grand vision: leelanau perspective
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Leelanau Perspective
1/49
LEELANAU COUNTY
PERSPECTIVE
thegrandvision.org
-
8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Leelanau Perspective
2/49
A Leelanau County PerspectiveThis summary report includes information from previously released reports.
Original reports were prepared by:
Fregonese Associates
Mead&Hunt
Harris Interactive
Grand Vision Public Involvement Committee
Public Policy Associates, Inc.
Information was compiled by the Northwest Michigan Council of Governments for the purposes of this
summary in September 2009.
-
8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Leelanau Perspective
3/49
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Public Participation and Outreach 6
Leelanau County Workshop Results 12
Values Survey Data and Comparison with Regional Results 15
Scorecard Results 23
Follow Up Survey 31
The Grand Vision 37
Appendices
Appendix A: Grand Vision Coordinating Group Representative Agencies 41
Appendix B: Grand Vision Consultant Team 42
Appendix C: Grand Vision Champions 43
Appendix D: Scorecard Responses 44
-
8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Leelanau Perspective
4/49
The Grand Vision: A Leelanau County PerspectivePage 1
The Grand Vision is a citizen-led vision for the
future of transportation, land use, economic de-
velopment, and environmental stewardship in
Antrim, Benzie, Grand Traverse, Kalkaska, Lee-
lanau, and Wexford Counties. The Grand Vision
was created with input from thousands of citi-
zens and was supported by dozens of commu-
nity partners throughout the regionincluding
private, nonprofit, and public agencieswith
financial backing from local, county, state, and
federal units of government as well as both pri-
vate and public organizations This unprece-
dented collaboration has resulted in a vision for
the regions future that will enhance our sense of
place, building the foundation for a strong econ-
omy while preserving those parts of our commu-
nities that are most important to residents.
This report summarizes the process
and results of the Grand Vision re-
gion-wide, while highlighting Leelanau
County results in terms of public par-
ticipation, the Leelanau County work-
shop, values survey data, scorecard
results, and follow-up survey data.
Leelanau County data are shown in a
side-by-side comparison with regionaldata, to demonstrate how Leelanau
County results play out in the regional
Grand Vision. It is hoped that this
information will be valuable in the any
Grand Vision implementation activities
that may occur in the County and in other future
planning efforts in the community.
Data and analysis was excerpted from previ-
ously released reports including:
Grand Vision Public Involvement Committee
2007-08 Report
Values research survey; analysis conducted
by Harris Interactive, Inc., November 2008
Scorecard results; analysis by Fregonese
Associates, January 2009
Grand Vision 2009 Public Opinion Survey
Results; conducted by Public Policy Associ-
ates, Inc., March-April 2009
Socio-Economic Report; prepared by
Mead&Hunt, August 2009 (draft)
The Grand Vision:
A Leelanau County PerspectiveIntroduction
-
8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Leelanau Perspective
5/49
The Grand Vision: A Leelanau County PerspectivePage 2
Copies of the reports are provided as an attach-
ment to this summary and are also available
online at www.thegrandvision.org.
Please note that a transportation-specific report,
Travel Demand Model Methodology, is forthcom-
ing; data was not available at the time this report
was completed.
History
The process leading up to the Grand Vision be-
gan with a conflict over a proposed connection
of Hartman and Hammond Roads in Grand
Traverse County, south of Traverse City. Be-cause of disagreement over the advantages and
disadvantages of this connection, the proposal
was put on hold to allow the community to study
its impacts in more detail. In the spring of 2005,
$3.3 million in federal transportation money was
reallocated from plans for the bypass and given
to the Grand Traverse area for the creation and
implementation of a comprehensive, multimodal
transportation plan.
To ensure that this planning process would be
accountable, transparent, representative, and
citizen-focused, the Grand Traverse County
Board of Commissioners created and appointed
the Land Use & Transportation Coordinating
Group (LUTS), now known as the Grand Vision
Coordinating Group. This body included a
broadly representative group of citizens con-
cerned about transportation and land use issues
including county representatives from Antrim,
Benzie, Grand Traverse, Kalkaska, Leelanau,
and Wexford Counties; transportation agencies;
business leaders; environmental organizations;
township, city, and tribal representatives; educa-
tional institutions; nonprofits; and the general
public (list of representatives included in Appen-
dix A). These members acted with the following
mission:
Our mission is to use a transparent and citizen
led discussion and process to ensure the devel-opment of a community vision, plans for the fu-
ture, and projects that address land use and
transportation challenges facing the region.
The Coordinating Group developed a request for
proposals for a study and process that would
meet the groups mission of transparency and
public involvement while addressing transporta-
tion and land use in a comprehensive plan. Us-
ing $1.3 million of the reallocated transportation
dollars, the Coordinating Group hired a consult-
ant team led by Mead & Hunt that included
Robert Grow and John Fregonese, the nations
foremost experts in scenario planning and public
participation (for consultant bios, see Appendix
B). The process was to begin with public plan-
ning workshops that would ask citizens to de-
velop different scenarios for the future. Consult-
ants would show how these scenarios would
move traffic, develop land, and supply housing;
then the public would be asked to choose the
scenario that best fits the future of the region.
The LUTS Coordinating Group recognized early
on that transportation issues in Grand Traverse
County were directly and significantly impacted
by surrounding counties. In 2007 and 2008, the
study was expanded to include Antrim, Benzie,
Kalkaska, Leelanau, and Wexford Counties. The
expansion of the study increased the total cost
of the study by $240,000. The added cost wasfunded by a combination of sources including
the Michigan Department of Transportation
($100,000), the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa
and Chippewa Indians ($50,000), Traverse City
Area Chamber of Commerce ($10,000), North-
western Michigan College ($10,000), Munson
-
8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Leelanau Perspective
6/49
The Grand Vision: A Leelanau County PerspectivePage 3
Healthcare ($10,000), and county contributions
totaling $30,000. Leelanau County committed
$6,000 to the expanded scope of the project.
Study ProcessIn September 2007, LUTS became The Grand
Vision, and the citizen input phase of the project
began on October 17,2007, with a scenario
planning workshop at the Park Place Hotel in
Traverse City. The event was widely publicized
throughout the region, resulting in high atten-
dance: over 500 participants from all counties in
the region worked in groups of 6-10 to create
maps showing their vision for land use over the
next 50 years. Subsequent workshops were held
throughout the winter and spring of 2008. Small
area workshops, focusing in-depth on Traverse
City, Acme, and Interlochen were held in Febru-
ary 2008; and two regional transportation work-shops were held on March 20, 2008. Participa-
tion levels for all workshops were high, totaling
several hundred participants (see table 3,
Grand Vision Participation, page 12). Work-
shops focusing specifically on Antrim, Benzie,
Kalkaska, Leelanau, and Wexford Counties were
held in each county in May 2008.
Grand Vision Scorecard
-
8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Leelanau Perspective
7/49
The Grand Vision: A Leelanau County PerspectivePage 4
At the scenario planning workshops, consultants
presented information on current growth patterns
and discussed how our population will change in
the coming years. Citizens were provided with a
large map and asked to identify transportationchanges and future locations of agriculture, open
space and different development types using
special stickers, or chips, that reflected the
amount of population growth the region will ex-
perience through 2060. Participants worked in
groups of 6-10, discussing chip locations in de-
tail along with their values and concerns relative
to each land use type; comments were written
on the maps and were included in later analyses
of the maps.
Based on the input received at the workshops, a
random-sample survey was designed by Harris
Interactive, a national polling firm. This survey
questioned participants on their values and con-
cerns. Results were accurate to the county level.
Survey results and workshop maps were ana-
lyzed to develop four different scenarios that
would reflect different public preferences and
development patterns. Each scenario included
indicators relative to housing units, land con-
sumed, annual driving hours and gas expenses,
and cost of lane miles (see table 1 for scenarios
and descriptions).
These scenarios were presented in a Grand Vi-
sion scorecard that asked for input on the four
scenarios. The scorecard provided information
and graphics on how each scenario would im-
pact the number of housing units, investments inroad lane miles, and acres of land consumed.
Questions asked participants to choose which
scenario they felt did the best job of promoting
the values that were identified during the values
survey and workshop process; and additional
questions asked for input on transportation in-
vestments, housing types, and other land use
patterns.
The Grand Vision scorecard was printed and
distributed throughout the region in early Octo-ber 2008, and was also made available online at
www.thegrandvision.org. A total of 11,603 score-
cards were received in a three week time period.
Results were reviewed and analyzed to develop
the preferred scenario, which included ele-
ments of all scenarios with a focus on scenario
C otherwise known as the village-based sce-
nario. This preferred scenario was presented to
the public in February 2009 with a public com-
ment period open through March 2009. After
additional public input was received, the sce-
nar io was fur ther ref ined into a
preferred scenario that became the Grand Vi-
sion. The Grand Vision was further tested in
April 2009 through a random-sample survey that
asked respondents questions based both on the
survey, and on the final Grand Vision.
The Grand Vision
The Grand Vision is a vision of regional growth
that is built on public input. While it represents
one of the regions most far-reaching planning
efforts and reflects our communitys highest pri-
orities, the Grand Vision has no authority to re-
quire change. Making the Grand Vision a reality
will require policy changes, new models for de-
velopment, and innovative new programsall of
which will require cooperation between organiza-
tions and across governmental boundaries. In
precisely the same spirit of cooperation that cre-
ated the Grand Vision, implementation of the
Grand Vision will depend on the participation
and collaboration of local and county govern-
ments, citizens, and private, nonprofit, and pub-
lic organizations. To facilitate this collaboration,
Grand Vision stakeholders have endorsed an
implementation structure that will invite broad
-
8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Leelanau Perspective
8/49
-
8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Leelanau Perspective
9/49
The Grand Vision: A Leelanau County PerspectivePage 6
Public input and involvement formed the founda-
tion of the Grand Vision process. To help en-
courage this involvement, a subcommittee of the
Coordinating Group, known as the Public In-
volvement Committee, became active in October
2007. The group included consultants, staff, and
volunteers throughout the six-county region, and
met weekly to develop strategies that would re-
sult in maximum participation levels and aware-
ness throughout the region. The committee de-veloped a comprehensive marketing and com-
munications plan that focused on hands-on in-
volvement through a series of large and small
events, direct communication, earned media
exposure, and targeted communications to youth
and seniors.
Public events. Numerous presentations
were provided to the general public, local
service groups, human service collaborativegroups, chambers of commerce, local and
county governments, and many
other organizations. Presentations
were provided by a speakers
bureau consisting of consultants
and PIC members.
Displays and materials. Informa-
tional displays including banners,
posters, update newsletters,
bumper stickers, informational
tool kits, PowerPoint presenta-
tions, and distribution and collec-
tion boxes were made available to
all interested citizens; with dis-
plays and materials set up at
high-traffic community events and
locations.
Direct mail. Postcards were mailed to every
household in each county announcing the
scorecard kickoffs and encouraging readers
to fill out their scorecard. An additional post-
card with a similar message was sent to
each American Association of Retired Per-
sons (AARP) member household, allowing
the PIC to reinforce the message with an
audience that was less likely to use the
Internet. Earned media. Regular press releases
were issued to update the public on the lat-
est Grand Vision events and progress.
Email blasts. Viral networking was used to
communicate directly with groups and indi-
viduals; announcements and updates were
frequently emailed to interested parties and
passed on to associated individuals, and
stories were shared in newsletters and
meetings.
Public Participation & Outreach
-
8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Leelanau Perspective
10/49
The Grand Vision: A Leelanau County PerspectivePage 7
www.thegrandvision.org. A website was
developed to store and promote the project,
including comprehensive information such
as:
Reports and maps Opportunities for engagement
Update emails generated through an
automated mailing list
Easy-to-use forums
Videos
Dynamic calendar of events
Social networking links
Connection to resources
Paid media. Advertisements were printed in
newspapers and aired on television; bill-board advertisements were displayed along
South Airport Road and U.S 31 in East Bay
Township.
Champions. Champions are community
leaders with the ability to convene key local
constituenciesincluding representatives
from businesses, philanthropy, and other
community organizations. Champions were
committed to an open, citizen-led planning
process, willing to speak in support of the
project, and dedicated to ensuring measur-
able outcomes that would benefit future gen-
erations. These individuals were instrumen-
tal in building public support for the project.
Youth Outreach. A comprehensive out-reach effort was directed towards the re-
gions youth, through assemblies, classroom
presentations, online networking sites, and
school scorecard distribution. Every local
school program in the region was able to
involve their high school students in the
scorecard process in October 2008.
Senior Outreach: More than 21,700 AARP
member households received Grand Vision/
AARP postcards. Scorecard distribution. A scorecard distri-
bution strategy was created to ensure
awareness and availability of the scorecard
to all audiences in the region.
These activities were critical in achieving the
Grand Visions unprecedented level of public
participation. However, because they were not
funded by the original contract, a great deal of
fundraising was necessary to cover the ex-
Event Description Date Location
Introductory GVPresentation
Introduce the Grand Vision and en-courage Leelanau County participation
November2007
Black Star Farms
Leelanau County GVWorkshop
Visioning Workshop May 8, 2008 Suttons Bay HighSchool
Leelanau County GVUpdate
Presentation and discussion on GrandVision progress and update on upcom-
ing events
August 2008 Bellaire Senior Cen-ter
Leelanau County GVScorecard Kickoff
Presentation of scorecard to encour-age maximum response
October 13,2008
NW Michigan Horti-cultural Research
Station
Leelanau CountyDraft Grand Vision
Presentation
Discuss draft Grand Vision and obtaininput
February2009
Leelanau CountyGovernment Build-
ing
Table 2: Leelanau County Grand Vision Events
-
8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Leelanau Perspective
11/49
The Grand Vision: A Leelanau County PerspectivePage 8
penses of communication activities. $160,000
was raised by the PIC from local foundations.
Report Card
More than 15,700 people participated in someway in the Grand Vision processmore than
8.5% of the regions population. The participa-
tion on a per capita basis exceeds some of the
most highly successful public involvement plan-
ning efforts ever conducted across the country.
Data collected by the PIC shows that youth and
senior outreach was particularly effective, with
nearly 27% of scorecards completed by individu-
als age 15-19; and 14% completed by those
aged 65 years and older.
The Grand Vision outreach and communication
efforts were analyzed by the PIC through various
demographic surveys and reports in order to
determine the level at which various populations
participated. The demographic breakdowns of
Grand Vision participants are shown in Table .
The PIC report detailing activities, including the
groups marketing plan and budget, accompa-
nies this report and is also available online at
www.thegrandvision.org.
Leelanau County Participation
To encourage public involvement in each
county, the regional PIC engaged stakeholders
in each county to identify strategies specific to
that county. These county stakeholders worked
with the PIC to schedule event dates and loca-
tions, distribute scorecards, and plan presenta-
tions and events (see Table 2 for specific event
information).
Public events were held in Leelanau County
throughout 2007 and 2008, beginning with an
introductory meeting in November 2007 to en-
courage Leelanau County participation in the
project. The Leelanau County workshop was
held in May 2008 at the Suttons Bay School. To
announce the workshop, postcards were mailed
to every county household in spring 2008; media
releases resulted in extensive news coverage;
and viral email blasts reached a wide range ofnetworks and individuals. These efforts helped
draw over 200 participants to the workshop, re-
sulting in 20 workshop maps and invaluable in-
put on the communitys values and preferences
for future growth.
Leelanau County Scorecard Outreach
Scorecards were easily available both in print
and online. Postcards were also mailed to every
household in October 2008 announcing the
scorecard, encouraging participation, and direct-
ing readers to the website to fill out their score-
card. For those without internet access, a toll
free number was provided on the scorecard,
allowing readers to call and have a scorecard
mailed directly to them.
Scorecard kickoffs were held in each county to
provide an update and to introduce the score-
card. These events successfully energized the
community, provided an opportunity for earned
media coverate, and kicked off the three-week
scorecard collection period. The Leelanau
County Scorecard Kickoff was held October 13
at the MSU Horticultural Research Station.
A key element of the scorecard strategy was the
need to make scorecards easily available to all
individuals throughout the region. Scorecard
distribution and collection boxes were set up in
high-traffic locations including:
Leelanau County Government Cen-
terSuttons Bay
Toms Food MarketNorthport
Toms Food Market West Bay
Greilickville
-
8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Leelanau Perspective
12/49
The Grand Vision: A Leelanau County PerspectivePage 9
Deerings MarketEmpire
NJs MarketLake Leelanau
Andersons IGAGlen Arbor
MC ShortstopMaple City
BahlesSuttons Bay
Silvertree DeliSuttons Bay
Cedar City MarketCedar
Leland MercantileLeland
Glen Lake Community Schools
Leland Public School
Northport Public School
Suttons Bay Public School
The Leelanau School
St Marys of Lake Leelanau Leelanau County Commission on
Aging
Elmwood Township Hall
Public involvement and scorecard distribution
efforts in Leelanau County and throughout the
region resulted in an enormous scorecard re-
sponse. 1,772 scorecards were received from
Leelanau County, or about 8% of the Countys
population; 11,600 responses were receivedregion-wide. These level of interest and partici-
pation in a planning process is unprecedented in
our region.
-
8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Leelanau Perspective
13/49
The Grand Vision: A Leelanau County PerspectivePage 10
Table3:GRA
NDVISIONSCORECARDS
D
emographicbreakdown
AsofDecember3,2008
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
COUNTYOFRESIDENCE
#
%ofallre-
spondents
Goal(
10%of
population)
Population
%of6-
county
total
Antrim
1209
10.0%
2,311
23110
12.5%
Benzie
963
7.9%
1,600
15998
8.7%
GrandTraverse
6486
53.4%
7,765
77654
42.0%
Kalkaska
536
4.4%
1,657
16,571
9.0%
Leelanau
1772
14.6%
2,112
21,119
11.4%
Wexford
755
6.2%
3,048
30,484
16.5%
Others
420
3.5%
0.0%
TOTAL
12141
100.0%
18,494
184936
AGE
#
%ofallre-
spondents
6-countytotal
%of6-
county
total
An-
trim
Ben-
zie
Grand
Traverse
Kal-
kaska
Lee-
lanau
Wex-
ford
15-19
3188
27.3%
12,959
8.8%
1
,497
950
5566
1155
1414
2377
20-24
552
4.7%
8,868
6.0%
969
679
4118
835
741
1526
25-44
2263
19.4%
51,613
35.2%
5
,843
4331
23044
4734
5106
8555
45-65
4067
34.9%
46,068
31.4%
6
,139
4127
18627
4060
5980
7135
65+
1598
13.7%
27,205
18.5%
4
,033
2803
10144
2278
3669
4278
TOTAL
11668
100.0%
146,713
100.0%
1
8,48 1
12,890
61,499
13,062
16,910
23,871
LENGTHOFRESIDENCE
TOTAL
%ofallre-
spondents
Full-time
10646
94.0%
Part-time
674
6.0%
TOTAL
11320
100.0%
RURAL/SUBURBAN/CITY
TOTAL
%ofallre-
spondents
Rural
5142
45.2%
Surburban
2625
45.2%
City
3604
31.7%
TOTAL
11371
122.1%
-
8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Leelanau Perspective
14/49
The Grand Vision: A Leelanau County PerspectivePage 11
Table 4: Grand Vision ParticipationAs of Dec. 3, 2008
EVENT DATE Atten-dance Scenario mapscreated
Forum posts as of 5/1/08 27 0
Opening Workshop 10/17/2007 450 41
Central City Workshop 1/23/2008 240 30
East Arm/Acme workshop 1/24/2008 144 18
Southwest-Interlochen workshop 1/24/2008 120 15
TC West High School Workshop 3/10/2008 410 0
TC Central High School Workshop 3/10/2008 320 0
Transportation workshop - afternoon 3/20/2008 168 21
Transportation workshop - evening 3/20/2008 224 28
Antrim County Workshop 5/27/2008 150 16
Benzie County Workshop 5/28/2008 180 19
Kalkaska County Workshop 5/7/2008 195 18
Leelanau County Workshop 5/8/2008 205 20
Wexford County Workshop 5/27/2008 75 10
Community Values Survey - phone June 2008 476 n/a
Values survey participants 5/1/2008 504 n/a
Advanced Strategy Lab 6/2/2008 50 n/a
TOTAL SCENARIO MAPS 236
TOTAL SCORECARDS 11,603
Comments on draft Vision spring 2009
Random survey on draft Vision spring 2009
TOTAL PARTICIPANTS* 15,541
POPULATION PROVIDING INPUT 8.5%
Total information session participants 2007-2008
*Includes duplicates
-
8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Leelanau Perspective
15/49
The Grand Vision: A Leelanau County PerspectivePage 12
The Leelanau County workshop was held on
May 8, 2008 at Suttons Bay School. 205 partici-
pants worked in groups of 6-10 to create 20
maps showing preferred locations of different
development types and land uses. These differ-
ent land uses were identified by stickers or
chips, with each chip representing 640 acres
and a specified number of households (total and
per acre). Instructions were provided, including a
description and sample photo of each land use
type, to help participants in discussions onwhere to locate different land uses. The types of
land uses and their descriptions are as follows:
Rural. The Rural Housing development typeconsists of dispersed lots. Rural housing devel-
opment provides residents with access to rural
areas while being within reach of urban ameni-
ties. (128 households = 1 household/5 acres)
Rural Cluster. The Rural Cluster development
type consists of collections of housing in a rural
setting. Rural clusters are often used to focus
development around an amenity, such as a lake,
while retaining larger areas of open space. 128
households = 1 household/5 acres
Large Lot. Large Lot subdivisions consist ofsingle-family, detached homes. With up to one-
acre lots, this development type is characterized
by very large residences without sidewalks.Street connectivity is low and travel to and from
destinations is usually by automobile. 640
households = 1 household/I acre
Neighborhood. Residential subdivisions are
comprised of single-family, detached homes and
duplexes. Street networks are typical of post-
World War II suburbs. 1,920 households = 3
household/1 acre
Leelanau County Workshop Results
May Workshop Chip Menu
-
8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Leelanau Perspective
16/49
The Grand Vision: A Leelanau County PerspectivePage 13
Agricultural Preservation. Agricultural Preser-
vation chips are used to highlight agricultural
areas the community wishes to retain.
Open Space. Open space chips are used to
highlight open space and environmental areasthe community wishes to retain.
Workshop map results, including both chip loca-
tions and comments, were collected and com-
piled into a digital format, and analyzed by con-
sultants to identify participant values and con-
cerns. These results were subsequently used in
the creation of the values survey and in the de-
velopment of the four alternative growth scenar-
ios that appeared in the scorecard.
Images of all Leelanau County Workshop maps
are available online at www.thegrandvision.org.Methodology is detailed in the draft Grand Vision
Socio-Economic Report (August 2009), prepared
by Mead&Hunt.
Highest Development Type. This map shows all locations of 2 or more hits - meaningthat at least two maps showed the same chip type in the same location.
Map 1: Leelanau County Workshop MapHighest Development Type
-
8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Leelanau Perspective
17/49
The Grand Vision: A Leelanau County PerspectivePage 14
AverageNumberofHouseholds.Thismapshowschipplacement
bynumberofhouseholdstoindicatedesireddensitiesinthoseareas.
AgriculturalPrese
rvation+Openspace.Thismapshowsagricul-
tureandopenspacechipplacementbynumberofhits
ornumberof
timestheyappearedonworkshopmaps.
Map3:Leelanau
CountyWorkshopMapAgriculturalPreserva-
tionandOpenSpace
Map2:LeelanauCou
ntyWorkshopMapAverageNu
mberof
Households
-
8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Leelanau Perspective
18/49
The Grand Vision: A Leelanau County PerspectivePage 15
A values survey was conducted by Harris Inter-
active in July 2008, with a goal of assessing val-
ues of those living in the region. The survey was
conducted to ensure that regional planning and
visioning process of the Grand Vision will protect
and promote the things about which the popula-
tion cares most. 547 interviews were conducted
by phone across the region. 74 interviews were
conducted in Leelanau County, enabling county-
level analysis. Data was weighted to match US
Census information for age, gender, race/
ethnicity, household income and county. The
margin of error is +/- 5.6%.
The following is an excerpt from the Harris Inter-
active survey report on regional results. Addi-
tional charts and information specific to Lee-
lanau County are also included. Complete sur-
vey results by county accompany this report and
a r e a l s o a v a i l a b l e o n l i n e a t
www.thegrandvision.org.
Methodology
Harris designed a two-stage research study. The
qualitative research stage identified values im-
portant to residents. These values were con-
firmed in quantitative surveys representing the
population of the six-county Grand Traverse re-
gion.
The survey showed that residents in the region
have similar values, despite their county of resi-
dence, and enjoy a high quality of life from living
in a scenic area, having access to nature, sur-
rounded by friends and family, and experiencing
little crime. Some of the themes that emerged for
the region include (excerpted from the Harris
report):
Residents of the Grand Traverse Region are
more positive about their quality of life than
the rest of the country and more optimistic
about their futures.
Residents in the region are more
likely to feel their communities areheaded in the right direction than the
rest of the country 52% vs. 39%.
They are less likely to believe their
children and grandchildren will ex-
perience a decrease in quality of life.
Differences exists between counties:
Overall residents of Leelanau,
Grand Traverse, Benzie have a
more positive orientation, while An-
trim residents lean more negatively.
Kalkaska residents say they are
headed in the wrong direction pres-
ently, but are optimistic it will im-
prove. Wexford residents are am-
bivalent, with no clear orientation
emerging.
A number of issues figure prominently in
residents minds. The strong positive feel-
ings about local natural beauty/outdoor rec-
reation and friends and family clearly out-
weigh the concerns over availability of jobs
and a somewhat high cost of living.
In the eyes of most residents, economic
growth and developmentoutweigh the need
to protect the environment. While this is
Values Survey
-
8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Leelanau Perspective
19/49
The Grand Vision: A Leelanau County PerspectivePage 16
Of the following, what is MOST Important to you?
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Having friends or family in the area
Plenty of jobs or w ork available
Scenic beauty of the region and having access to nature
Low crime
High cost of living
A family-f riendly environment
High quality education system
Clean lakes and rivers
Rural areas and open space
Outdoor recreation opportunities
Friendly people or neighbors
Planning for grow th
The weather or c limate
Adequate roads and transportation infrastructure
Being close to places like schools, stores or freew ays
Quiet neighborhoodsLeelanau
Region
Quality of Life (QOL): Present, Past and Future
1 = Worst; 10 = Best
6.6
6.8
7
7.2
7.4
7.6
7.8
8
8.2
Present QOL QOL 5 yrs ago QOL 5 yrs in future
LeelanauRegion
-
8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Leelanau Perspective
20/49
The Grand Vision: A Leelanau County PerspectivePage 17
common during periods of economic turmoil,
the level of importance placed on protecting
the environment is uncommonly high in the
Grand Traverse region compared to senti-
ments across the rest of the nation. More-
over, momentum over the past few years
has been has been towards greater support
for both environmental protection.
Residents throughout the region express
high levels of support for smart growth
strategies such as clustering homes on
smaller lots, creating walkable communities,
building affordable housing, and expanding
public transportation. Harris reports that ex-
perience in other smart growth research
around the country reveals that the Grand
Traverse region demonstrates uncharacter-
istically high levels of smart growth support
for a region that has such a high number of
rural residents.
Residents place a high priority on regional
planning and creating a vision for the region
and feel that efforts up to this point have
mostly been only fair or poor.
The core value that shapes feelings and
choices about life in the Grand Traverse re-
gion centers around a feeling of peace of
mind. Residents of this region feel a keen
sense of peace of mind that emanates pri-
Of the following, what is the SECOND most important to you?
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20%
Scenic beauty of the region and having access to nature
A family-f riendly environment
Plenty of jobs or w ork available
Having friends or family in the area
Low crime
High cost of living
High quality education system
Clean lakes and rivers
Outdoor recreation opportunities
Rural areas and open space
Friendly people or neighbors
Quiet neighborhoods
Planning for grow th
The weather or c limate
Adequate roads and transportation infrastructure
Being close to places like schools, stores or f reew aysLeelanau
Region
-
8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Leelanau Perspective
21/49
The Grand Vision: A Leelanau County PerspectivePage 18
marily from their enjoyment of the scenic
beauty and access to the outdoors. In addi-
tion, the strong sense of community and
family of the region also contributes to their
peace of mind.
Life in the Grand Traverse Region
Quality of Life (QOL) Assessment of
Grand Traverse Region
When this survey was conducted in July 2008,
residents of the Grand Traverse Region were
generally more optimistic than the rest of the
country. One in two said things in their commu-
nity are going in the right direction (GT: 52%;
US: 39%). When thinking about the more dis-
tant future, residents of the Grand Traverse Re-gion also express a more sanguine outlook: they
are less likely than Americans nationwide to say
that the quality of life for their children and
grandchildren would decrease (42% vs. 56%).
Perspectives, however, differ by county: a
majority of residents in Leelanau, Benzie and
Grand Traverse counties have a generally
positive outlook; those in Antrim and Kal-
kaska counties are somewhat more pessi-mistic, while residents of Wexford County are
largely split.
There is a timeless high quality of live in the
Grand Traverse region. Residents of the Grand
Traverse region are satisfied with the quality of
life today and believe it will improve in the next
five years. Other Americans, while also content,
do not rate their quality of life as highly. On a ten
point scale, with 10 representing the best possi-
ble lifeand 1 representing the worst possible life,
residents of the Grand Traverse Region rate
their quality of life presently as 7.1, about one
point higher than other Americans (6.1). Thinking
about five years in the future, residents of the
Grand Traverse Region believe their quality of
life will climb to 7.5 ahead of the rest of the na-
tion at 6.8.
Quality of life differs across the region: Leelanau
residents report the highest QOL for the present
and the future (8.1; 8.1). Kalkaska residents say
they have the lowest QOL in the region presently
(6.3), but are most optimistic about its improve-
ment in the future (Present: 6.3; Future: 7.2; In-
crease: +0.9). Residents of Antrim county noted
a decline in overall quality of life, reporting QOL
of 7.8 five years ago, 7.1 currently and 6.8 in the
future the sole county to register a negative
trend from the present to the future.
Factors in Quality of Life AssessmentQuality of life is subjective an issue that is
most important to one resident may be trivial to
her neighbor. Through qualitative work in the
Grand Traverse Region, Harris Interactive identi-
fied the key drivers of quality of life mentioned by
area residents. From this list of factors, residents
in the quantitative survey were asked which ele-
ments have the most significant impact on their
quality of life.
Overall, residents mention the area's scenic
beauty most often (39%), followed by the family-
friendly environment (32%), availability of jobs
(32%), the presence of family and friends (31%)
and the high cost of living (31%).
As each resident could list up to three elements
that impact their quality of life, it is often useful to
look at which issues were mentioned first. These
'top of mind' issues are more salient in resident's
minds than they may appear in the rankings
overall. Having friends and family in the area
(16%) and the availability of jobs (15%) were
mentioned first most often, followed by scenic
beauty (11%), the high cost of living (10%) and
low crime (10%). The differences in the rank or-
dering of these issues depending on whether the
-
8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Leelanau Perspective
22/49
The Grand Vision: A Leelanau County PerspectivePage 19
first mention or all mention are tallied indicates
that the relative position of the issue is less im-
portant rather these issues together can be
viewed as playing an important role in how resi-
dents assess their quality of life.
Attitudes Toward Growth
Economic Development versus Envi-
ronmental Protection
A majority of residents of the Grand Traverse
Region prioritize economic growth and develop-
ment over protecting the environment. Nonethe-
less, there is evidence of the important role that
nature and the environment play in how many
residents think about the region. Forty-two per-
cent of residents assert protecting the environ-ment is of greater importance fifteen points
higher than Americans nationwide (27%) despite
the economic downturn.
Opinion on the role of the priority of economic
development varies by county. Two-thirds of
residents of the Antrim, Kalkaska and Wexford
counties say economic development is more
important versus less than half of resident of the
other counties. In Benzie, Leelanau and GrandTraverse, all of which border the water, residents
split nearly evenly as to whether the environ-
ment or the economy should take priority.
Both of these issues have become more impor-
tant over the past five years according to resi-
dents. Those who prefer protecting the environ-
ment are somewhat more likely to believe that it
has become more important in the past five
years than those supporters of economic growth
and development (72% vs. 60%). Most notable,
however, is that a majority of both groups indi-
cate that their respective issue has gained in
importance, evidence that neither is the domi-
nant priority of the region.
Density of Future Development
Greater density in future development enjoys
widespread support in the Grand Traverse Re-
gion. By a margin of two to one, residents say
they would prefer to see future growth occur in
existing communities rather than through the
creation of new towns in yet undeveloped areas
(69% vs. 27%). The margin contracts somewhat
when asked about their preference on specific
housing design clustering homes on smaller
lots to preserve space (55%) versus using
homes on larger lots without neighborhood parks
(39%) -- however, a majority still support greater
density in housing development.
Support for greater density is greater amongresidents with higher educational attainment.
Ninety percent of residents with a post-BA edu-
cation prefer to see future growth occur in exist-
ing communities and nearly three-quarters would
select communities that cluster homes to pre-
serve open space (73%).
Strategies for Growth
There are exceptionally high levels of support fora variety of smart growth strategies. Over four in
five residents of the Grand Traverse Region sup-
port creating walkable neighborhoods (90%),
locating places of residential and employment
areas closer together (88%), preserving agricul-
tural and open space (85%; 82%), encouraging
more affordable housing (85%) and locating new
growth in existing development areas (80%).
Support for these growth strategies is relatively
consistent across the different counties.
Less popular strategies, however, reveal differ-
ences in preferences and priorities across the
region:
While preserving open space generally
receives high marks, building homes
-
8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Leelanau Perspective
23/49
The Grand Vision: A Leelanau County PerspectivePage 20
with smaller yards to preserve forest
land garners significant support in Lee-
lanau and Benzie counties (78%, 68%),
but markedly less support in Wexford
and Kalkaska counties (47%, 44%).
Overall, highway related strategies are
not popular but widening existing free-
ways earns support from two in three
residents of Antrim and Kalkaska resi-
dents (63%, 60%). Residents of Wexford
county in particular offer little support for
this strategy (37%).
Locating growth in the Traverse City
area is, not surprisingly, more popular in
Grand Traverse county (55%). Resi-
dents in Kalkaska and Wexford countiesoffer less support (28%, 34%)
Multi-family housing enjoys mixed support as a
growth strategy for the Grand Traverse Region.
Seventy percent of area residents agree that a
range of housing types should be planned and
built and three-quarters of residents would en-
courage mixed-use housing. When asked about
building multi-family housing in their community
or area, residents are largely split --- fifty-twopercent would support its construction, while
forty-three percent would oppose.
Providing affordable housing options is the main
driver behind support for multi-family housing.
Nine in ten area residents say that providing an
affordable option to young people and seniors
would make multi-family housing more accept-
able. Multi-story buildings are the least attractive
potential aspect of multi-family housing with
barely half of residents (54%) saying that it
would make such a proposal more acceptable.
Leelanau County Results
Complete survey results, and the accompanying
report from Harris Interactive, are attached to
this report. Some highlights for Leelanau County
include:
Having friends and family in the area and a
family-friendly environment were identified
as the most important factors leading to a
high quality of life in Leelanau County.
In terms of growth strategies in Leelanau
County, the two most popular options were
it should be convenient to walk or bike in
new developing areas, with 90% of respon-
dents indicating agreement with this state-
ment. 90% of respondents also agreed that
the development of more affordable hous-
ing should be encouraged.
The two least popular growth strategies for
Leelanau County are that most new hous-
ing should be separated from jobs and exist-
ing centers, with 62% of respondents in
disagreement with this statement; and more
regional freeways should be built, with 54%
of respondents indicating disagreement with
this strategy.
-
8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Leelanau Perspective
24/49
The Grand Vision: A Leelanau County PerspectivePage 21
Total Somew hat/Strongly AGREE
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100
%
It should be convenient to w alk or bike in new developing areas.
New jobs should be located closer to w here people live
The development of more affordable housing should be
encouraged
Agriculture should be preserved even if it means limiting some
development opportunities
Open space should be preserved even if it means limiting some
development opportunities
New grow th should be directed primarily to existing cities, tow ns
and villages.
Q1210K More mixed use development should be encouraged
Regional mass transit should be expanded
New grow th should be focused along major roads and highways.
range of housing types or sizes should be planned for and built
New housing and jobs should be spread out to avoid crow ding.
Cities and tow ns should build more homes w ith smaller yards or
apartments in order to preserve farm and forest lands.
Existing regional freew ays should be w idened
Growth should be located mainly in the Traverse City part of the
region
Most new housing should be separated f rom jobs and existingcenters
More regional freew ays should be built Leelanau
Region
-
8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Leelanau Perspective
25/49
The Grand Vision: A Leelanau County PerspectivePage 22
Total Strongly/Somewhat DISAGREE
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
More regional freeways s hould be bui lt
Most new housing should be separated from jobs &
existing centers
Growth should be located mainly in the Traverse City
part of the region
Existing regional freeways should be widened
Cities & towns should build more homes w/ sm aller
yards/ apartments to preserve farm & forest lands .
New housing & jobs should be spread out to avoid
crowding.
A range of housing types or sizes should be planned
for & built
New growth should be focused along major roads &
highways.
New growth should be directed primarily to existing
cities, towns & villages .
Regional mass transit should be expanded
More mixed use development should be encouraged
Open space should be preserved even if it means
limiting some development opportunities
Agriculture should be preserved even if it means
limiting some development opportunities
The development of more affordable housing s hould
be encouraged
New jobs should be located closer to where peoplelive
It should be convenient to walk or bike in new
developing areas.Leelanau
Region
-
8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Leelanau Perspective
26/49
The Grand Vision: A Leelanau County PerspectivePage 23
To determine the publics preferred growth sce-
nario, Grand Vision consultants developed a
scorecard that asked for input on the four sce-
narios. The values survey results and workshop
input formed the basis for the scenarios and
questions that were presented in the scorecard.
The scorecard provided information on how
each scenario would affect land use and trans-
portation indicators such as the number of hous-
ing units, investments in road lane miles, andacres of land consumed. Questions asked par-
ticipants to choose which scenario they felt did
the best job of promoting the values that were
identified during the values survey and workshop
process; and questions in the second portion of
the scorecard asked for input on transportation
investments, housing types, and other land use
patterns.
Scorecard responses were self-selected; thatis, similar to an election or public hearing, the
responses reflect the opinions of residents who
took the time to get involved. An extensive out-
reach campaign was used to build awareness of
the scorecard process and to ensure that score-
cards were readily available, both in print and
online, to all interested citizens.
Approximately 11,603 responses were received
region-wide; 1,771 responses were received
from Leelanau County residents, representing
about 8% of the countys total population. The
scorecards asked respondents to choose a sce-
nario in 5 questions that were based on accom-
panying scenario descriptions and graphs. An
additional 7 questions asked respondents to
state how much they agreed with statementsregarding transportation and development types.
Scorecard results are generally consistent
across county boundaries, age, income, and
other factors. However, there are some minor
differences between regional and county re-
sponses to individual questions. This section will
review the questions asked in the scorecard and
discuss the overall picture along with Leelanau
County responses. Results by number of re-sponses for each question and by percentage,
for each county, are included in Appendix D.
Scorecard responses were received from 1,771
Leelanau County residents, which equates to
about 8% of the Countys population (22,112),
as reported in the 2000 U. S. Census.
Responses Population PercentageAntrim 1,209 24,463 4.94%
Benzie 962 17,652 5.45%
Grand Traverse 6,447 84,952 7.59%
Kalkaska 536 17,330 3.09%
Leelanau 1,771 22,112 8.01%
Wexford 678 31,994 2.12%
Total Responses 11,603 198,503 6%
Scorecard Results
Table 5: Scorecard Responses by County
-
8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Leelanau Perspective
27/49
The Grand Vision: A Leelanau County PerspectivePage 24
Question #1: I think the scenario that
does the best job of preserving the re-
gions farmland and open space is:
[Scenario A, B, C, or D}
Scenario D resulted in the least amount ofrural land converting to urban. Scenario C
followed closely. The village focus of Sce-
nario C was partially intended to minimize
pressure on agricultural land while also being
visible and accessible to residents living and
visiting the villages. While they both scoredhighly, the selection of scenario D as the re-
gional favorite indicated a desire to minimize
pressures in rural areas, including housing
growth and traffic, as much as possible.
In questions relative to scorecard preferences,
Leelanau County responses were consistent
with regional response, with slightly higher sup-
port for village-based Scenario C than regional
preferences.
In the second part of the scorecard, respondents
were given a statement and asked to what de-
gree they agreed or disagreed. The questions
were all directly related to scenario evaluations
described in the scorecard document, which fo-
cused on measuring future impacts based on
public values, as determined through the Grand
Visions values survey.
While, again, generally consistent with regional
responses, Leelanau County responses showed
less support for transportation investments pri-
oritizing new and widened roads than the region
as a whole. In Question #8, 52.5% of County
responses indicated disagreement with this
statement, compared to 42% of regional re-
sponses. These response patterns closely re-
flect the values survey results, which identify
new regional freeways as one of County re-
spondents least desired growth strategies.
There was also more support in Leelanau
County for urban-oriented growth patterns, as
represented by Questions #9 and #10, with
about 8% more positive responses to both ques-
tions (I think increased traffic in our cities and
villages would be okay if I could park once and
walk to shops, jobs, schools, and parks; and I
would consider living in a neighborhood with
smaller yards and some multi-family buildings if
it meant that I could walk or ride my bike to
shops, jobs, schools, and parks.)
Responses, by number and percent, are detailed
for each question by county in Appendix C.
Analysis is excerpted from Fregonese and Asso-
ciates top line memo from January 2009. The
memo accompanies this report and is also avail-
able online at www.thegrandvision.org.
Grand Vision Scorecard ResponsesNarrative provided by Fregonese Associates, January 2009
Question #1
Leelanau County vs. Regional Results
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
A B C D
Leelanau
Total Responses
-
8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Leelanau Perspective
28/49
The Grand Vision: A Leelanau County PerspectivePage 25
Question #2. I think the scenario that does
the best job at balancing our needs for mo-
bility with our desires for thriving cities and
towns and a cleaner environment is:
Scenario C was by far the most popular
choice. One of the more significant compo-nents of the village based scenario was intra-
regional transit service. Many participants in
the workshops asked for such an amenity. Sce-
nario D, with the highest concentrations of peo-
ple involved the highest level of transit service.
However, with limited congestion in any sce-
nario, the option to have multiple choices for
traveling between villages and towns seemed
to prevail. At the same time, it is clear that sim-
ply building more roads alone will not be well
received.
Question #3: I think the scenario that best pro-
vides jobs and affordable housing for working
families is:
The popularity of Scenarios C and D echo con-
cernsvoiced during the Grand Visions values re-
search and at the public workshopsabout rising
home prices rising and the need to see more hous-
ing options so that people can afford to remain in
the region. Respondents see homes with acreage
as too expensive for many residents including work-
ing families, young people and senior citizens.
Smaller yards and other options such as townhomes
and apartments offer the benefit of being more af-
fordable.
Question #2
Leelanau County vs. Regional Results
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
A B C D
Leelanau
Total
Responses
Question #3
Lee lanau County vs. Regional Results
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
A B C D
Leelanau
Total Respons es
-
8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Leelanau Perspective
29/49
The Grand Vision: A Leelanau County PerspectivePage 26
Question #5: I think the scenario that does the
best job depicting a future I support is:
Cleary Scenario C received the most support
when ranked overall. The focus on town and vil-
lage life was expected to perform well because itembodies much of what people say they like in the
region. Town and village living is easy to imagine
for people on all ends of the spectrum, from Trav-
erse City to rural homes along Torch Lake. There
was also significant support for the more urban
lifestyle portrayed in scenario D. More than one-
third of respondents identified themselves as living
in rural areas. However, Scenarios A and B which
represent the more rural development patterns of
the set together received less than 10% of the
overall tally for support. People were evidently
voicing the opinion of what they want to see, not just what they are used to. The cities, towns and
villages of the region are well regarded by people
in all living situations.
Question #4: I think the scenario that does the
best job of enhancing our regions cities and
villages
Scenario C had by far the largest support. It isclear that people do not want the future to simply
be a continuation of the patterns seen today, whichcould result in additional sprawl, loss of the rural
lifestyle and potential decay of the towns and vil-
lages. There is significant support for the very ur-
ban lifestyle exhibited by Scenario D. However,
most are looking for change that enhances the
many towns and villages of today, rather than sig-
nificantly transforming just a few areas. The strong
villages of Scenario C also resound with partici-
pants desires for shared prosperity among the
counties of the region.
Question #4
Leelanau County vs. Regional Results
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
A B C D
Leelanau
Total
Responses
Question #5
Leelanau County vs. Regional Results
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
A B C D
LeelanauTotal Responses
-
8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Leelanau Perspective
30/49
The Grand Vision: A Leelanau County PerspectivePage 27
Question #6: I think transportation invest-
ments should prioritize new and widened
roads.
The strong disagreement to this statement
says three things: 1. Dont spend too much
money on new and widened roads, and 2.Maintain the system we have, and 3. Invest
more money on transit, walking and biking.
Participants in the public transportation work-
shops were generally conservative about
spending on any new infrastructure, highlight-
ing the need for careful consideration of future
investments.
Question #7: I think new transportation in-
vestments should include biking and walk-
ing facilities even if it means some roads
arent widened.
It is abundantly clear that residents want to see
additional spending on bike and walking facili-
ties. The question goes a step further and
states specifically that the funding may be at
the expense of investment in road widening for
capacity. That the answers were this close to
unanimous, given the tradeoff, shows signifi-
cant support for public investments. Such in-
vestments will assure safer and more conven-
ient biking and may attract additional people to
utilize this mode of transportation.
Question #6
Leelanau County vs. Regional Results
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neut ral Agree St rongly Agree
Leelanau
Total Responses
Question #7
Leelanau County vs. Regional Results
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neut ral Agree St rongly Agree
Leelanau
Total Responses
-
8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Leelanau Perspective
31/49
The Grand Vision: A Leelanau County PerspectivePage 28
Question #8: I think new transportation
investments should include enhanced
transit, including in-town buses and re-
gional bus service, even if it means some
roads arent widened.
This section was also engineered to probedeeper into people attitudes about transpor-
tation investment. People have the same
strong feelings of support for transit as they
do for bike and walk amenities. The question
purposely limited the transit options to in-
town and regional bus service which are both
modest investments compared to rail transit.
Question #9: I think increased traffic con-
gestion in our cities and villages would be
okay if I could park once and walk to shops,
jobs, schools and parks.
People generally support the notion of trading
slightly more congestion for the benefits of full
service towns and villages where they could
walk between jobs and shopping. However, the
number of people disagreeing, or remaining
neutral shows that this style of growth is not for
everyone. Additionally, it may hint at the inter-
nal conflict between a desire to do the right
thing and a belief that people will be able to
stick to it when the wind is blowing and snow is
falling.
Question #8
Leelanau County vs. Regional Results
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neut ral Agree St rongly Agree
Leelanau
Total Responses
Question #9
Leelanau County vs. Regional Results
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
50.0%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neut ral Agree St rongly Agree
Leelanau
Total Responses
-
8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Leelanau Perspective
32/49
The Grand Vision: A Leelanau County PerspectivePage 29
Question #10: I would consider living in a
neighborhood with smaller yards and some
multi-family buildings if it meant that I could
walk or ride my bike to shops, jobs, schools
and parks.
Walking and biking were two things that scoredwell in the scientific research. They
were attached to smaller yards, apartments
and condos to intentionally force a tradeoff.
However, the results point to a much greater
acceptance, and even desire, for multi-family
housing than might be expected.
Question #11: I oppose taller buildings in
our cities and villages even if it means that
we need to build on farm and forest lands.
With this statement participants were asked to
reflect on the dramatic changes that might beseen in cities and towns.The scorecard even
mentioned 8-story buildings in places such as
Traverse City and Cadillac. The overwhelming
response hints at two things. First, 6- and 8-
story buildings do not cause the panic or con-
cern that might have been expected. Coupled
with the desire for an improved urban fabric as
evidenced by previous questions, one could
presume that downtown buildings taller than 10
stories would indeed by embraced by many.
Although, the roughly even split between
strongly disagree and disagree suggests thatsupport will wane proportionately as building
heights go up. This again reveals that there
may be more desire for urban lifestyle in some
specific locations than there is region-wide.
Second, this response indeed affirms residents
desire to retain the farming, forestry and rural
lifestyle that is present in the region.
Question #10
Leelanau County vs. Regional Results
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neut ral Agree St rongly Agree
Leelanau
Total Responses
Question #11
Leelanau County vs. Regional Results
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neut ral Agree St rongly Agree
Leelanau
Total Responses
-
8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Leelanau Perspective
33/49
The Grand Vision: A Leelanau County PerspectivePage 30
Question #12: I think people should be able
to have a home on rural acreage even if it
increases new public investment in roads,
sewers and schools.
This statement forces people to link planning
with personal decisions and limits to private
property rights. Generally, people do not fully
link the two. This is the only question in the
entire scorecard with such an even divide. Re-
sposes indicate approximately equal support
for two different positions in this matter. On one
hand, some believe that they should be able to
locate a home on, or even subdivide their rural
property no matter what. On the other hand,
some feel that they are not willing to support a
lifestyle that has cost impacts on the rest ofsociety. Note that many people chose to re-
main neutral. This could be because linking
individual property decisions with public costs
and benefits is not intuitive. Alternatively, it
could reflect people being truly torn between
the notion of the public good and the private
good.
Question #12
Leelanau County vs. Regional Results
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neut ral Agree St rongly Agree
Leelanau
Total
-
8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Leelanau Perspective
34/49
The Grand Vision: A Leelanau County PerspectivePage 31
To compare the preferences expressed in the
Grand Vision scorecard results with the prefer-
ences of the general public, a telephone survey
was conducted by Public Policy Associates, Inc.
in April and May 2009, using a random-digit-dial
sample of residential telephone numbers. The
survey tested 10 questions from the scorecard;
in some cases, the questions that were tested
were exact duplicates of the scorecard ques-
tions. In other cases, the statement was para-phrased to make the question more easily un-
derstood during a telephone survey.
The survey, which resulted in 578 valid re-
sponses, was accurate to the county level, with
a margin of error for regional results estimated at
+/- 5.1%. The following is an excerpt from the
executive summary. The full survey report is
attached to this document.
Key Regional Findings
The survey results provide strong confirmation
that regional residents at large share the pref-
erences and priorities of scorecard partici-
pants.
Both survey and scorecard participants were
most likely to favor future development vi-
sion C, with its emphases on growth in
the regions cities and villages; preserva-
tion of open space; and investment in
trails, public transportation, and roads.
Vision D, the most compact development
option, was also frequently chosen (see Fig-
ure 1).
Residents of the region expressed strong
support for future investments in trails
and sidewalks and in public transporta-
tion, even if it means some roads arent
widened. More than 75% of participants in
both processes supported these choices.
Eighty percent of survey participants and
67% of scorecard participants would toler-
ate more traffic in cities and villages if
they could park once and walk to theirdestinations. Many regional residents would
also consider a neighborhood with smaller
yards and some apartments and condomini-
ums if they could walk or ride a bike to
work, school, shopping, and amenities.
Residents would prefer taller buildings in
cities and villages to developing farm
and forestlands. Only about one in four
participants in either process agreed withthe statement, I oppose taller buildings in
our villages and cities even if it means that
we need to build on farm and forest lands.
The region is most divided on the issues
of new pavement for roads and new resi-
dential development in areas lacking
supportive infrastructure. Fifty-nine per-
cent of survey respondents and 46% of
scorecard participants agreed strongly orsomewhat that building new roads and
widening existing roads should be the first
priority for transportation spending in the
region. Similarly, 46% of survey respon-
dents and 53% of scorecard participants
agreed strongly or somewhat with the
statement, I think people should be able to
Follow-up Survey Report
-
8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Leelanau Perspective
35/49
The Grand Vision: A Leelanau County PerspectivePage 32
build new homes in country areas, even if it
means we have to spend tax dollars to build
roads, sewers and schools.
Most issues explored in the survey show no per-sistent or sharp differences in opinion on the
basis of personal characteristics including
age, gender, income, education, own/rent status,
employment status, type of home community, or
county. For example, support for investment in
public transportation and interest in vision C
was drawn from younger and older respondents,
males and females, higher- and lower-income
families, residents of all types of communities,
and residents of all counties. The lone excep-
tion to this pattern was prioritization of in-
vestment in new and wider roads, which was
sensitive to respondents home counties.
Survey respondents support their communi-
ties involvement in the regional Grand Vi-
sion process. Respondents were strongly sup-
portive whether they had past direct involvement
in the Grand Vision, familiarity without involve-
ment, or no prior familiarity with the process (see
Figure 2). More than 90% also agreed strongly
or somewhat that, to help create a future that I
want, I want my local elected officials to partici-
pate in the Grand Vision.
Leelanau County Results
Leelanau County results largely mirrored re-
gional results, with slight differences on some
questions. In particular, support for Statement
#4, I think building new roads and widening ex-
isting roads should be the first priority for trans-
portation spending in the region, had signifi-
cantly less support from Leelanau County than
from the region overall. Statement #6 received
substantially more support from LeelanauCounty residents than from the region as a
whole.
Statement #1 corresponds to question #7on the Grand Vision scorecard, whichasked participants to rank their support ofthe statement, I think new transportationinvestments should include biking andwalking facilities, even if it means someroads arent widened. Regional scorecard
responses, excluding neutral responses,showed that 84% of participants stronglyagreed or agreed with this statement.The PPA survey results were consistent,with approximately 80% of respondentsregion-wide expressing agreement. Lee-lanau County support was stronger thanthat of the region, with 86% of LeelanauCounty respondents indicating agreement.
Grand Vision Follow-up Survey ResponsesNarrative provided by Public Policy Associates, May 2009
Statement #1: "I think future investments in
transportation should include trails and s idewalks f or
biking and w alking, even if it means some roads aren't
w idened." (% Agree "Strongly" or "Somew hat")
80%86%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Leelanau Region
-
8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Leelanau Perspective
36/49
The Grand Vision: A Leelanau County PerspectivePage 33
Statement #2 corresponds to question #8 on theGrand Vision scorecard, which asked participantsto rank their support of the statement, I think newtransportation investments should include en-hanced transit, including in-town buses and re-
gional bus service, even if it means some roadsarent widened. Excluding neutral responses, 80%of regional scorecard participants strongly agreedor agreed with this statement.
Statement #3 corresponds to question #9 onthe Grand Vision scorecard, which asked partici-pants to rank their support of the statement, Ithink increased traffic congestion in our citiesand villages would be okay if I could park onceand walk to shops, jobs, schools, and parks.Regionally, scorecard responses, excludingneutral responses, showed that 67% of partici-pants strongly agreed or agreed with thisstatement. Support was substantially higher inresponses to the PPA survey, with approxi-mately 80% of respondents region-wide ex-pressing agreement and 91% of Antrim Countyresidents supporting the statement.
Statement #4 corresponds to question #6 onthe Grand Vision scorecard, which asked partici-pants to rank their support of the statement, Ithink new transportation investments shouldprioritize new and widened roads. Regionalscorecard responses, excluding neutral re-sponses, showed that 46% of participantsstrongly agreed or agreed with this state-ment. Support for Statement #4 was significantlylower in Leelanau County, with only 41% ex-pressing agreement for that statement.
"I think future investments in transportation
should include more public transportation,
including in-town buses and regional bus
service, even if it means some roads arent
widened." (% Agree "Strongly" or
"Somewhat")
76%73%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Leelanau Region
Statement #3: "I think increased traffic in our
villages and cities would be okay if I couldpark once and walk to shops, jobs , schools
and parks." (% Agree "Strongly" or
"Somewhat")
76%80%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Leelanau Region
Statement #4: "I think building new roads and
widening existing roads s hould be the first
priority for transportation spending in the
region." (% Agree "Strongly" or "Somewhat")
42%
59%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%70%
80%
90%
100%
Leelanau Region
-
8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Leelanau Perspective
37/49
The Grand Vision: A Leelanau County PerspectivePage 34
Statement #5 does not have an exact scorecardparallel. The question asked respondents to choosea priority between repairing and improving existingroads, or expanding capacity with new roads. Therewas overwhelming support for prioritizing mainte-nance on existing roads, with 95% of LeelanauCounty residents choosing maintenance as a prior-ity.
Statement #6 corresponds to question #10 onthe Grand Vision scorecard, which asked par-ticipants to rank their support of the statement,I would consider living in a neighborhood withsmaller yards and some multi-family buildingsif it meant that I could walk or ride my bike toshops, jobs, schools, and parks. Regionalscorecard responses, excluding neutral re-sponses, showed that 64% of participantsstrongly agreed or agreed with this state-ment. Regional support was slightly lower in
the PPA survey, but Leelanau County re-sponses in the PPA survey were consistentwith scorecard results.
Statement #6: "I would cons ider living in a
neighborhood with sm aller yards and some
apartments or condominiums if I could walk or
ride a bike to shops, jobs, schools and parks."
(% Agree "Strongly" or "Somewhat")
66%
53%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Leelanau Region
Statement #5: Percentages prioritizing
maintenance of existing roads over
expanding capacity with new and wider
roads95%
86%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Leelanau Region
-
8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Leelanau Perspective
38/49
The Grand Vision: A Leelanau County PerspectivePage 35
Statement #7 corresponds to question #11 on theGrand Vision scorecard, which asked participants to
rank their support of the statement, I would opposetaller buildings in our cities and villages even if itmeans that we need to build on farm and forestlands. Regional scorecard responses, excludingneutral responses, showed that 21% of participantsstrongly agreed or agreed with this statement.Leelanau County responses to the PPA survey wereabout 8 percentage points lower than regional re-sults.
Statement #7: "I oppose taller buildings in
our villages and cities even if it means
that we need to build on farm and fores tlands."
(% Agree "Strongly" or "Somewhat")
39%31%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Leelanau Region
Statement #8 corresponds to question #12on the Grand Vision scorecard, which askedparticipants to rank their support of the state-ment, I think people should be able to havea home on rural acreage even if it increasesnew public investment in roads, sewer, andschools. Regional scorecard responses,excluding neutral responses, showed that55% of participants strongly agreed oragreed with this statement. PPA surveyresponses showed that slightly less than halfof residents at both the regional and countylevels agreed with this statement.
Statement #8: "I think people should be able
to build new homes in country areas, even if it
means we have to spend tax dollars to build
roads, sewers, and schools." (% Agree
"Strongly" or "Somewhat")
47% 46%
0%
10%
20%
30%40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Leelanau Region
-
8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Leelanau Perspective
39/49
The Grand Vision: A Leelanau County PerspectivePage 36
"As the region develops in the future, it is important that we
protect and preserve the farm land, orchards, forests, water
quality, and scenic beauty of the region."
Don't Know
0.5%
Agree Strongly
81%
Agree Somewhat
18%
DisagreeSomewhat
0.6%
Statement #10 tested responses to the vision of protecting and preserving the farm land, orchards, for-ests, water quality, and scenic beauty of the region. Of the nearly 600 people responding tho the survey,three disagreed somewhat and three volunteered the response of I dont know. Given the overwhelm-ing support for this principle, no demographic analysis was pursued.
Statement #9 tested responses to thevision of creating a group of uniquevillages and cities that are active andcharming places with a main street and
downtown. Support was very high in allcounties and demographics for thestatement.
Statement #9: "As the region develops in the future, it
is important that we create a group of unique villages
and cities that are active and charming places with a
main s treet and a downtown." (% Agree "Strongly" or
"Somewhat")
80%85%
0%10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Leelanau Region
-
8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Leelanau Perspective
40/49
The Grand Vision: A Leelanau County PerspectivePage 37
Through the Grand Vision process, the commu-
nity identified six issue areas and action state-
ments that together will help move the vision into
reality:
Create a group of unique villages and cities
that are active and charming places with a
main street or a downtown.
Provide more variety in housing choices tomatch peoples needs and preferences for
lower cost, higher efficiency, central location
and low-maintenance lifestyle options.
Strengthen the local economy with more
jobs offering security and a living wage in
cities and villages around the region. Train
the workforce for Michigans new economy
with a quality education and opportunities for
lifelong learning.
Maintain and improve the existing road sys-tem and place new investment in public
transportation, bicycling and pedestrian in-
frastructure to provide choices in mobility,
support energy conservation and maximize
system efficiencies.
Protect and preserve the farmland, or-
chards, forests, open water, water quality,
other natural areas and the scenic beauty of
the region.
Make decisions today that support sustain-able development for the environment, the
economy and the community for the next
fifty years and beyond.
Implementation
Community efforts are now beginning to move
these Grand Vision principles into action. Like
the creation of the Grand Vision, this effort will
be a collaborative, region-wide, bottom-up ap-
proach that will require commitment and action
from citizens, public agencies, nonprofits, and
the private sector.
Grand Vision Supporters
Individuals throughout the region are invited to
publicly support the Grand Vision through astatement of support. Supporters receive regular
updates on progress and activities related to the
Grand Vision, and also commit to activities such
as participating in a working group; working as a
volunteer at Grand Vision events and with out-
reach; advocating for Grand Vision policies and
projects; and participating in an annual summit
Partnership
All organizations, groups, and agencies that sup-port the principles of the Grand Vision are invited
to sign a Partnership Agreement. Through the
agreement, partners agree that it is in the best
interest of the community to:
Cooperatively engage in activities that will
result in progress toward the goals of the
Grand Vision
Attend the annual Grand Vision community
event to share progress
Provide assistance as available to support
Grand Vision related activities and events
Participating organizations receive support from
other Grand Vision partners in communicating
their mission and activities to the public through
marketing avenues including media releases,
The Grand Vision
-
8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Leelanau Perspective
41/49
The Grand Vision: A Leelanau County PerspectivePage 38
online information materials, and viral network-
ing.
All Grand Vision partners will receive regular
updates on progress and activities related to the
Grand Vision. Partners will be publicly identified
as supporters of the Grand Vision.
Working Groups
Because many organizations throughout the
region are involved in activities that are consis-
tent with the principles of the Grand Vision, a
Grand Vision working group structure has been
developed to support these organizations and
activities. Working groups will function as col-
laborative councils on specific subject areas and
will include diverse regional participation, with
members including citizens and representatives
from public agencies, nonprofits, and the private
sector that are involved in the subject area. Con-
veners will host initial meetings and provide staff
support in terms of meeting agendas and other
resources.
Growth and Investment Areas: ensure that
both public and private investments are made in
areas that are suitable for new growth and that
will give the region the best return on the dollar
for strengthening the economy and designing
vibrant communities.
Convener: New Designs for Growth/Northwest
Michigan Council of Governments
Housing: offer a diverse mix of regional housing
choices with affordable options that fit in with the
small town character of the neighborhoods, vil-
lages, and cities as well as rural housing.
Convener: Housing Task Force and Northwest
Michigan Council of Governments
Transportation:maintain and improve the exist-
ing road system, increase public transportation
services between cities and villages in the re-
gion, and