rank the priority level for investment as High, Medium, or Low. It also allowed for respondents to articulate if the goals and strategies had been started and/or completed since the adoption of the previous plan.

ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSIONS McKenna Associations conducted four roundtable discussions with a cross-section of Clawson residents, property owners, and business owners. The discussion groups were held at Clawson High School, the Clawson Community Center, and City Hall. The framework of each exchange was fairly relaxed, allowing for open dialogue and free flow of ideas and opinions. A series of prompt questions were used in order to direct the discussion when the dialogue veered in less than productive directions. Results of these discussions are summarized below.

CLAWSON HIGH SCHOOL NOVEMBER 10, 2016 The first roundtable discussion took place at Clawson High School with 21 students, Principal Ryan Sines and Economic Development Coordinator Susie Stec were also in attendance. Students were asked discussion questions focused on housing and neighborhoods, businesses and commercial corridors, and infrastructure and transportation.

Housing and Neighborhoods Approximately 75 percent of students have lived in Clawson all their lives, and half said that they would still want to be in Clawson in 20 years. Overwhelmingly, the students felt that Clawson is a good place to live. They described the City as feeling safe and being tight-knit community where they feel protected. The students said they like the neighborhoods in which they live; noting the abundance of trees and friendly neighbors as the most positive aspects. They identified the condition of the roadways as needing improvement.

Businesses and Commercial Corridors Most students feel that they need to leave the City to shop. They are most likely to frequent the malls (Oakland Mall and Somerset Mall). Within Clawson they are most likely to frequent the restaurants. They like the variety of restaurants, especially in downtown. They identified a number of businesses they wish were in the City: sporting goods stores, Little Caesars, Subway, Chik-fil-A, K-Mart, and clothing stores.

The students made multiple mentions of the fact that there are too many vacant storefronts in Clawson. Namely, the Burger King and gas station on 14 Mile Road. They identified these vacancies as a blight on the community, as many people use 14 Mile to as a through road to get to another city. The vacancies can reflect poorly on the City as a whole.

The students felt that Rochester Road does not seem like a part of Clawson.

Infrastructure and Transportation Most students drive their personal vehicles to get around the City and surrounding communities. Collectively, they agree that they can walk everywhere; they feel safe to do so, but it’s faster to drive.

55 2 0 1 7 M A S T E R P L A N C I T Y O F C L A W S O N , M I

They acknowledge that lots of other kids walk to school, but they mostly didn’t. Further, they said that before they received their driver’s licenses they were prone to walk or bike, due to necessity, but now prefer driving.

Several students were surprised when they learned that their school principal had ridden the SMART bus to and from the school. When the principal explained the route, one student commented that she wanted to try that. However, when asked if students would utilize a public bus route, many of them said no.

Most students do not like the mid-block crosswalks on 14 Mile Rd. The variations between the three in terms of design had them confused. A few had used them to cross the street and commented that most drivers don’t stop, and it’s not safe to cross.

The students admit that they avoid on-street parking. Claim they are not good at parallel parking. They also overwhelmingly said ‘no’ to bike lanes.

When asked where they ride their bikes, the overwhelming response was on the sidewalk. In response to a question regarding whether or not they would use on-street bike lanes, if available, they pretty universally said that they would not, as they would not feel safe doing so.

Additional Comments

• They want new businesses in the City; preferably where teens can work. • Lights at volleyball courts • Want somewhere to play basketball • City Park is beautiful • Update Parkland Park and Grant Park

CLAWSON SENIOR CENTER NOVEMBER 14, 2016 The second roundtable discussion took place at the Clawson Community Center with seven attendees. Those in attendance were asked discussion questions focused on housing and neighborhoods, businesses and commercial corridors, infrastructure and transportation, the community center and parks and recreation.

Housing and Neighborhoods Most attendees have been long-term residents of Clawson; one attendee has lived in the City less than two years. She had lived in Troy for several years and moved to Clawson because it is friendlier, more convenient, and the City takes care of its residents. They agree that Clawson is a good place to live, and enjoy frequenting the library, City Park and the community center. The attendees live in condos, high-rise, city apartments, and single-family homes.

Overall, they think the neighborhoods are pretty good. They can walk around wherever they like and the roads are well-maintained. They noted that on-street parking can be a problem in neighborhoods because the narrow lot sizes limit the amount of available, parallel spaces (due to the frequency of drive openings).

Business and Commercial Corridors Attendees agree that there are enough restaurants and dentist offices in the City, especially in the downtown area. It was noted that façade improvements are necessary; specifically, the comic book store is strange. One attendee remarked that it would be beneficial to have a Meijer or Walmart in Clawson, especially for the draw from other communities and the economic benefits. A grocery store was also desired. However, it was noted that there is no place to put those big stores.

D R A F T · F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 1 8 56

It was noted that the corridors need attention; they are getting better, but still need work. Street trees would help. Rochester Road looks like older Clawson; dull buildings, industrialized businesses, not revitalized like downtown. One attendee offered a suggestion that the City should pressure business and property owners to improve the façades.

Infrastructure and Transportation Attendees remarked that parking can be an issue in Clawson. They suggest a two-story parking structure however, the issue is where to put it. Additional parking could be located by the DPW lot.

The availability of the SMART bus is one of the reasons to be in Clawson, and most in the senior group rely upon it.

The participants felt that the City did a good job of maintaining its roads in winter.

Community Center and Parks & Recreation Overall, the attendees were very satisfied with the community center, and claim it is one of the best in the metro Detroit area. There are lots of activities, lectures, day trips, and pick-up/drop-off service from home. The parking lot needs some attention. The lot is full most of the time, and it needs more handicap accessible spaces.

Additional Comments • An Ice Rink would be nice but would require a lot of maintenance • It is important to work with surrounding communities

CLAWSON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE NOVEMBER 15, 2016 The third roundtable discussion took place at Clawson City Hall during the Chamber’s regular meeting. There were 12 attendees and Director of Building and Planning James Albus and Economic Development Coordinator Susie Stec also participated. Those in attendance were asked discussion questions focused on housing and neighborhoods, businesses and commercial corridors, and infrastructure and transportation.

Housing and Neighborhoods Attendees feel that there is a good mix of housing. Many folks who live in the City are second and third generation residents. The members equated the City to a Norman Rockwell painting; believing that is a safe place to live, with friendly people and a neighborhood-family dynamic. Many would not be in favor of changing too much about the City, especially the neighborhoods. They consider the regional trend to be to demo small homes and construct large McMansions to be a bad idea; ultimately pricing people out.

They would be supportive of downtown apartments; two to three story buildings that would fit with the downtown atmosphere. Multi-family in downtown is the trend, and Clawson is lacking in having housing for millennials. The City does not have “cool places”. Micro-housing is another popular trend. Jerry Amber was very strong on the point that apartment buildings should be residential from the ground up; that his residents do not like living over commercial businesses.

Business and Commercial Corridors Attendees agreed that there is not a consistent form for businesses outside of the downtown area. The mismatch of uses, building heights, vacant and older buildings makes it difficult to attract new businesses. Some attendees wanted more shops, not big box stores. They would like to see more Berkley-like shops; and more like Leon and Lulu.

14 Mile Rd, west from the vacant Burger King is deemed an eyesore. Store fronts are awful and need maintenance. Attendees expressed wishes to be able to walk around and shop outside of the DDA. Trick-or-treaters stopped and turned around because there was nothing further down. There is a lack of cohesive participation throughout the business community.

57 2 0 1 7 M A S T E R P L A N C I T Y O F C L A W S O N , M I

Chamber believes that they need to educate people about opening a business in the City. They would like to see more office space, but to regulate hair and nail salons. Feel that there are enough of those. The appearance of commercial buildings was a significant point of discussion. Many feel that Rochester Road needs serious attention; looks like “poor side” of the City, and the point was made that it is difficult to ascertain where the City begins on and ends along Rochester Road. It is important to work with all businesses for cohesion. Place-making for identity for commercial districts outside of the DDA was stressed. Not everything should be about the downtown, in the view of the members participating.

Infrastructure and Transportation Several attendees do not like the on-street parking. Claim they cannot see on-coming traffic. They would support a parking structure, but do not know where to put one. Other participants liked anything that slowed traffic down coming through town, noted that it creates an impression, sense of place.

Three people commented on the mid-block crosswalks on 14 Mile Rd. One person had no issue, claimed traffic stopped just fine and felt safe. Second person has seen people using it from the high-rise and were happy with it. A third person was scared to cross. Drivers don’t seem to know what they mean and are confused by it; don’t tend to stop.

Additional Comments • Burger King should be rezoned, redeveloped for millennial apartments • Vacant lots should be developed – tax penalties or incentives for property owners • Green belt buffers, berms to separate businesses from main roads

CLAWSON REALTORS & COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNERS NOVEMBER 15, 2016 The fourth roundtable discussion took place at Clawson City Hall with six attendees. Economic Development Coordinator Susie Stec also participated. Those in attendance were asked discussion questions focused on housing and residential neighborhoods, businesses and commercial real estate, and infrastructure and transportation.

Housing and Residential Neighborhoods Two attendees live in Clawson, while others work in Clawson dealing directly with people looking to move to the area. They say that some clients are asking for Clawson, above other communities in the metro Detroit area. Specifically, they want the retro feel of the City, lower home prices, embracing a community with a “Mayberry” feel.

There were 18 homes for sale in the City. Supply and demand not wholly in sync. Much of the City’s supply are bungalows without basements. A demand that realtors are hearing is for detached condos. There’s a market for people who want to downsize, but want to stay in the community and there isn’t a place in the City to direct them. Home additions and basement renovations are equally popular. Similarly, mixed uses, including a residential component, were favored.

The parks, downtown, affordable housing are a big draw for people. Clawson is a front porch community, leading to a closer knit community. One of the participants coined the phrase, “the City should encourage front porches versus back decks,” going so far as to suggest that the City provide incentives to create more front porches on its homes.

Businesses and Commercial Real Estate Most attendees believe that there is a good mix of businesses in the City. Bars and restaurants will drive commercial expansion outside of the downtown area. There needs to be a reason for people to get out of their cars. The commercial corridors need design uniformity and attention to the parking issue. Future development will be limited unless the owners acquire a second lot for cars, or the City invests in a public parking structure. Attendees identified

D R A F T · F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 1 8 58

future business opportunities: bowling alley, roller skating rink, a pool hall, and indoor recreation (soccer field, pool, and fieldhouse with family activities).

Infrastructure and Transportation As noted above, attendees felt that a field house, for indoor recreation, would be a good addition to the City.

It was noted that semi-trucks often drive over the sidewalk by Black Lotus, damaging the corner.

Additional Comments

• Should review City regulations. Re-occupancy process decreases value • City should establish an identity to attract individuals and families and to focus development • A fruit and vegetable market would be a nice addition.

ONLINE SURVEY As part of the public engagement process for the Master Plan update, a survey was conducted from November 8, 2016 to January 3, 2017 that generated 328 responses (with 266 respondents answering all the questions).

CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS A great majority of respondents (93.9 percent) were Clawson residents, approximately 86 percent owned the home in which they live. Interestingly, the largest percentage of respondents, 33 percent have lived in Clawson only 0-5 years, but 32 percent have lived in Clawson 21 years or longer. Female respondents outpaced male respondents by approximately 10 percent. Of all those answering the survey, more than 88 percent were between the ages of 25 and 64, with over 57 percent of those in the 25-44 year old age range. A fairly significant percentage (53 percent) of the participants live in a household with only one or two people in it.

HOUSING More than 95 percent of respondents live in a single-family dwelling, and more than 93 percent replied that they plan on continuing to live in Clawson in the future.

Clawson is a bedroom community; dominated by single family households. Respondents were asked which housing option they would like to see more of in the future:

• Downtown apartments / flats 49% • Moderately-priced single-family 48%

Respondents were asked which housing option they would like same amount in the future (no change):

• Assisted living senior facilities 54% • Independent living senior facilities 52% • Luxury single-family 36% • Townhouses or row houses 32% • Apartments 32% • Duplexes 30%

Attitudes towards accessory dwellings (grandparents, rooms for rent, etc.) were nearly equally divided: 22 percent favor more development, 20 percent favor the same amount of development, 22 percent none, and 28 percent had no opinion. Micro-housing was strongly disfavored.

59 2 0 1 7 M A S T E R P L A N C I T Y O F C L A W S O N , M I

A very significant percentage of respondents supports adding to the City’s housing stock in order to keep the City vibrant, with more that 56 percent in support of the idea and only 16 percent opposed.

FEELINGS OF THE COMMUNITY Clawson residents and stakeholders feel overwhelmingly positive towards the City. The most positive aspects of the community are the sense of community (79 percent), location in the Detroit region (77 percent), public safety (71 percent), downtown character (68 percent), and parks and recreation options (61 percent).

Those that remarked on negative aspects of living in Clawson felt that vacant businesses and store fronts required the most attention (58 percent).

When asked about future improvements to the City, over 56 percent of respondents wish to revitalize Rochester Road corridor, 52 percent wish to revitalize the 14 Mile corridor, and 45 percent want more entertainment, dining, and / or nightlife options (and another 29 percent identified a need for more interesting public places).

TRANSPORTATION Overwhelmingly, respondents felt the various transportation goals or objectives surveyed were “Somewhat Important,” notable exceptions being mid-block crosswalks and bike lanes, which 43 percent and 38 percent, respectively, termed, “Not Important at All.” A higher level of urgency was assigned to better maintenance for existing roads and sidewalks was ranked Important by most respondents.

COMMUNITY PRIORITIES Survey results reflect respondents’ belief that eliminating blighted structures, redeveloping vacant or underused commercial properties, and assuring that new development is well-designed and attractive should be top priorities for the City. Also marked as important priorities are:

• Improving the appearance of residential neighborhoods • Improving the appearance of commercial corridors • Maintaining existing roadways • Helping keep Clawson green by encouraging rigorous landscaping standards for development and

redevelopment • Eliminating unnecessary regulations or barriers to creativity

MEDICAL MARIJUANA The State of Michigan has recently passed legislation to license medical marijuana facilities, including facilities for growing, testing, and selling such products. Survey results indicate that 44 percent of respondents are in favor of allowing a reasonable number of facilities and another 15 percent expressed no opinion. On the other hand, 42 percent were opposed.

D R A F T · F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 1 8 60

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Survey results reflect respondents believe economic development is important to the future of the City. The majority of responses were in the ‘important’ category, with the largest percentages as follows:

• Encourage additional retail businesses • Encourage food services businesses • Encourage start-up businesses and entrepreneurship • Regulatory flexibility so long as design standards are maintained • Encourage a mixture of compatible uses

Respondents were asked to rank several different types of businesses to articulate if the City has too many, just enough, or if it is desperately needed. The majority of businesses were ranked as having just enough. Auto-related use businesses were identified as having too many; however, several were identified as being desperately needed.

• Bookstores 47% • Clothing Store 47% • Entertainment Venues 67% • Food Trucks 50% • Grocery Store 51%

Artisan uses, brewpubs, and sit down restaurants were also strongly supported.

Complete survey results are set forth in the appendix.

61 2 0 1 7 M A S T E R P L A N C I T Y O F C L A W S O N , M I

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The following are the goals and objectives of the Clawson Master Plan. The goals are numbered in order to allow for quick identification and reference, and the numbers do not correspond to a specific priority level or order.

8

D R A F T · F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 1 8 62

GOAL 1: ATTRACT NEW BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY TO THE CITY. a) Increase the marketing efforts of the City.

b) Encourage entrepreneurial development and assistance programs.

c) Encourage the start-up and/or location of emerging technology and high-tech industries.

d) Promote the redevelopment of existing structures to reduce vacancy and blight.

GOAL 2: PRIORITIZE DEVELOPMENT AND REVITALIZATION ALONG THE MAIN ROAD CORRIDORS.

a) Review each corridor to determine land use patterns and opportunities for change.

b) Prioritize streetscape design, including street trees and furnishings, along the corridors to emphasize continuity and a pedestrian friendly environment throughout the City.

c) Invest in more extensive streetscape design elements in areas contiguous to downtown.

d) Utilize appropriately flexible zoning along main corridors to encourage reuse.

e) Consider additional pedestrian crossings/landing areas and other traffic calming measures to enhance corridor vitality.

GOAL 3: PRESERVE, PROTECT AND ENHANCE THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF CLAWSON’S NEIGHBORHOODS.

a) Protect neighborhood character while allowing for property improvement.

b) Encourage transitional development between single-family residential neighborhoods and commercial corridors.

c) Encourage streetscape maintenance.

d) Continue to enforce the property maintenance code and ensure consistent enforcement.

63 2 0 1 7 M A S T E R P L A N C I T Y O F C L A W S O N , M I

GOAL 4: ENCOURAGE TRANSITION DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES.

a) Promote mixed use residential development outside of traditional single-family neighborhoods.

b) Encourage development of alternative housing options near downtown and along commercial corridors.

GOAL 5: MAINTAIN AND ENHANCE COMMUNITY FACILITIES, RECREATION PROGRAMS, AND CITY PARKS TO MEET PRESENT AND FUTURE NEEDS OF ALL RESIDENTS.

a) Maintain and improve park cleanliness by ensuring adequate trash cans, benches, and picnic tables.

b) Continue to utilize parks for community festivals and family events.

c) Facilitate bike-friendly connections to City Park, downtown, the Clawson Library, the Community Center, and other attractions.

d) Prioritize programs and services that assist the City’s elderly residents.

e) Partner with the school district to provide activities for youth.

GOAL 6: PROMOTE A SAFE AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION NETWORK WITHIN AND THROUGH THE COMMUNITY.

a) Complete and implement a wayfinding sign plan.

b) Provide marked pedestrian crossings at key locations (with signalization, if needed.)

c) Improve traffic movements in and near Clawson schools and other community facilities, particularly during peak traffic hours.

d) Enhance community gateway entrances to inform the public that they are entering a special place.

e) Create appropriate linkages for bike lanes from other communities.

D R A F T · F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 1 8 64

GOAL 7: MINIMIZE OVERUSE AND RELIANCE UPON PRIVATE ACCESS DRIVES AND PARKING LOTS; PROMOTE GREEN SPACE, AND MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.

a) Encourage property owners to incorporate shared access drives and shared parking lots.

b) Review parking standards throughout the community.

c) Encourage consolidated and/or elimination of drives onto major roads.

d) Encourage Low Impact Development techniques where large areas of parking will be needed.

e) Eliminate unnecessary pavement and other impervious surfaces.

GOAL 8: PURSUE ALTERNATIVE FORMS OF TRANSPORTATION, WHERE APPROPRIATE.

a) Promote land use patterns and transit-oriented design standards that support walking, bicycling, and public transit use.

b) Expand public transportation services within Clawson and specialty services for older adults.

c) Increase public awareness of public transit options.

d) Encourage development of the Clawson Bike Route throughout the community and appropriate bike wayfinding and pavement markings generally.

e) Evaluate and update the sidewalk network throughout the City to promote pedestrian and bicycle activity.

65 2 0 1 7 M A S T E R P L A N C I T Y O F C L A W S O N , M I

FUTURE LAND USE Map 8 shows how land uses in Clawson (identified in the map legend) should develop and highlights specific elements.

9

MARC

KENI

LWOR

TH

OAKL

EY

SHENANDOAH

N. C

USTE

R

STEP

HEN

GORDON CT.

LANGLEY

LANG

LEY

LERNER

KEY WEST

W. SELFRIDGE

COOLIDGE

COUNCIL

GLADWIN

GARDNER

N. C

HOCO

LAY

PARE

PARKLAND

ROTH

E. BAKER

ALLEN

DONALD

SHEN

AND O

AH

ELMSFORD

BOWERS

N. B

ATCH

EWAN

A

W. B A K E R

KNOLLWOOD

ANDERSON CT.

H IG H L A N D

E L M S F O R D

E. ELMWOOD

PA R K

HIGH

BOWERS

ESSE

X

HUNT

LEY

DARB

EE C

T.

STRA

UB

GERA

LD

S. MA

NITO

U

BAUMAN

HIGHLANDCURT

IS

GARG

ANTU

A

BADDER

WILS

ON

S. MA

RIAS

N.WA

SHIN

GTON

N. M

ANITO

U

HIGH

CHUR

CH

S. BY

WOOD

REDR

UTH

S. W

EBIK

PATT

ERSO

N

WALPER

S. BA

TCHE

WANA

RENS

HAW

LEROYS.

CHOC

OLAY

MASSOIT

FLOR

ENCE

N. W

EBIK

SCHOOL

W. ELMWOOD

LEPLA

DREON

WR I

GH

T

W. TACOMA

CHARLEVOIX

MASSOIT

NAKOTA

TECUMSEH

CHIPPEWA

PHILLIPS

GARDNER

SAMOSET

JEFFERSON

N. M

ARIA

S

MAPL

E-GR

OVE

HENDRICKSON

FISHER COURTGRANT

HENDRICKSON

W. BAKER

JOHN M

BELL

EVU

E

BROADACRE

MADISON

W. MAPLE

NAHM

A

W. FOURTEEN MILE

N. BY

WOOD

SCHOOL

N. C

ROOK

S

NORMANDY

LINCOLN

N. R

OCHE

STER

GOODALE

N. M

AIN

N.SE

LFRID

GEKI

NROS

S

S. CU

STER

BOSC

HMA

WILS

ON

S. RO

CHES

TER

LERN

ER

E. FOURTEEN MILE

MICHAELCT.ALYSSA LN.

NAKOTA

OAKGROVE

N. C

USTE

R

HIGH

GOOD

ALE

CT. HU

DSON

BAUMAN

RENS

HAW

E. TACOMA

N. B

YWOO

D

S. MA

IN

GROVE

S. CR

OOKS

T r o yT r o y

R o y a l O a kR o y a l O a k

Base Map Source: Oakland County GIS, 2016.

0 500 1,000 FEET

LEGEND

Single Family Residential

Core Residential

Multiple Family Residential

Local Business

General Business

Mixed Use - 1

Mixed Use - 2

Downtown Fringe

City Center

Office

Industrial

Public/ Quasi- Public

Recreation/ Open Space

City Boundary

DRAFT

Clawson, Michigan

Map 8Future Land Use

June 21, 2017

69 2 0 1 7 M A S T E R P L A N C I T Y O F C L A W S O N , M I

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL The City of Clawson is predominately a residential community, with the majority belonging to single family housing. Community residents and stakeholders prioritize the preservation and maintenance of the existing housing stock within Clawson. The City’s stable, single-family neighborhoods are intended to remain intact going forward. Measures to protect the character of those neighborhoods, such as regulations that insure new or remodeled homes remain in scale with the existing housing stock, should be undertaken.

DOWNTOWN The City adopted the Downtown Master Plan in 2015, and its policies are incorporated herein by reference.

MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Incorporating a variety of housing options within a community can be attractive to all age groups from Millennials to Baby Boomers, and will allow them to remain within a community as their particular needs and wishes change over time. The needs of young adults differ from older adults with families and differ from empty nesters nearing retirement. Areas appropriate for multiple family housing have generally been designated along the City’s major thoroughfares, including within mixed use districts contemplated for the 14 Mile Road and Main Street corridors.

BUSINESS In the past, a distinction has been made between parcels that are small in size and are limited by building square footage and availability in off street parking, which were often designated for uses that serve the local community, such as restaurants, cafes, and small scale retail, and those that are generally larger in scale and serve more regional needs, often, lumped together in strip malls with large swaths of parking located along the front of the property. This latter category has included pharmacies, chain retail establishments, grocery store, and the like. The City believes that these distinctions have often proven to be an unnecessary burden on creativity and entrepreneurship. Going forward, districts should be developed for the City’s main commercial corridors, along 14 Mile Road and along Main Street, outside of the downtown, that afford the same sort of flexibility as is available to downtown uses, relying more heavily on design considerations to achieve a harmonious relationship between uses as opposed to use

D R A F T · F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 1 8 70

restrictions. Districts should afford flexibility to allow the Planning Commission to recognize new business concepts as they evolve. A local commercial distinction will continue to be appropriate at the intersection of 14 Mile and Rochester Roads, due to its setting amidst surrounding residential uses. The northern and western gateways to the City, and the southern end of Rochester Road, will have a more strictly commercial orientation, as has historically been the case.

MIXED USE As discussed above, these areas, located on 14 Mile Road and Main Street, and at the intersection of Crooks and Maple Roads, are intended to allow a flexible mixture of compatible uses, as more particularly described below. There is a larger emphasis upon aesthetics, landscaping, and design to assure compatibility.

MU-1: 14 MILE ROAD AND MAIN STREET The downtown area is the focal point of the City. The walkable and pedestrian friendly sidewalks and streetscapes encourage pedestrian activity. However, those welcoming and friendly elements currently diminish at the downtown district boundary.

The continuation of similar downtown character features, such as street trees, bike racks, planter boxes, maintained sidewalks, and benches would encourage pedestrians to venture beyond the downtown district to visit other nearby businesses without relying upon the personal vehicle. Likewise, the incorporation of multiple-family residential uses along the corridor will help generate additional demand for shopping and dining. A Mixed Use Commercial District along 14 Mile Road and South Main Street is intended, to allow for additional businesses to serve the community, while also providing alternative housing options. Increasing the variety of housing near the downtown will tend to attract those who would choose to live in a bustling community without the maintenance required from living in a single-family detached structure. Live-work units could also be appropriate.

MU-2: CROOKS AND MAPLE ROADS The corner of Crooks and Maple is the northwest boundary of the City and also represents an entrance into the City of Troy. There are large parcels here, many in a business park setting that can accommodate more expansive land uses than much of the rest of the City. This area is appropriate for office and light industrial type uses that are not inconsistent with the fact the runway approach protection zone for the Oakland-Troy Airport overlies a portion of it. Artisan-type uses that can benefit from industrial workspaces would also be appropriate uses here.

71 2 0 1 7 M A S T E R P L A N C I T Y O F C L A W S O N , M I

OFFICE This designation denotes areas appropriate for office and similar, compatible uses. These properties front major thoroughfares and represent a transition from other, more intense uses.

INDUSTRIAL Industrial uses are planned for the northern portion of Rochester Road in the City, to include wholesale activities, warehouses, and industrial operations whose external and physical effects are restricted to the immediate area having only a minimal effect on surrounding districts. Certain automotive-related commercial uses are also appropriate for this area.

PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC This designation includes government service buildings such as City Hall, DPW, the Library, and the Historical Museum. It also includes school facilities such as elementary, middle, high school and administrative buildings. Public/Quasi-Public would also include places of worship, non-profits, and other service organizations.

RECREATION/OPEN SPACE This designation encompasses areas within Clawson that are publicly owned and intended to remain so in the future. It includes the City’s parks and recreation system. The Clawson Parks and Recreation Master Plan focuses on the development and long-range planning ideas for the parks and recreation facilities.

73 2 0 1 7 M A S T E R P L A N C I T Y O F C L A W S O N , M I

SUSTAINABILITY AND GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE The most widely accepted definition of sustainability is “meeting today’s needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Urban development should be guided by a sustainable planning and management vision that promotes interconnected green space, a multi-modal transportation system, and mixed use development. The path towards sustainability is rooted in three pillars: Economic Development, Social Progress, and Environmental Responsibility.

10

D R A F T · F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 1 8 74

Figure 9: Sustainability Pillars

There is no straight forward path towards becoming a sustainable community. The most challenging aspect may come from receiving support from the community that would most benefit from incorporating sustainable practices. Communicating the importance of the ‘invisible problems’ and educating the public on the merits of new policies and procedures may not be the easiest task. Incorporating sustainable development practices will have long-term benefits that will outweigh short-term challenges.

SUSTAINABLE DESIGN Communities that follow sustainable design standards for land use will have achieved the center point of the above diagram; a harmony between economic development, environmental responsibility, and social progress.

The Sustainable Cities Institute developed the following principles of land use that should be implemented to foster a sustainable community.

• Open Space. Open green space is key to the environmental benefits of a community, including improved air quality. It will also encourage residents to utilize the space for active and passive uses.

• Walkability and Connectivity. The City has undertaken several streetscape revitalization efforts within the downtown to create a more walkable and connected area. The Future Land Use Map demonstrates a focus to expand the walkability and connectivity that is central to the downtown district.

• Integration of Diverse Community Features. The City should incorporate a variety of community facilities that service local residents and fulfills their needs. This will better serve the community to reverse adverse effects of sprawl by incorporating higher density, such as missing middle housing.

• Strong Sense of Place. The Future Land Use Map focuses on the downtown district, commercial gateways, and the mixed-use developments to enhance and promote the strong sense of place within Clawson and its connection to the region.

Additional principles for fostering a sustainable community include cultivating renewable energy and implementing green building design.

• Renewable Energy. Solar power has grown in popularity and is becoming an affordable method of renewable energy for families and businesses. Paving the way towards a more sustainable future, solar power systems derive pure energy from the sun, thereby reducing overall dependence on fossil fuels. A 2015 study by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology examined the future of solar electricity generation in the United States and aimed to provide resources and recommendations for decision-makers.

• Green Building. A focus on land use planning and building design to protect the natural environment are two significant steps toward a sustainable community.

The Environmental Protection Agency identified several potential environmental, economic, and social benefits of green building. They include:

• Enhance and protect biodiversity and ecosystems

75 2 0 1 7 M A S T E R P L A N C I T Y O F C L A W S O N , M I

• Improve air quality and water quality • Conserve and restore natural resources • Reduce operating costs • Heighten aesthetic qualities • Minimize strain on local infrastructure • Improve overall quality of life

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE Green infrastructure, often referred to as Low Impact Development (LID), is an approach to water management that protects and restores the natural water cycle. It means planting trees, restoring wetlands and managing stormwater run-off that will erode the soil and natural resources and will eventually overburden the community’s municipal water system. Such techniques do not require wide swaths of natural open land, but can be implemented in residential and commercial districts of varying sizes and populations.

Often the biggest challenge to implementing green infrastructure is funding. The most appropriate techniques in a given location will largely depend on goals and budget, but green infrastructure can be designed to work in all communities.

Permeable Pavement. Permeable pavement allows for the movement of rainwater to filter through the pavement’s surface, with water eventually seeping into the undersoil. They can be used on driveways, parking lots, and low-traffic roadways. Unlike standard concrete or asphalt, permeable pavement can be installed in a variety of patterns and colors to allow to aesthetic appeal.

Rain Gardens. Rain gardens are a low-level garden that allows for rainwater runoff from impervious surfaces like roadways, driveways, or parking lots. The gardens will capture rainwater before it pollutes local rivers or lakes, thereby preventing habitual flooding and overburdening an aging infrastructure system. The gardenscapes will include deep-rooted native flowers, bushes, and trees to attract honeybees, butterflies and local birds.

Rain Barrels / Cisterns. The roof water management devices provide above or underground rainwater storage tanks. They can be installed in various sizes, depending on volume requirement, on residential, commercial, and industrial sites. The rainwater can then be harvested to water gardens and lawns. Rainwater harvesting is a simple way to conserve water and protect the environment.

Green Roofs. A green roof is a roof of a building that is partially or completely covered in vegetation. They are an effective strategy for beautifying the built environment, and have become the easiest identifiable symbol of the green building movement. By making flora a part of the urban landscape, there will be improved air quality, stormwater management, and reduction in the urban heat island effect. The creation of these spaces and the aesthetic improvements will be a marketing incentive to those interested in the multiple benefits offered by green roofs.

Living walls or green walls provide similar community benefits to air quality, reduction of the urban heat island effect, marking potential, and aesthetic stimulation.

Urban Tree Canopy. Urban tree canopy (UTC) is the coverage of leaves and branches of trees when viewed from above. Many communities have set tree canopy goals to restore some of the benefits of trees that were lost when areas were being developed. Trees improve air quality, reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide, reduce urban heat island effect, and contribute to the overall beauty and character of a community. Additionally, trees have been linked to a higher quality of life by enhancing the area’s sense of place.

D R A F T · F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 1 8 76

Land Conservation. Land conservation is the largest scale green infrastructure technique. Protecting and preserving natural areas should continue to be a major focus, where applicable, as it will reduce stormwater run-off and urban heat island effect. Further, protecting natural areas can provide recreational opportunities for residents and will contribute to the overall sense of place of a community.

FUTURE ACTIONS Prepare a Sustainability Plan. To maximize efforts, the City should prepare and adopt a Sustainability Plan that will be framed by policies and the overall vision of the community. The Plan should be implemented through specific goals, objectives, and actions.

A Sustainable Committee or similar advisory body could be created that includes City officials, business and community leaders, and City residents.

Incorporate Green Design Standards. Incorporating green building design into the development standards for appropriate districts will promote sustainability in the development and redevelopment of property.

Encourage Adaptive Reuse. Wherever feasible, existing buildings and site improvements should be repurposed to serve future needs, which also helps retain community character.

77 2 0 1 7 M A S T E R P L A N C I T Y O F C L A W S O N , M I

IMPLEMENTATION The City of Clawson Master Plan serves as the broad framework within which the City will guide future land use. Implementation of this Plan will require the ongoing efforts of City officials, Planning Commissioners, Zoning Board of Appeals members, Downtown Development Authority, neighboring agencies, and citizens. The effectiveness of the Plan relies upon the diligence with which its provisions are implemented.

When properly applied the Zoning Ordinance accepts the realities of existing land uses and gradually, as new development or redevelopment is proposed, directs growth toward achieving the goals and policies of the Master Plan. As rezonings are considered, they should be compared to the goals, policies, and future land use designation of this Master Plan.

Finally, this Master Plan should be a flexible document that changes as the character of the community and its people change over time. This Plan should be periodically (at least once every five (5) years) reviewed and amended, as necessary, to remain up-to-date. It should be remembered that the Master Plan is the best estimate of what would be the desirable land use configuration of the community in the future, from a point in time at the present. As time moves on, this concept of a desirable community may change, so the Plan must be flexible in order to accommodate that change. That said, consistency and consistency of purpose will also be important to achieving the Plan’s goals.

11

D R A F T · F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 1 8 78

KEEPING THE PLAN UP-TO-DATE Change is constant and often unpredictable, and there may be circumstances that warrant changes to the zoning boundaries that are not consistent with the Master Plan. If and when this occurs, the Master Plan should be updated to conform to the changed circumstances. Because of the time and process required for amending the Plan, such changes should be considered carefully.

Table 8 contains a series of evaluation factors that may be used to determine if a proposed development warrants a change to the land use designation on the Future Land Use Plan map.

Table 8: Future Land Use Evaluation Factors

Does the proposed, new classification meet the qualifications noted in the appropriate section of the Master Plan?

Are the zoning districts and their uses that may apply to the new classification compatible with, and appropriate in, the vicinity of the property under consideration?

Have any conditions changed in the area since the Master Plan was adopted that justify a revision?

Will there be any community impacts that should be considered, such as increased traffic, or others that might create a need for additional services or improvements?

Are there any environmental considerations that may be contrary to the intent of the existing or proposed classification of that land use?

Was the property improperly classified when the Plan was adopted or amended? Are the qualities of the property (or area) different from those that are described in the Plan?

Will there be any adverse effects on adjacent properties as a result of the proposed land change?

What impacts will result to the public health, safety, and welfare?

FUNDING Successful implementation of some of the goals of the Master Plan may depend on the ability of the City to secure necessary financing. Besides the general fund, the following revenue sources are available to the City:

DEDICATED MILLAGE A special millage can be used to generate revenue for a specific purpose. A dedicated millage may include: recreation, road maintenance, police, fire, museum, zoo, or any other special dedicated millage.

SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS Special assessments are compulsory contributions collected from the owners of property benefitted by specific public improvements, such as paving and drainage improvements, to defray the costs of such improvements. Special assessments are apportioned according to the benefits afforded to the property affected.

BOND PROGRAMS Bonds are on the principal sources of financing used by communities to pay for capital improvements. General obligation bonds are issued for specific community projects and are paid off by the general public with property tax revenues. Revenue bonds are issued for the construction of projects that generate revenue, like parking structures. These bonds are then retired using income generated by the project.

79 2 0 1 7 M A S T E R P L A N C I T Y O F C L A W S O N , M I

PROJECT PRIORITIES The actions are listed with a “priority number” as follows:

• Priority 1 projects are those that should be given immediate and concentrated effort. These are the first projects that should be addressed after the Master Plan has been adopted. Any preliminary steps that must be taken to implement the action (such as seeking funding, changes in local ordinances, etc.) should be commenced immediately. Those Priority 1 projects that have a longer time horizon should be revisited on an as-needed basis and should be incorporated into other applicable long-term planning programs, such as capital improvements plan.

• Priority 2 projects are those that are necessary to implement the plan, but either depend upon commencement or completion of Priority 1 projects, or do not have the same immediacy of Priority 1 projects. Once commenced, however, these projects should be considered important and should be pursued until completion.

• Priority 3 projects are those that implement elements of this plan, but are not urgent and can be delayed for a longer period of time. These projects are more susceptible to budgetary constraints.

Some projects within the matrix do not have a specified timing period because they are based on less predictable factors such as land availability, etc. The timing for these projects is explained within the matrix below.

D R A F T · F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 1 8 80

Table 9: Goals and Objectives

Action Responsibility Priority Survey Results

Support

Priority 1

Review the Zoning Ordinance to determine if any existing regulations inhibit implementation of this Plan, and make changes as necessary. PC 1 Question 20

Review and initiate amendments to the Zoning Map in order to implement this Plan. PC 1 N/A

Adopt design requirements in the Zoning Ordinance for new development where appropriate, including mixed-use development, commercial business, and residential provisions. PC 1 Questions 15, 18

Remove ordinance restrictions to bicycle use downtown. CC 1 Question 14

Update Parks and Recreation Master Plan. CC 1 Questions 11, 13

Encourage citizen participation in community planning decisions. A/PC 1 Question 26

Priority 2

Incorporate plan priorities into Capital Improvement Plan CC 2 N/A

Educate property owners about property maintenance. A 2 Question 13

Work with Downtown Development Authority to enhance business attraction and retention. A 2 Questions 21, 26

Promote green building practices in new construction or redevelopment. A 2 Question 15

Provide for sustainable development, green infrastructure, and low impact development techniques in development standards. PC 2 Question 15

Develop and implement a streetscape improvement plan for Rochester Road, 14 Mile Road and Main Street outside of Downtown. CC 2 Question 13

Review Clawson’s parking regulations and encourage alternative strategies to serve community needs. PC / CC 2 Questions 14, 20

Undertake a Corridor Improvement Study and related improvements for Rochester Road. CC 2 Question 13

Work with DPW to improve pedestrian and bicycle accommodations and existing crosswalks in the City. A 2 Questions 14, 15

Review existing code enforcement program and update as necessary. A 2 Question 15

Partner with schools to enhance youth activities and after school programs. A 2 N/A

Partner with Clawson Senior Center to enhance activities and programs that would appeal to the aging population. A 2 N/A

Promote the Clawson Farmer’s Market to citizens and local restaurants. A 2 N/A

Promote activities to attract people to local businesses; including partnering with DDA. A 2 Questions 13, 21

Priority 3

Partner with neighboring cities to strategize redevelopment activities, pedestrian crossings along shared thoroughfares. A 3 N/A

Create, fund, and implement a wayfinding sign plan throughout the City. A 3 Question 14

Complete and implement a Housing Analysis to determine future housing and development needs that would best suit the community. A / CC 3 Questions 10, 16

Develop additional mid-block pedestrian crossings along major roadways to encourage walkability and pedestrian friendly atmosphere within community. A / CC 3 Questions 13, 21

Develop and implement Rochester Road façade renovation program. CC 3 Question 13

Establish housing assistance programs for the elderly and needy, working with the Michigan State Housing Authority. CC 3 Question 10

Upgrade community facilities, as necessary. CC 3 Question 13

Establish beautification programs to reward property stewardship in the business community. A/CC 3 Question 21

81 2 0 1 7 M A S T E R P L A N C I T Y O F C L A W S O N , M I

ZONING PLAN Per the requirements of the Michigan Planning Enabling Act of 2008, a Zoning Plan is required that correlates the Future Land Use categories of the Master Plan with the zoning districts found on the current official Zoning Map for the City of Clawson. If none of the existing zoning districts match any particular future land use category, then the Zoning Plan should indicate a new zoning district to be designated for that category. The Zoning Plan is described by the following:

Table 10: Zoning Plan for the City of Clawson

Future Land Use Category Zoning District

Single Family Residential R-1, Single Family Residential-1 R-2, Single Family Residential-2

Core Residential CMD-2, Central Mixed Development-2

Multiple Family Residential RM-1, Multiple Family Residential (Low Rise) RM-2, Multiple Family Residential (High Rise)

Local Business B-1, Local Business

General Business B-3, General Business

Mixed Use – 1 BRD-1, Business Renewal District-1 PUD, Planned Unit Development * New Zoning District *

Mixed Use – 2 BRD-2, Business Renewal District-2 PUD, Planned Unit Development

Downtown Fringe CMD-2, Central Mixed Development-2

City Center CC, City Center

Office O-1, Office Service

Industrial I-1, Limited Industrial I-2, General Industrial

Public / Quasi-Public

O-1, Office Service R-1, Single Family Residential-1 R-2, Single Family Residential-2 * Possible New Zoning District * (PL, Public Land)

Recreation / Open Space R-1, Single Family Residential-1 R-2, Single Family Residential-2 * Possible New Zoning District * (PL, Public Land)

The following existing zoning districts do not correlate to any Future Land Use category:

• O-2, Office Research • B-2, Central Business

The VP, Vehicular Parking District, is appropriate for nonresidential uses which are not able to provide adequate space within their own district boundaries. Such areas will generally be provided by petition or request to serve a use district which has developed without adequate off-street parking facilities.

83 2 0 1 7 M A S T E R P L A N C I T Y O F C L A W S O N , M I

APPENDIX A: SURVEY RESULTS

A