Village of Caro

Master Plan

 

Adopted

August 15, 2005

Download your own copy of the Village of Caro Master Plan.  You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader (free).

VILLAGE OF CARO MASTER PLAN

 

 

Caro Village Council                                             Caro Village Planning Commission

Tom Striffler                   President                            Mark Grady                Chairman

Dick Pouliot                   Pro-Tem                             Bill Bortel                    Vice Chairman

Mike Henry                   Trustee                                Denise Steffen             Secretary

John Fields                    Trustee                                Bernard Kreh

Henry Knier, Jr.            Trustee                                John Kastraba

Bernie Nelson               Trustee                                Dawn Woody

Charlotte Kish              Trustee                                 Susan Chambers

                                                                                Elinor Moyer

                                                                                Mike Carpenter

 

Caro Village Staff

Phillip S. Vawter           Manager

Karen Snider                Clerk

 

This plan was prepared by the Village of Caro Planning Commission with the assistance of Village Staff and the following organization.

 

Rowe Incorporated

Planning Department

6211 Taylor Drive

Flint, MI  48507

Phone: (810) 341-7500

Fax: (810) 341-7573

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION.. 1

Description of Planning Process. 1

COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION.. 5

Population. 5

Age. 5

Median Age. 6

Household Size. 7

Gender 8

Household Composition. 8

Disability. 9

Race. 10

Income and Occupation. 10

Population Growth. 12

Housing. 13

Housing Age. 13

Housing Types. 15

Housing Value. 16

Housing Tenure. 17

Housing Quality Analysis (from the 1997 Master Plan) 18

Infrastructure. 20

Land Use. 21

Transportation. 23

Road Types. 23

All Weather Roads. 23

Road Capacity. 23

REZONINGS AND ANNEXATIONS. 26

Rezonings. 26

Annexations. 29

GOALS AND POLICIES. 31

Problems/Goals/Policies. 31

Goal I:  Land Use Goals. 31

Goal II:  Residential Goal 31

Goal III:  Commercial Development Goal 32

Goal IV:  Industrial Development Goal 33

Goal V:  Sense of Community Goal 33

LAND USE PLAN.. 34

Land Use Classification and Locational Criteria. 34

Locational Criteria. 34

Low Density Residential 34

Medium Density Residential 34

High Density Residential 35

Mobile Home Residential 35

Downtown Commercial/Parking. 35

General Commercial 36

Office/Duplex Residential 36

Light Industrial 37

Heavy Industrial 37

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.. 40

Zoning. 40

Zoning District Uses versus Land Use Classifications. 40

Special Uses and Site Plan Review.. 41

OTHER ORDINANCES. 41

Subdivision Control Ordinance. 42

Site Condominium Regulations. 42

Capital Improvements Plan. 42

Plan Maintenance and Update. 42

Updating the Data Base. 42

Reviewing the Plan Goals and Policies. 43

Incorporating Plan Review Into Rezoning Request Review.. 44

Using the Land Use Plan for Zoning Review.. 44

Rezoning Requests. 44

Special Use Permits. 45

 

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 - AGE, 2000. 5

Table 2- MEDIAN AGE 1970 –2000. 7

Table 3 - PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD 1960 to 2000. 7

Table 4 - Gender, 2000. 8

Table 5 - COMPOSITION OF HOUSEHOLDS 2000. 9

Table 6 - DISABILITY OF CIVILIAN NON-INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS, 2000. 10

Table 7 - RACE, 2000. 10

Table 8 - MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN 1999(DOLLARS) 10

Table 9 - INCOME in 1999. 11

Table 10 - INCOME TYPES, 1999. 11

Table 11 - OCCUPATIONS 2000. 12

Table 12 - POPULATION GROWTH 1940 TO 2000. 12

Table 13 - YEAR STRUCTURE BUILT. 14

Table 14 - BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED FOR.. 14

Table 15 - HOUSING TYPES 2000. 15

Table 16 - Housing Values. 17

Table 17 - HOUSING TENURE, 2000. 17

Table 18 - VILLAGE OF CARO STRUCTURAL QUALITY OF HOUSING.. 18

Table 19 – VILLAGE OF CARO STRUCTURAL QUALITY BY SECTION.. 19

 

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 - Age Distribution. 6

Figure 2 - PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD.. 8

Figure 3 - COMPOSITION OF HOUSEHOLDS 2000. 9

Figure 4 - POPULATION GROWTH.. 13

Figure 5 - Housing Types. 16

 

LIST OF MAPS

Map 1 - Street Classifications. 25

Map 2 - Rezonings. 28

Map 3 - Annexations. 30

Map 4 - Future Land Use. 39

INTRODUCTION

Description of Planning Process

The Caro area is made up of the Village of Caro, Almer Township, and Indianfields Township.  The Village of Caro is located in roughly the middle of Tuscola County, in the “Thumb” region of Michigan.  Almer Township lies north of, and adjacent to, Indianfields Township.  Roughly one-half of the area of the Village of Caro is located in Almer Township, while the other one-half is located within Indianfields Township.

 

The Village of Caro is located at the junction of State highways M-24 and M-81.  The area is served by the Caro Municipal Airport in Indianfields Township.  Rail transportation is provided to the area by Rail America, which provides limited freight service but no passenger service.

 

While closely linked spatially, the communities of Caro, Indianfields Township and Almer Township have different land use characteristics.  Caro is urban in nature and serves as the Tuscola County seat; Almer Township is agricultural in nature; and approximately 2/3 of Indianfields Township is covered by State forested land.

 

The dominant landforms in Tuscola County are a result of the Wisconsin Glaciation, which began its recession about 12,000 years ago and ended 6,000 years ago.  A mantle of glacial drift remained behind as the ice melted and various topographic features were formed.  This glacial drift is the parent material of the soils in Tuscola County.

 

Unlike much of Tuscola County which is basically level, the Caro community is characterized by rolling hills intermixed with several level areas.  Elevations range from a USGS level of 800’ in the eastern portions of Almer Township down to 650’ along the Cass River.  The Village of Caro lies on the western bank of the Cass River on a glacial moraine extending in a southwest-northeast direction.  To the north and west of this moraine the land slopes gradually to the northwest toward Saginaw Bay, broken only by a shallow ridge or ancient lake.  To the southeast of the Village, the land has gently varying topography and is extensively wooded and swampy in spots.  Much of this land lies within the Tuscola State Game Area.

 

The water resources of the Caro area are limited to the Cass River.  The Village of Caro basically lies in two drainage basins.  A glacial ridge, which cuts across the northwest corner of the village and somewhat parallel to the Cass River, forms the dividing line.  For areas to the east of this ridge, the drainage is into the Cass River, and for areas to the west, the drainage is into Saginaw Bay.

Wooded areas extensively cover the southern portion of Indianfields Township, as well as along the Cass River.  The remaining portion of the Caro area can be characterized as primarily agricultural with scattered woodlots.

 

Tuscola County was heavily forested when early settlers began arriving in the mid-1850s.  Lumbering was the county’s main industry until the end of the nineteenth century, by which time most of the woodland was converted into farmland.  This is the case in Almer Township, where there are few remaining woodlots.  In Indianfields Township, the establishment of the 8,383 acre Tuscola State Game Area has preserved a significant natural forest area.  This forested area makes up roughly one third of the area of Indianfields Township.  The facility attracts hunters from throughout Tuscola County and the entire Thumb Region.  The 160 acre Graf-Fairgrove Game Area is located in Section 20 in Almer Township.  Both State facilities are managed by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR).  Animal hunted in these game areas include deer, rabbit, raccoon, muskrat, grouse and duck.

 

A generalized soil survey was completed for Tuscola County by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service in September 1986.  Soils in the Caro area generally fall into six soil associations.  Associations typically consist of one or more major soils and some minor soils.  Each association is named for the major soils.  The soil association map can be used to compare the development potential and suitability of large areas, including recreation.  The following is a brief description of each soil association, including soil characteristics which affect development:

§         Guelph-Londo-Tappan association - These soils are nearly level to rolling, well drained to poorly drained, loamy soils on moraines and till plains.  The Londo and Tappan soils are poorly suited to sanitary facilities and building site development because wetness is a severe limitation.  The suitability of the Guelph soils for these areas is fair to poor.  Slope and permeability are limitations.

§         Perrin-Wasepi-Gilford association - These soils are nearly level, loamy and sandy soils.  They are found on outwash plains, lake plains and beaches.  The major soils are poorly suited to sanitary facilities because wetness and a poor filtering capacity are severe limitations.  The suitability of the Gilford and Wasepi soils for building site development is poor, and that of the Perrin soils is fair or poor.  Wetness is the main limitation.

§         Wixom-Wolcott-Pipestone association - These soils are nearly level to gently rolling, poorly drained sandy and loamy soils on outwash plains, moraines, and till plains.  The major soils are poorly suited to sanitary facilities and building site development.  Wetness is a severe limitation.

§         Pipestone-Granby-Chelsea association - These soils are nearly level to gently rolling, poorly drained to well drained, sandy soils.  They are found on outwash plains, moraines, lake plains, and beaches.  The major soils are poorly suited to sanitary facilities.  The wetness of the Granby and Pipestone soils and a poor filtering capacity in all the major soils are limitations.  The Granby and Pipestone soils are suited to building site development because of the wetness.  The Chelsea soils are well suited, but the slope can be a limitation.

§         Tappan-Londo-Avoca association - These soils are nearly level, poorly drained and somewhat poorly drained, loamy and sandy soils on lake plains, till plains and moraines.  The major soils are poorly suited to sanitary facilities and building site development.  Wetness is a severe limitation.

§         Marlette-Capac-Spinks - These soils are nearly level to steep, well drained and somewhat poorly drained, loamy and sandy soils on moraines, outwash plains and beaches.  The major soils are fairly well suited or poorly suited to sanitary facilities.  The slope, the depth of the water table, permeability, and a poor filtering capacity are limitations.  The suitability for building site development is good to poor.  The slope and the depth to the water table are the major limitations.

 

Although this plan is based on the 1980 plan, new elements have been added.  The Community Description section of the plan was updated in 2000 using more recent information on population, housing, housing quality, land use, water and sewer systems and transportation.  The updated information was compared to data from the previous plan, whenever possible, to illustrate development trends since 1980.

 

The updated Community Description information was presented to members of the general public at a Public Input Session in June 1996.  The Goals and Policies in the 1980 plan were updated based on this information and development trends that had occurred in the village since 1980.  These Goals and Policies were designed to help correct existing problems or prevent potential problems in the future. For example, the Industrial Goals were updated to reflect the importance of establishing industrial uses in the new industrial park, which was developed in the village since the plan was adopted.

 

A planning issue discussed at great length during the Public Input Session, and generally identified as being important, was annexations. The Annexation Policy that was included in the 1980 plan, but never implemented, was discussed.  It was generally agreed to include an updated, more easily implementable Annexation Policy in the plan, based on the 1980 policy.  The Recommended Annexation Policy included in the Goals and Policies section of the plan is the result of this discussion.

 

Based on the updated Goals and Policies, the Planning Commission developed a Future Land Use Plan, including a classification system, locational criteria and future land use map.  The Future Land Use Plan established the mixed office/residential district in a two-block area surrounding the downtown commercial area.  This classification reflects the development trend of mixed uses in this area, and will serve as a logical buffer between commercial and single family uses.

 

Drawing on the information contained in the Future Land Use Plan, the Planning Commission prepared an Implementation Plan.  It includes potential changes in the Village of Caro Zoning Ordinance and outlines other actions the village can take to implement the plan.  It also includes methods of monitoring and updating the plan and ensures it remains effective and relevant as time goes on.

COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION

Population

A community's population characteristics are an important consideration in determining its land use needs.  These characteristics include age, sex, household size, race and population growth.  A study of a community's population characteristics provides a rational basis for projecting future changes in the population.

Age

Table 1 compares the 2000 age group breakdowns for the Village of Caro with Almer Township and Indianfields Township, as well as Tuscola County as a whole.  The table shows 6.2% of the village population was less than 5 years of age while 21% was between 5 and 19 years of age, for a total of 27.2% of the population aged 19 years or younger.  These figures imply there are proportionally younger families in the Village of Caro than in the surrounding area.  The proportion of the population in their child rearing years, between 20 and 44 years, was 33.1% in Caro.  This is higher than Almer Township (30.1%) but lower than Indianfields Township (35.6%).

Table 1 - AGE, 2000

	Village of Caro		Almer Township		Indianfields Township		Tuscola County
	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%
Under 5 Years	256	6.2	180	6	345	5.4	3517	6
5–19Years	891	21.6	636	21	1,315	20.6	13,685	23.48
20–24 Years	281	6.8	144	4.8	408	6.4	3,178	5.5
25–44 Years	1,092	26.3	762	25.3	1,868	29.2	16,380	28.1
45–64 Years	949	22.8	720	23.8	1,527	23.9	14,056	24.1
65–74 Years	300	7.2	253	8.4	443	6.9	3,845	6.6
75 + Years	376	9	328	10.8	486	7.6	3,605	6.2
Median Age	36.8		40.6		37.4		37

              Source:  U.S. Census, 2000.

 

The Village of Caro had a relatively large share of population in their retirement years.  About 16.2% of Caro residents were 65 years of age or older in 2000, compared to only 14.5% for Indianfields Township,18.4% for Almer Township and 12.8% for Tuscola County as a whole. 

 

Table 1 also shows the median age of the Village of Caro in 2000 was 36.8, Indianfields Township 37.4, Almer Township 40.6 and Tuscola County 37.

Figure 1 - Age Distribution

Median Age

Table 2 shows that the median age of the population has increased steadily in the Village of Caro since 1970.  This is a nationwide trend that is a direct result of the "Baby Boom" birth rate increase immediately following World War II.  This aging population will place increasing demands on services and housing for elderly in the community.  At the same time, the demand for school services will continue to decrease.

Table 2- MEDIAN AGE 1970 –2000

Source: U.S. Census, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000.

Household Size

Household size has been decreasing since the turn of the twentieth century.  Household size is linked to the median age of the population.  As the population ages, children move out to form their own households.  The result of this is the population has remained the same but the number of households has increased.  For example, a household made up of two parents and three children over time becomes four households, made up of one household of the same set of parents and three households of the individual children.  Factors influencing decreasing household size include economic conditions and society values.  With the economy of the United States shifting from an agricultural to an industrial society, most of the advantages of larger families have disappeared.  At the same time, the rising costs of raising and educating children have resulted in a steady decline in the number of children per family.  The increasing divorce rate has further fragmented households.  These factors have caused a steady decline in household size in the United States since the turn of the century.

 

Table 3 shows the average number of persons per household for the Village of Caro from 1960 to 2000.  The table reflects the nationwide trend of decreasing household size during the twentieth century.  The average household size in Caro (2.31 persons) is lower than Almer Township (2.54) and Indianfields Township (2.39) as well as Tuscola County as a whole (2.65).  This is what one would expect, given the more urban nature of the village.  Two parent families with children tend to locate to more rural areas where single family homes on large lots is the predominant land use.

Table 3 - PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD 1960 to 2000

                     Source: U.S. Census, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000.

 

Figure 2 - Persons Per Household

Gender

Table 4 shows the breakdown of the population by gender in 2000.

Table 4 - Gender, 2000

                                  Source:  U.S. Census, 2000.

Household Composition

The term "household composition" is used to describe the general structure of households.  The Bureau of the Census divides households into several categories:

•     Married Couple Families composed of both spouses, with or without children.

      •     Households, with individuals 65+ years of age.

      •     One Person Household

      •     Other Non–Family Households composed of unmarried couples and people sharing housing.

Table 5 shows the Village of Caro had a significantly smaller share of its households (42.6%) made up of married couple families in 2000 than both Indianfields Township (47.7%) and Almer Township (59.7%).

 

Table 5 - COMPOSITION OF HOUSEHOLDS 2000

 

Figure 3 - Composition of Households 2000

      Source: U.S. Census, 2000.

Disability

Table 6 shows about 21% of the non-institutionalized population of the Village of Caro had a disability in 2000. Almer Township is (21.7%). Indianfields Township is (21%).  People with disabilities can live in a non-institutional environment but at the same time live in close proximity to, and can take advantage of, the health care and training services on a regular basis. The Caro Regional Center, a health care facility and training school, is located in the area.

 

Table 6 - DISABILITY OF CIVILIAN NON-INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS, 2000