Grand Vision: Antrim Perspective

download Grand Vision: Antrim Perspective

of 52

Transcript of Grand Vision: Antrim Perspective

  • 8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Antrim Perspective

    1/52

    ANTRIM COUNTY

    PERSPECTIVE

    thegrandvision.org

  • 8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Antrim Perspective

    2/52

  • 8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Antrim Perspective

    3/52

    An Antrim 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: Antrim Perspective

    4/52

  • 8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Antrim Perspective

    5/52

    Table of Contents

    Introduction 1

    Public Participation and Outreach 6

    Antrim 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: Antrim Perspective

    6/52

  • 8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Antrim Perspective

    7/52

    The Grand Vision: An Antrim 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 Antrim

    County results in terms of public par-

    ticipation, the Antrim County work-

    shop, values survey data, scorecard

    results, and follow-up survey data.

    Antrim County data are shown in a

    side-by-side comparison with regional

    data, to demonstrate how Antrim

    County results play out in the regional

    Grand Vision. It is hoped that this

    information will be valuable in 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)

    Introduction

    The Grand Vision:

    An Antrim County Perspective

  • 8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Antrim Perspective

    8/52

    The Grand Vision: An Antrim 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: Antrim Perspective

    9/52

    The Grand Vision: An Antrim County PerspectivePage 3

    Healthcare ($10,000), and county contributions

    totaling $30,000. Antrim 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 4,

    Grand Vision Participation, page 11). 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: Antrim Perspective

    10/52

    The Grand Vision: An Antrim 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 atwww.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

    participation and representation through a Grand

    Vision partnership and working group structure.

  • 8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Antrim Perspective

    11/52

    The Grand Vision: An Antrim County PerspectivePage 5

    NewHous-

    ingUnits

    in

    Walk-

    ableAreas

    Acresof

    Farmand

    ForestLand

    Consumed

    NewHomes

    andMulti-

    familyUnits

    Annual

    HoursSpent

    DrivingPer

    Person

    Total

    Costof

    Lane

    Miles

    Needed

    Annu

    al

    Housh

    old

    GasE

    x-

    pendit

    ure

    Annual

    Tonsof

    CO2

    Emis-

    sions

    ScenarioA:Futuregrowthwillfollowtheexistingtrendof

    low-densitydevelopmentin

    ruralareas,withminimalgrowth

    inexistingcitiesandvilla

    ges.Transportationinvestments

    willbelargelyinwidened

    roadwaysforcommuters,and

    includesomemulti-usetrails,butminimalinvestmentsin

    busserviceandwalkability.

    2,010

    6,566

    (farmland)

    7,460(forest)

    3,296

    (multi-family

    )

    21,041

    (single

    family)

    227

    $142

    million

    $2,83

    5

    1.2

    million

    ScenarioB:Futuregrowth

    willoccurinruralareas,butwith

    newhomesclusteredtomaximizeopenspace,andminimal

    growthinexistingcitiesan

    dvillages.Transportationinvest-

    mentswillbelargelyinneworwidenedroadwaysforcom-

    muters.Thisscenarioinclu

    dessomeinvestmentinwalking

    andbicyclingtrailsbutthe

    effectivenessoftransitandwalk-

    abilityforcommutingislimitedbylowdensities.

    4,666

    8,244

    (farmland)

    14,232

    (forest)

    6,049

    (multi-family

    )

    18,581

    (single

    fam

    -

    ily)

    212

    $86mil-

    lion

    $2,72

    1

    ScenarioC:Futuregrowthwilloccurprimarilyinthere-

    gionscitiesandvillages,w

    ithadditionalgrowthinthemain

    citiesofTraverseCityand

    Cadillac.Largeamountsofrural

    openspacearepreserved.Thisdevelopmentpatternwill

    requireinvestmentsinregionalbusservice,sidewalks,and

    biketrailsinvillagesand

    cities,withsomeinvestmentsin

    neworwidenedroadways.

    4430

    2,079

    (farmland)

    2,469(forest)

    10,100(multi-

    family)

    15,466

    (single

    family)

    208

    $78mil-

    lion

    $2,60

    8

    1.13

    million

    ScenarioD:Futurehousingdevelopmentandjobgrowth

    willoccurprimarilyintheregionstwomaincities,Traverse

    CityandCadillac.Largea

    mountsofruralopenspaceare

    preserved.Thisdevelopme

    ntpatternwillrequireinvestment

    inurbanbuscirculators,

    sidewalks,andbikingpathsin

    thosetwomaincities.This

    scenariohaslimitedinvestment

    inneworwidenedroadway

    s.

    5,970

    1,968

    (farmland)

    2,173(forest)

    10,100

    (multi-family

    )

    15,466

    (single

    family)

    189

    $58mil-

    lion

    $2,38

    1

    1.04

    million

    Table1:FutureGrowthSce

    narios:DescriptionsandMeasu

    rements

  • 8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Antrim Perspective

    12/52

    The Grand Vision: An Antrim 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 (PIC), 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 result in maximum participation levels

    and awareness throughout the region. The com-mittee developed a comprehensive marketing

    and communications plan that focused on

    hands-on involvement 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: Antrim Perspective

    13/52

    The Grand Vision: An Antrim 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 Antrim County participation

    November2007

    Shanty Creek

    Antrim County GVWorkshop

    Visioning Workshop May 27,2008

    Shanty Creek

    Antrim County GVUpdate

    Presentation and discussion on GrandVision progress and update on coming

    events

    August 2008 Bellaire Senior Cen-ter

    Antrim County GVScorecard Kickoff

    Presentation on scorecard to encour-age maximum response

    October 14,2008

    Shanty Creek

    Antrim CountyDraft Grand Vision

    Presentation

    Discuss draft Grand Vision and obtaininput

    February2009

    Antrim County Gov-ernment Building

    Table 2: Antrim County Grand Vision Events

  • 8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Antrim Perspective

    14/52

    The Grand Vision: An Antrim 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 3.

    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.

    Antrim 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 events and

    dates).

    Public events were held in Antrim County

    throughout 2007 and 2008 (see table), beginning

    with an introductory meeting in November 2007

    to encourage Antrim County participation in the

    project. The Antrim County workshop was held

    in May 2008 at Shanty Creek. To announce the

    workshop, postcards were mailed to every

    county household in the spring of 2008; media

    releases resulted in extensive news coverage;

    and viral email blasts reached a wide range ofnetworks and individuals. These efforts helped

    draw 150 participants to the workshop, resulting

    in 15 workshop maps and invaluable input on

    the communitys values and preferences for fu-

    ture growth.

    Antrim 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, directing readers to the website, and

    encouraging them to fill out their scorecard. 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 coverage, and kicked off the three-week

    scorecard collection period. The Antrim County

    Scorecard Kickoff was held October 14, 2008 at

    Shanty Creek.

    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:

    Ellsworth Farmers Exchange-

    Ellsworth

    Ellsworth Farmers Exchange-

    Mancelona

    Glens Market - Mancelona

  • 8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Antrim Perspective

    15/52

    The Grand Vision: An Antrim County PerspectivePage 9

    Glens MarketBellaire

    Gilroys Hardware StoreElk Rap-

    ids

    Alden LumberAlden

    Centeral Food CenterCentral

    Lake

    Higgins StoreAlden

    Java JonesElk Rapids

    County BuildingBellaire

    L&R True Value HardwareBellaire

    Alba Public School

    Bellaire Public School

    Central Lake Public Schools

    Elk Rapids Public Schools Ellsworth Public School

    Mancelona Public Schools

    Concord Academy Antrim

    Public involvement and scorecard distribution

    efforts in Antrim County and throughout the re-

    gion resulted in an enormous scorecard re-

    sponse. Over 1,209 scorecards were received

    from Antrim County, or about 10% of the

    Countys population; 11,600 responses werereceived region-wide. These response rates

    demonstrate a level of awareness and interest in

    a planning process that is unprecedented in our

    region.

  • 8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Antrim Perspective

    16/52

    The Grand Vision: An Antrim County PerspectivePage 10

    Table3:GRA

    NDVISIONSCOR

    ECARDS

    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

    8,481

    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: Antrim Perspective

    17/52

    The Grand Vision: An Antrim County PerspectivePage 11

    Table 4: Grand Vision ParticipationAs of December 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: Antrim Perspective

    18/52

    The Grand Vision: An Antrim County PerspectivePage 12

    The Antrim County workshop was held on May

    27, 2008 at Shanty Creek Resort in Bellaire. 163

    participants worked in groups of 6-10 to create

    16 maps identifying preferred locations of differ-

    ent development types and land uses. These

    different land uses were shown 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 type

    consists of dispersed lots. Rural housing devel-

    opment provides residents with access to rural

    areas while remaining within reach of urban

    amenities. (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

    Antrim County Workshop Results

    May Workshop Chip Menu

  • 8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Antrim Perspective

    19/52

    The Grand Vision: An Antrim 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 areas

    the 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 Antrim County Workshop maps are

    available online at www.thegrandvision.org.

    Methodology is detailed in the draft Grand VisionSocio-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: Antrim County Workshop MapHighest Development Type

  • 8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Antrim Perspective

    20/52

    The Grand Vision: An Antrim County PerspectivePage 14

    AverageNumberofHouseholds.Thismapshowschipplacement

    bynumberofhouseholdstoindicatedesireddensitiesinthoseareas.

    AgriculturalPrese

    rvation+Openspace.Thismapshowsagricul-

    tureandopenspacechipplacementbynumberofhits

    ornumberof

    timestheyappearedonworkshopmaps.

    Map3:AntrimCo

    untyWorkshopMapAgriculturalPreservation

    andOpenSpace

    Map2:AntrimCoun

    tyWorkshopMapAverageNum

    berof

    Households

  • 8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Antrim Perspective

    21/52

    The Grand Vision: An Antrim 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. 81 interviews were

    conducted in Antrim 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%.

    Following is an excerpt from the Harris Interac-

    tive survey report, with additional charts and in-

    formation specific to Antrim County. Complete

    survey results by county accompany this report

    and are also available online at

    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 regionhave 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 are

    headed in the right direction than therest 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

    common during periods of economic turmoil,

    Values Survey

  • 8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Antrim Perspective

    22/52

    The Grand Vision: An Antrim County PerspectivePage 16

    Of the following, what is MOST Important to you?

    0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

    Having fr iends or f amily 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 f reew ays

    Quiet neighborhoodsAntrim

    Region

    Quality of Life (QOL) Present, Past and Future

    Scale: 1 = Worst; 10 = Best

    6.2

    6.4

    6.6

    6.8

    7

    7.2

    7.4

    7.67.8

    8

    Present QOL QOL 5 yrs ago QOL 5 yrs in future

    Antrim Region

  • 8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Antrim Perspective

    23/52

    The Grand Vision: An Antrim County PerspectivePage 17

    the level of importance placed on protecting

    the environment is uncommonly high in

    Grand Traverse compared to sentiments

    across the rest of the nation. Moreover, mo-

    mentum 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-

    marily from their enjoyment of the scenic

    Of the following, what is the SECOND most important to you?

    0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%

    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 freew ays

    Antrim

    Region

  • 8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Antrim Perspective

    24/52

    The Grand Vision: An Antrim County PerspectivePage 18

    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: theyare 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 arelargely 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 1 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, re-

    porting QOL of 7.8 five years ago, 7.1 cur-

    rently 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 Assessment

    Quality of life is subjective an issue that ismost 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 qualify 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 scenicbeauty 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

    first mention or all mention are tallied indicates

  • 8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Antrim Perspective

    25/52

    The Grand Vision: An Antrim County PerspectivePage 19

    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 pointshigher 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 Grand

    Traverse, all of which border the water, residentssplit 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 for

    a variety of smart growth strategies. Over four infive 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

    with smaller yards to preserve forest

  • 8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Antrim Perspective

    26/52

    The Grand Vision: An Antrim County PerspectivePage 20

    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 counties

    offer 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-two

    percent would support its construction, whileforty-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.

    Antrim County Results

    Complete survey results, and the accompanying

    report from Harris Interactive, are attached to

    this report. Some highlights for Antrim County

    include:

    Economic opportunity, scenic beauty, and

    access to nature were identified as the most

    important factors leading to a high quality of

    life in Antrim County.

    In terms of growth strategies in Antrim

    County, two most popular options were di-

    recting new growth primarily to existing cit-

    ies, towns, and villages, with 91% of respon-

    dents agreed with this statement. 91% of

    respondents also indicated that new jobs

    should be located closer to where people

    live.

    The two least popular growth strategies forAntrim County are more regional freeways

    should be built, with 62% of respondents

    indicating disagreement with this strategy;

    and that growth should be located mainly in

    the Traverse City part of the region, with

    45% of respondents in disagreement with

    this statement.

  • 8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Antrim Perspective

    27/52

    The Grand Vision: An Antrim 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

    highw ays.

    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

    Grow th 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

    Antrim

    Region

  • 8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Antrim Perspective

    28/52

    The Grand Vision: An Antrim County PerspectivePage 22

    Total Strongly/Somew hat DISAGREE

    0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

    More regional freew ays should be built

    Most new housing should be separated f rom jobs & existing

    centers

    Grow th should be located mainly in the Traverse City part of

    the region

    Existing regional freew ays should be w idened

    Cities & tow ns should build more homes w / smaller yards/

    apartments to preserve farm & forest lands.

    New housing & jobs should be spread out to avoid crow ding.

    A range of housing types or s izes should be planned for &

    built

    New grow th should be focused along major roads &

    highways.

    New grow th 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 should be

    encouraged

    New jobs should be located closer to w here people live

    It should be convenient to w alk or bike in new developing

    areas.

    Antrim

    Region

  • 8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Antrim Perspective

    29/52

    The Grand Vision: An Antrim 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, and

    acres 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; that

    is, 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; 1,209 responses were received

    from Antrim County residents, representing

    about 5% of the countys total population. The

    scorecards asked respondents to choose a sce-

    nario in five questions that were based on ac-

    companying scenario descriptions and graphs.

    An additional seven questions asked respon-

    dents to state how much they agreed with state-

    ments regarding 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 Antrim

    County responses. Results by number of re-

    sponses for each question and by percentage,

    for each county, are included in Appendix D.

    Responses Population Percentage

    Antrim 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: Antrim Perspective

    30/52

    The Grand Vision: An Antrim County PerspectivePage 24

    Question #1: Antrim County vs RegionalResponses

    0.0%

    5.0%

    10.0%

    15.0%

    20.0%

    25.0%

    30.0%

    35.0%

    40.0%

    45.0%

    50.0%

    A B C D

    Antrim

    Total Responses

    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 scored

    highly, the selection of scenario D as the re-

    gional favorite indicated a desire to minimizepressures in rural areas, including housing

    growth and traffic, as much as possible.

    Scorecard responses were received from 1,209

    Antrim County residents, which equates to about

    5% of the Countys population (24,463), as re-

    ported in the U. S. Census.

    In general, Antrim County responses showed

    somewhat less support for urban growth pat-

    terns, as represented by Scenario D, than the

    region as a whole. Likewise, there was slightly

    more support for the essentially rural and village-

    based growth patterns represented by Scenarios

    A, B, and C than region-wide.

    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

    Vision values survey.

    While generally consistent with regional re-

    sponses, again, Antrim County responses

    showed slightly less support for urban-oriented

    transportation investments (new biking and walk-

    ing facilities and enhanced transit) and growth

    patterns (represented by taller buildings, multi-

    family housing, and small yards). These re-

    sponse patterns likely reflect the Countys pre-

    dominately rural and small town lifestyle, and its

    residents satisfaction with that lifestyle.

    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

  • 8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Antrim Perspective

    31/52

    The Grand Vision: An Antrim County PerspectivePage 25

    0.0%

    10.0%

    20.0%

    30.0%

    40.0%

    50.0%

    60.0%

    A B C D

    Antrim

    Total Responses

    Question #:2 Antrim County vsRegional Responses

    0.0%

    5.0%

    10.0%

    15.0%

    20.0%

    25.0%

    30.0%

    35.0%

    40.0%

    45.0%

    50.0%

    A B C D

    Antrim

    Total

    Question #3Antrim County vs Regional Responses

    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 housing

    options so that people can afford to remain in the

    region. Respondents see homes with acreage as too

    expensive for many residents including working fami-

    lies, young people and senior citizens. Smaller yards

    and other options such as townhomes and apart-

    ments offer the benefit of being more affordable.

  • 8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Antrim Perspective

    32/52

    The Grand Vision: An Antrim County PerspectivePage 26

    0.0%

    10.0%

    20.0%

    30.0%

    40.0%

    50.0%

    60.0%

    A B C D

    Antrim

    Total Respons es

    Question #4Antrim County vs Regional Responses

    0.0%

    10.0%

    20.0%

    30.0%

    40.0%

    50.0%

    60.0%

    A B C D

    Antrim

    Total

    Question #5Antrim County vs Regional Responses

    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 village lifewas expected to perform well because it embodies

    much of what people say they like in the region.

    Town and village living is easy to imagine for peo-

    ple on all ends of the spectrum, from Traverse City

    to rural homes along Torch Lake. There was also

    significant support for the more urban lifestyle por-

    trayed in scenario D. More than one-third of re-

    spondents identified themselves as living in rural

    areas. However, Scenarios A and B which repre-

    sent the more rural development patterns of the set

    together received less than 10% of the overall tally

    for support. People were evidently voicing the opin-ion 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 is:

    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.

  • 8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Antrim Perspective

    33/52

    The Grand Vision: An Antrim County PerspectivePage 27

    0.0%

    5.0%

    10.0%

    15.0%

    20.0%

    25.0%

    30.0%

    Strongly

    Disa

    gree

    Disa

    gree

    Neutral

    Agree

    Strongly

    Agree

    Antrim Total Responses

    Question #6Antrim County vs Regional Responses

    0.0%

    5.0%

    10.0%

    15.0%

    20.0%

    25.0%

    30.0%

    35.0%

    40.0%

    45.0%50.0%

    Strongly

    Disa

    gree

    Disa

    gree

    Neutra

    l

    Agree

    Strongly

    Agree

    Antrim

    Total Respons es

    Question #7Antrim County vs Regional Responses

    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 a biking. Par-

    ticipants in the public transportation workshops

    were generally conservative about spending on

    any new infrastructure, highlighting 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 walk facilities.

    The question goes a step further and states

    specifically that the funding may be at the ex-

    pense of investment in road widening for ca-

    pacity. 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.

  • 8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Antrim Perspective

    34/52

  • 8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Antrim Perspective

    35/52

    The Grand Vision: An Antrim County PerspectivePage 29

    0.0%

    5.0%

    10.0%

    15.0%

    20.0%

    25.0%

    30.0%

    35.0%

    Strongly

    Disa

    gree

    Disa

    gree

    Neutral

    Agree

    Strongly

    Agree

    Antrim

    Total Responses

    Question #10Antrim County vs Regional Responses

    0.0%

    5.0%

    10.0%

    15.0%

    20.0%

    25.0%

    30.0%

    35.0%

    40.0%

    Strongly

    Disa

    gree

    Disa

    gree

    Neutral

    Agree

    Strongly

    Agree

    Antrim

    Total Respons es

    Question #11Antrim County vs Regional Responses

    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 at-

    tached to smaller yards, apartments and con-

    dos 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.

  • 8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Antrim Perspective

    36/52

    The Grand Vision: An Antrim 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 ahome 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.

    0.0%

    5.0%

    10.0%

    15.0%

    20.0%

    25.0%

    30.0%

    35.0%

    Strongly

    Disa

    gree

    Disa

    gree

    Neutral

    Agree

    Strongly

    Agree

    Antrim

    Total

    Question #12Antrim County vs. Regional Responses

  • 8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Antrim Perspective

    37/52

    The Grand Vision: An Antrim 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 Northwestern Michigan Col-

    lege in April and May 2009, using a random-

    digit-dial sample of residential telephone num-

    bers. The survey tested 10 questions from the

    scorecard; in some cases, the questions that

    were tested were exact duplicates of the score-

    card questions. In other cases, the statementwas paraphrased to make the question more

    easily understood 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%. Following is an excerpt from the ex-

    ecutive summary. The full survey report is at-

    tached 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: Antrim Perspective

    38/52

    The Grand Vision: An Antrim 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 Iwant, I want my local elected officials to partici-

    pate in the Grand Vision.

    Antrim County Results

    Antrim County results largely mirrored regional

    results, with slight differences on some ques-

    tions. In particular, support for Statement #4, I

    think building new roads and widening existing

    roads should be the first priority for transporta-

    tion spending in the region, had significantlymore support from Antrim County than from the

    region overall. Statement #3 and Statement #8

    also received substantially more support from

    Antrim County residents than from the region as

    a whole.

    Complete survey results are available online.

    Statement #1: "I think future investments

    in transportation should include trails and

    sidewalks for biking and walking, even if it

    means some roads aren't widened." (%

    Agree "Strongly" or "Somewhat")

    80%

    72%

    0%

    10%

    20%

    30%

    40%

    50%60%

    70%

    80%

    90%

    100%

    Antrim Region

    Statement #1 corresponds to question #7 on theGrand Vision scorecard, which asked participants torank their support of the statement, I think newtransportation investments should include biking andwalking facilities, even if it means some roads arentwidened. Regional scorecard responses, excludingneutral responses, showed that 84% of participantsstrongly agreed or agreed with this statement.The PPA survey results were consistent, with ap-proximately 80% of respondents region-wide ex-pressing agreement.

    Grand Vision Follow-up Survey ResponsesNarrative provided by Public Policy Associates, May 2009

  • 8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Antrim Perspective

    39/52

  • 8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Antrim Perspective

    40/52

  • 8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Antrim Perspective

    41/52

    The Grand Vision: An Antrim County PerspectivePage 35

    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")

    46%56%

    0%

    10%

    20%

    30%

    40%

    50%

    60%

    70%

    80%

    90%

    100%

    Antrim Region

    Statement #9 tested responses to thevision of creating a group of unique villagesand cities that are active and charmingplaces with a main street and downtown.Support was very high in all counties anddemographics for the statement.

    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 increases

    new public investment in roads, sewer, andschools. Regional scorecard responses,excluding neutral responses, showed that55% of participants strongly agreed oragreed with this statement.

    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 street and a downtown." (%

    Agree "Strongly" or "Somewhat")

    84%80%

    0%

    10%

    20%

    30%

    40%

    50%

    60%

    70%

    80%

    90%

    100%

    Antrim Region

  • 8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Antrim Perspective

    42/52

    The Grand Vision: An Antrim 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 Somew hat

    18%

    Disagree Somewhat

    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.

  • 8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Antrim Perspective

    43/52

    The Grand Vision: An Antrim 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 farm land, or-

    chards, forests, open water, and other natu-

    ral areas and particularly water quality and

    the scenic beauty of the region.

    Make decisions today that support sustain-able development for the environment, the

    economy and the community for tomorrow

    and the next fi fty 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: Antrim Perspective

    44/52

    The Grand Vision: An Antrim County PerspectivePage 38

    online information, and viral networking.

    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 North-

    west 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 expand infrastructure serving pedestri-

    ans and bicyclists both in and out of town.

    Convener: Traverse City Area Chamber of

    Commerce

    Food and Farming: preserve agriculture as a

    viable economic practice in the region by pro-

    tecting farmland, enhancing the affordability of

    farms, and supporting agricultural infrastructure

    in the region.

    Convener: Taste the Local Difference and

    Michigan Land Use Institute

    Natural Resources: protect and enhance the

    region's natural environment, especially the

    abundant freshwater resources that define the

    region.

    Convener: Watershed Center

    Energy: create energy options through energy

    conservation and the development and promo-tion of alternatives.

    Convener: SEEDS

    Communications-Organization-Resources-

    Education (CORE):will serve as a resource to

    the other working groups providing resource de-

    velopment, identification of strategic alliances

    and opportunities within working groups, training

    and education, and communications and out-

    reach through oversight of the communications

    committee. This group to be made up of one

    representative from each of the working groups

    and one representative from each county.

    Convener: Rotary Charities

  • 8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Antrim Perspective

    45/52

    The Grand Vision: An Antrim County PerspectivePage 39

    Each of the working groups will conduct open

    and transparent meetings, and all of their activi-

    ties will be well documented and described on

    t h e G r a n d V i s i o n w e b s i t e ,

    www.thegrandvision.org. The site currently con-

    tains basic information about each of the work-

    ing groups, and will continue to post meetings,

    minutes, events, and progress through blogs,

    articles and videos.

  • 8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Antrim Perspective

    46/52

    The Grand Vision: An Antrim County PerspectivePage 40

    Appendices

  • 8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Antrim Perspective

    47/52

  • 8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Antrim Perspective

    48/52

    The Grand Vision: An Antrim County PerspectivePage 42

    AppendixBGrand Vision Consultant Team

    Robert GrowStrategic VisioningFounding chair emeritus of Envision Utah

    John A. FregoneseScenario PlanningPrincipal, Fregonese Associates

    David L. KaylorTraffic Video Survey SpecialistATD Northwest

    Kurt J. Schulte, AICP

    Traffic ModelingSenior Planner; Kimley-Horn

    Steven LandauEconomic ModelingDirector, Strategy Planning at Economic Development Research Group

    Doug Christensen, PEProject LeaderMead & Hunt

    Lynn Wilson, AICPCommunity Planner

    Mead & Hunt

    Phil CallighanMarketing ConsultantKnorr Marketing

    Jennifer HutchinsonMarketing & OutreachLeelanau Communications

    Andrew McFarlaneInternet ArchitectLeelanau Communications

  • 8/8/2019 Grand Vision: Antrim Perspective

    49/52

    The Grand Vision: An Antrim County PerspectivePage 43

    AppendixCGrand Vision Champions

    Ms. Lois Bahle, Owner, Bahle's Department Store

    Mr. Matt Case, Director of Support Services, Coldwell Banker Schmidt Realtors

    Mr. Keith Charters, Chair, Natural Resources Commission

    Mr. Glen Chown, Executive Director, Grand Traverse Regional Land Conservancy

    Mr. Donald Coe, Managing Partner, Black Star Farms

    Mr. Pete Correia, President/CEO, Traverse City State Bank

    Ms. Terri Crandall Kimble, Executive Director, Elk Rapids Chamber of Commerce

    Mr. Michael Hill, Superintendent, Traverse Bay Area Intermediate School District

    Mr. Gary Holcombe, Owner/Executive, Elmer's Crane & Dozer

    Mr. Art Jeannot, President/CEO, Honor State Bank

    Mr. Jeffrey Kimpton, President, Interlochen Center for the ArtsMr. Doug Luciani, President/CEO, Traverse City Area Chamber of Commerce

    Mr. Jim MacInnes, President/GM, Crystal Mountain Resort

    Ms. Mary Marois, Traverse City, MI

    Ms. Beth Milligan, Traverse City Chamber of Commerce

    Gov. & Mrs. Bill & Helen Milliken, Former Governor

    Mr. Tim Nelson,President, Northwestern Michigan College

    Mr. Ed Ness, President, Munson Medical Center

    Mr. Homer Nye, Pastor, The Presbyterian Church of Traverse City

    Mr. Jim Olson, Sr. Principal, Olson Bzdok & Howard

    Mr. Bob Otwell, Executive Director, TART TrailsMr. Ray Pleva, Preside