357 24 26018 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/ab5a923d246748e745b55e57a1ac3899.jpg b217840f42af7e64f55f7b824734741a Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club collection Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club Description An account of the resource Scrapbooks of newsclippings, photographs, postcards, and ephemera of the Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club. Photos were taken at regattas on Reeds Lake; the Grand River; Peoria, Illinois; and in Chicago of club members, and events. Historical articles, reports of regatta events, and articles featuring members Charles McQuewan and Jack Corbett are included. Programs include the First Grand Regatta on Great Salt Lake 1888, and Peoria Rowing Festival, and banquet and music programs and the GR Log, a publication of the Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club. Materials from the Central States Amater Rowing Association, and the National Association of Amateur Oarsmen are also included. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource circa 1980s to 1940s Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/481">Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club scrapbooks, (RHC-54)</a> Subject The topic of the resource Grand Rapids (Mich.) Outdoor recreation Boats and boating Racing shells Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-54 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-54_Photographs-GRRC32 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1922 Title A name given to the resource Grand Rapids Jr. and Sr. Eights Winners Description An account of the resource Two 8-man crewboats in the water, multiple crewmates looking toward the camera. Hills on the shoreline in the background. "Grand Rapids, Winners, Jr. and Sr. Eights Peoria S. A. R. A." Subject The topic of the resource Grand Rapids (Mich.) Outdoor recreation Boats and boating Racing shells Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/481">Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club scrapbooks (RHC-54)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/">No Known Copyright</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/ae869ae5b8b19a7c8aeca8f34ef32636.jpg b484f5fa90c53f16bc5a2eb485206394 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club collection Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club Description An account of the resource Scrapbooks of newsclippings, photographs, postcards, and ephemera of the Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club. Photos were taken at regattas on Reeds Lake; the Grand River; Peoria, Illinois; and in Chicago of club members, and events. Historical articles, reports of regatta events, and articles featuring members Charles McQuewan and Jack Corbett are included. Programs include the First Grand Regatta on Great Salt Lake 1888, and Peoria Rowing Festival, and banquet and music programs and the GR Log, a publication of the Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club. Materials from the Central States Amater Rowing Association, and the National Association of Amateur Oarsmen are also included. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource circa 1980s to 1940s Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/481">Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club scrapbooks, (RHC-54)</a> Subject The topic of the resource Grand Rapids (Mich.) Outdoor recreation Boats and boating Racing shells Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-54 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-54_Photographs-GRRC24 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1922 Title A name given to the resource Grand Rapids Junior Eight Winners Description An account of the resource 8-man crew with cox on crewboat in the water. Winners of Jr. Eight Race at S. A. R. A. Lake Peoria. Found in dark brown scrap book. Subject The topic of the resource Grand Rapids (Mich.) Outdoor recreation Boats and boating Racing shells Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/481">Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club scrapbooks (RHC-54)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/">No Known Copyright</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/1ec89efcee3c3b1b4253daeedc170deb.jpg 0f5abb327b53b62e618df27ab34c8f3b Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club collection Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club Description An account of the resource Scrapbooks of newsclippings, photographs, postcards, and ephemera of the Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club. Photos were taken at regattas on Reeds Lake; the Grand River; Peoria, Illinois; and in Chicago of club members, and events. Historical articles, reports of regatta events, and articles featuring members Charles McQuewan and Jack Corbett are included. Programs include the First Grand Regatta on Great Salt Lake 1888, and Peoria Rowing Festival, and banquet and music programs and the GR Log, a publication of the Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club. Materials from the Central States Amater Rowing Association, and the National Association of Amateur Oarsmen are also included. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource circa 1980s to 1940s Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/481">Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club scrapbooks, (RHC-54)</a> Subject The topic of the resource Grand Rapids (Mich.) Outdoor recreation Boats and boating Racing shells Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-54 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-54_Photographs-GRRC19 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1922 Title A name given to the resource Grand Rapids Junior Four Description An account of the resource Grand Rapids Junior Four crew on the water, S. A. R. A. Peoria Lake. Photo found in dark brown scrapbook. Subject The topic of the resource Grand Rapids (Mich.) Outdoor recreation Boats and boating Racing shells Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/481">Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club scrapbooks (RHC-54)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/">No Known Copyright</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/47b2adbfaf4417988c672f917dbdbd84.jpg 5a48d00ae4efc0ed985372d172cc29e8 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Douglas R. Gilbert Photographs Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Gilbert, Douglas R., 1942-2023 Description An account of the resource Photographs scanned from negatives and transparencies from the Douglas R. Gilbert papers (RHC-183). Douglas R. Gilbert (b. 1942) is an American photographer from Michigan. He was born in Holland, Michigan and is the son of Russell W. and Carmen (Andree) Gilbert. Gilbert earned a B.A. in social sciences and art at Michigan State University in 1964, an M.S. in photography from the Institute of Design at Illinois Institute of Technology in 1972, and a M.S.W. from Salem State College in 1993. He is married to Barbara (McDonald) Gilbert, and has three daughters, Robyn, Rachel, and Anne. Gilbert took a serious interest in photography at the age of fourteen. In 1963 he joined the staff of Look magazine in New York as the second youngest photojournalist in the magazine's history. As a Look photographer from 1964 to 1966, he photographed folk musician Bob Dylan, the Newport Folk Festival, Simon and Garfunkel, the New York City Financial District, the children and facilities at the Manhattan School for Seriously Disturbed Children. From 1967 to 1969, Gilbert did several shoots, including that of folk singer Janis Ian for Life magazine. After moving to Chicago, Illinois in 1969 to attend the Illinois Institute of Technology, Gilbert conducted notable photo shoots of business and political figure Lenore Romney, and pursued more personal and artistic photography, focusing on urban and rural landscapes in Illinois and Michigan. He then joined the faculty of Wheaton College, where he taught from 1972 to 1982. In 1993, Gilbert graduated from Salem State College, Massachusetts, with a Masters in Social Work, and later pursued a second career as a psychotherapist. Douglas Gilbert died in June 2023. Throughout his photography career, he pursued both freelance commercial work as well as artistic work. His art photography is characterized by its classic black-and-white format, and features people, places and objects shot great attention and sensitivity. Gilbert's works are held in the permanent collections of the Art Institute of Chicago, the High Museum of Art in Atlanta, The Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena, and the Grand Valley State University Art Galleries, as well as in numerous private and institutional collections. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1960-2011 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="%E2%80%9Dhttps%3A//gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/783%E2%80%9D">Douglas R. Gilbert Papers (RHC-183)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copyright Subject The topic of the resource Photographs Photography -- United States Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections and University Archives. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-183 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Image Type The nature or genre of the resource image/jpeg Language A language of the resource eng Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-183_D062-0006 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Gilbert, Douglas R. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1963-02-09 Title A name given to the resource Grand Rapids Neighborhood in Winter Description An account of the resource Black and white photograph of three individuals walking on the sidewalk of a Grand Rapids, Michigan, neighborhood during winter. Scanned from the negative. Subject The topic of the resource Grand Rapids (Mich.) Neighborhoods Winter Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/783">Douglas R. Gilbert papers (RHC-183)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/">In Copyright</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1960s Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/c6b3032804c925e2d10425273b3d331d.jpg 964c8c194db5f72741f6dafd99510a52 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Douglas R. Gilbert Photographs Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Gilbert, Douglas R., 1942-2023 Description An account of the resource Photographs scanned from negatives and transparencies from the Douglas R. Gilbert papers (RHC-183). Douglas R. Gilbert (b. 1942) is an American photographer from Michigan. He was born in Holland, Michigan and is the son of Russell W. and Carmen (Andree) Gilbert. Gilbert earned a B.A. in social sciences and art at Michigan State University in 1964, an M.S. in photography from the Institute of Design at Illinois Institute of Technology in 1972, and a M.S.W. from Salem State College in 1993. He is married to Barbara (McDonald) Gilbert, and has three daughters, Robyn, Rachel, and Anne. Gilbert took a serious interest in photography at the age of fourteen. In 1963 he joined the staff of Look magazine in New York as the second youngest photojournalist in the magazine's history. As a Look photographer from 1964 to 1966, he photographed folk musician Bob Dylan, the Newport Folk Festival, Simon and Garfunkel, the New York City Financial District, the children and facilities at the Manhattan School for Seriously Disturbed Children. From 1967 to 1969, Gilbert did several shoots, including that of folk singer Janis Ian for Life magazine. After moving to Chicago, Illinois in 1969 to attend the Illinois Institute of Technology, Gilbert conducted notable photo shoots of business and political figure Lenore Romney, and pursued more personal and artistic photography, focusing on urban and rural landscapes in Illinois and Michigan. He then joined the faculty of Wheaton College, where he taught from 1972 to 1982. In 1993, Gilbert graduated from Salem State College, Massachusetts, with a Masters in Social Work, and later pursued a second career as a psychotherapist. Douglas Gilbert died in June 2023. Throughout his photography career, he pursued both freelance commercial work as well as artistic work. His art photography is characterized by its classic black-and-white format, and features people, places and objects shot great attention and sensitivity. Gilbert's works are held in the permanent collections of the Art Institute of Chicago, the High Museum of Art in Atlanta, The Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena, and the Grand Valley State University Art Galleries, as well as in numerous private and institutional collections. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1960-2011 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="%E2%80%9Dhttps%3A//gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/783%E2%80%9D">Douglas R. Gilbert Papers (RHC-183)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copyright Subject The topic of the resource Photographs Photography -- United States Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections and University Archives. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-183 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Image Type The nature or genre of the resource image/jpeg Language A language of the resource eng Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-183_D062-0011 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Gilbert, Douglas R. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1963-02-09 Title A name given to the resource Grand Rapids Neighborhood in Winter Description An account of the resource Black and white photograph of children sledding on homemade cardboard sleds at a neighborhood schoolyard in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Scanned from the negative. Subject The topic of the resource Grand Rapids (Mich.) Neighborhoods Winter Sledding Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/783">Douglas R. Gilbert papers (RHC-183)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/">In Copyright</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1960s Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/ae97954bf783e4140b54848af0883e81.jpg 3064f8032e757b2c00c8dd06eeb2fb74 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Douglas R. Gilbert Photographs Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Gilbert, Douglas R., 1942-2023 Description An account of the resource Photographs scanned from negatives and transparencies from the Douglas R. Gilbert papers (RHC-183). Douglas R. Gilbert (b. 1942) is an American photographer from Michigan. He was born in Holland, Michigan and is the son of Russell W. and Carmen (Andree) Gilbert. Gilbert earned a B.A. in social sciences and art at Michigan State University in 1964, an M.S. in photography from the Institute of Design at Illinois Institute of Technology in 1972, and a M.S.W. from Salem State College in 1993. He is married to Barbara (McDonald) Gilbert, and has three daughters, Robyn, Rachel, and Anne. Gilbert took a serious interest in photography at the age of fourteen. In 1963 he joined the staff of Look magazine in New York as the second youngest photojournalist in the magazine's history. As a Look photographer from 1964 to 1966, he photographed folk musician Bob Dylan, the Newport Folk Festival, Simon and Garfunkel, the New York City Financial District, the children and facilities at the Manhattan School for Seriously Disturbed Children. From 1967 to 1969, Gilbert did several shoots, including that of folk singer Janis Ian for Life magazine. After moving to Chicago, Illinois in 1969 to attend the Illinois Institute of Technology, Gilbert conducted notable photo shoots of business and political figure Lenore Romney, and pursued more personal and artistic photography, focusing on urban and rural landscapes in Illinois and Michigan. He then joined the faculty of Wheaton College, where he taught from 1972 to 1982. In 1993, Gilbert graduated from Salem State College, Massachusetts, with a Masters in Social Work, and later pursued a second career as a psychotherapist. Douglas Gilbert died in June 2023. Throughout his photography career, he pursued both freelance commercial work as well as artistic work. His art photography is characterized by its classic black-and-white format, and features people, places and objects shot great attention and sensitivity. Gilbert's works are held in the permanent collections of the Art Institute of Chicago, the High Museum of Art in Atlanta, The Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena, and the Grand Valley State University Art Galleries, as well as in numerous private and institutional collections. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1960-2011 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="%E2%80%9Dhttps%3A//gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/783%E2%80%9D">Douglas R. Gilbert Papers (RHC-183)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copyright Subject The topic of the resource Photographs Photography -- United States Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections and University Archives. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-183 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Image Type The nature or genre of the resource image/jpeg Language A language of the resource eng Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-183_D062-0021 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Gilbert, Douglas R. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1963-02-09 Title A name given to the resource Grand Rapids Neighborhood in Winter Description An account of the resource Black and white photograph of two children playing on the snow-covered sidewalk of a Grand Rapids, Michigan, neighborhood during winter. In the photograph, one child is pulling the other child on a sled along the sidewalk. Scanned from the negative. Subject The topic of the resource Grand Rapids (Mich.) Neighborhoods Winter Sledding Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/783">Douglas R. Gilbert papers (RHC-183)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/">In Copyright</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1960s Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/bc22edc822d9b0964be87ecf22910262.pdf 852a10d1121b120fb30486e59210704f PDF Text Text Grand Rapids Pride Fest to celebrate LGBTQ community BY TY KONELL LAKERLIFE@LANTHORN.COM To commemorate June being LGBT Pride Month, the annual Grand Rapids Pride Festival will be held to honor and celebrate the greater LGBTQ community. There will be no fee to enter the festival Saturday, June 17, in downtown Grand Rapids. The event, which will go from noon to midnight, will feature a selection of vendors and booths, as well as music and live drag performances. The festival means different things to different people who attend, although the event serves the main pur- r pose of allowing the LGBTQ community to express itself surrounded by people who appreciate that expression. "Pride is fundamentally about honoring and celebrat,ing LGBTQIA+ history while calling attention to the ongoing and changing needs of queer and trans people;' said Marla Wick, assistant director of the Grand Valley State University Milton E. Ford LGBT Resource Center. Wick said pride events are a place to put explicit attention on the LGBT community and the issues its members face. "Pride always feels like a party, and for good reason, but it's simultaneously about POWER ENT The LGBTQ community encourages one another to express themselves. COURTESY I EXPERIENCE GRAND RAPIDS LGBTQIA+ people making themselves visible to the broader community and speaking up about ongoing threats, injustices and accomplishments:' Wick said. Furthermore, Wick said visibility aids people in the community by giving them an insight into their history as a community. . "Pride celebrations are important because they create both a vibrant link with our history and a space of visibility and celebration:' Wick said. "People can come together and really see the strength and beauty of this community.'' Members of the LGBT community regard pride events as a source of healing after heartbreaking events. ''.After the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando last year, a lot of us were afraid to go to gay clubs and even pride festivals:' said Tia Danes, a Grand Rapids resident who is planning to attend the festival. "Coming into this year, though, I want to celebrate in memory of the victims of the attack. I feel so honored to be a part of the queer community and have this huge family that mourns' and celebrates together:' Wick said GVSU's presence at the festival is an important reminder of the work the university does. "The LGBT Resource Center has a presence at Grand Rapids Pride every year, spearheaded by our friends in the LGBT Alumni Chapter:' Wick said. "Having GVSU be a visible and supportive ·presence at Pride upholds our commitment to creating welcoming and inclusive campuses for students, faculty and staff' For those who attend events during Pride Month, seeing the celebration of their identities can be an empowering experience. "The first parade I went to was in Buffalo, New York, and I just remember the thrill of seeing queer and trans people being out and gorgeous and loud;' Wick said. "This is a powerful thing for a community that is often subject to tremendous pressure to be small, quiet and invisible:' Pride Month events can also be filled with emotion for those in attendance. "Going to Pride for me is about feeling connected with my people again, seeing all of these people unapologetic about who they are and who they love:' Danes said. "It's very touching, like, move you to tears touching:' GO O· www.grpride.org/fest FOR MORE INFORMATION � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource GVSU Sexuality and Gender Flyers Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource The Rainbow Resource Center Women and Gender Studies Department Women's Commission Gayle R. Davis Center for Women and Gender Equity Description An account of the resource Digitized posters, flyers, event notices, and other materials relating to gender expression and sexuality at Grand Valley State University, with materials spanning from 1974 to 2019. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1974/2019 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Digitized from collections at the Rainbow Resource Center (formerly the Milton E. Ford LGBT Resource Center), Women and Gender Studies Department, Women's Commission, and Gayle R. Davis Center for Women and Gender Equity. Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copyright Subject The topic of the resource Gender identity Gender expression Sexual orientation Women's studies Queer theory Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections and University Archives. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context DC-09 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context DC-09_SGF_LGBTQ_2017-05-06_Lanthorn_Pride-Fest_Newspaper.pdf Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource The Rainbow Resource Center Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2017-05-06 Title A name given to the resource Grand Rapids Pride Fest to celebrate LGBTQ community Description An account of the resource Newspaper article summarizing the 2017 Grand Rapids Pride Festival. Subject The topic of the resource Community centers Sexual minorities Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived The Rainbow Resource Center Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/">In Copyright</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/6d64be8f83fc6f76a7fa0e5d90c2df2f.jpg fac23487fa65a2444aedaf3165484e4e Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Honors Institute for Young Scientists (HIFYS) Scrapbook Subject The topic of the resource Science--Study and teaching East Grand Rapids (Mich.) Grand Rapids (Mich.) University of Michigan Description An account of the resource The Honors Institute for Young Scientists provided a competitive scholarship to an advanced summer educational program in science and math for high school juniors and seniors in the Grand Rapids, Michigan area. It expanded to include approximately 12 states by 1962. In 1966, Grand Valley State College took over the program, changing its name to the Honors Institute for Young Scholars. The scrapbook includes articles and photographs of the Honors Institute for Young Scientists (HIFYS) in Grand Rapids. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Honors Institute for Young Scientists Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/465">Honors Institute for Young Scientists (RHC-38)</a> Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2017-03-28 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC-NC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted</a> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpg Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-38 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1958-1966 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Source <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/465">Honors Institute for Young Scientists (HIFYS) scrapbook, RHC-38</a> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-38_HIFYS11 Title A name given to the resource Grand Rapids science students correct instructors-and it's not uncommon Subject The topic of the resource Honors Institute for Young Scholars Honors Institute for Young Scientists East Grand Rapids (Mich.) Grand Rapids (Mich.) Grand Valley State College Science--Study and teaching University of Michigan Science Description An account of the resource Grand Rapids Science Students Correst Instructors-and it's Not Uncommon, newspaper article. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Honors Institute for Young Scientists Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives Language A language of the resource eng Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC-NC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1966 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Type The nature or genre of the resource Image https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/013a06008b61b9dc632761c7bf775acf.jpg 18586006ddff1a9f138947210f325a50 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Honors Institute for Young Scientists (HIFYS) Scrapbook Subject The topic of the resource Science--Study and teaching East Grand Rapids (Mich.) Grand Rapids (Mich.) University of Michigan Description An account of the resource The Honors Institute for Young Scientists provided a competitive scholarship to an advanced summer educational program in science and math for high school juniors and seniors in the Grand Rapids, Michigan area. It expanded to include approximately 12 states by 1962. In 1966, Grand Valley State College took over the program, changing its name to the Honors Institute for Young Scholars. The scrapbook includes articles and photographs of the Honors Institute for Young Scientists (HIFYS) in Grand Rapids. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Honors Institute for Young Scientists Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/465">Honors Institute for Young Scientists (RHC-38)</a> Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2017-03-28 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC-NC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted</a> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpg Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-38 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1958-1966 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Source <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/465">Honors Institute for Young Scientists (HIFYS) scrapbook, RHC-38</a> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-38_HIFYS12 Title A name given to the resource Grand Rapids science students correct instructors-and it's not uncommon Subject The topic of the resource Honors Institute for Young Scholars Honors Institute for Young Scientists East Grand Rapids (Mich.) Grand Rapids (Mich.) Grand Valley State College Science--Study and teaching University of Michigan Science Description An account of the resource Continuation of GR Science Students Correct Instructors-and it's Not Uncommon, newspaper article. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Honors Institute for Young Scientists Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives Language A language of the resource eng Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC-NC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1966 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Type The nature or genre of the resource Image https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/88b9b31b9d9d61f882de3fa38cc879a3.jpg cdc6405a6b4aebff3bd11e9016cf1b09 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club collection Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club Description An account of the resource Scrapbooks of newsclippings, photographs, postcards, and ephemera of the Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club. Photos were taken at regattas on Reeds Lake; the Grand River; Peoria, Illinois; and in Chicago of club members, and events. Historical articles, reports of regatta events, and articles featuring members Charles McQuewan and Jack Corbett are included. Programs include the First Grand Regatta on Great Salt Lake 1888, and Peoria Rowing Festival, and banquet and music programs and the GR Log, a publication of the Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club. Materials from the Central States Amater Rowing Association, and the National Association of Amateur Oarsmen are also included. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource circa 1980s to 1940s Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/481">Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club scrapbooks, (RHC-54)</a> Subject The topic of the resource Grand Rapids (Mich.) Outdoor recreation Boats and boating Racing shells Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-54 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-54_Photographs-GRRC29 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1922 Title A name given to the resource Grand Rapids Sr. Eight Race Description An account of the resource Four distant crewboats, open water in the foreground, at S. A. R. A. Peoria Lake. Subject The topic of the resource Grand Rapids (Mich.) Outdoor recreation Boats and boating Racing shells Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/481">Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club scrapbooks (RHC-54)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/">No Known Copyright</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/8e341af5953ffceb8cd2296bbc9b2ef2.jpg 109a8ea3dd6c2f820654635ca4d70dcf Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Honors Institute for Young Scientists (HIFYS) Scrapbook Subject The topic of the resource Science--Study and teaching East Grand Rapids (Mich.) Grand Rapids (Mich.) University of Michigan Description An account of the resource The Honors Institute for Young Scientists provided a competitive scholarship to an advanced summer educational program in science and math for high school juniors and seniors in the Grand Rapids, Michigan area. It expanded to include approximately 12 states by 1962. In 1966, Grand Valley State College took over the program, changing its name to the Honors Institute for Young Scholars. The scrapbook includes articles and photographs of the Honors Institute for Young Scientists (HIFYS) in Grand Rapids. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Honors Institute for Young Scientists Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/465">Honors Institute for Young Scientists (RHC-38)</a> Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2017-03-28 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC-NC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted</a> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpg Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-38 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1958-1966 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Source <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/465">Honors Institute for Young Scientists (HIFYS) scrapbook, RHC-38</a> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-38_HIFYS04 Title A name given to the resource Grand Rapids to aid aspiring scientists Subject The topic of the resource Honors Institute for Young Scholars Honors Institute for Young Scientists East Grand Rapids (Mich.) Grand Rapids (Mich.) Grand Valley State College Science--Study and teaching University of Michigan Science Description An account of the resource Grand Rapids to Aid Aspiring Scientists, article in News of the Week, March 7, 1958. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Honors Institute for Young Scientists Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives Language A language of the resource eng Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC-NC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1966 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Type The nature or genre of the resource Image https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/4a6cb3fc38075ccd624857b2690c03ab.jpg 0ef2294bd42ed30cb46b5980a417edaf Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Grand Valley State University Photographs Subject The topic of the resource Aerial photographs Universities and colleges Michigan Grand Rapids (Mich.) Allendale (Mich.) Building Facilities Dormitories Students Events 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s Description An account of the resource People, places, and events of Grand Valley State University from its founding in 1960 as a 4-year college in western Michigan. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource News & Information Services. University Communications Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/41">News &amp; Information Services. University Photographs. (GV012-01)</a> Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2017-03-03 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC-NC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted</a> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpg Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource image Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GV012-01 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1960s-2000s Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Local Subject Subject headings specific to a particular image collection 1970s Source <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/41">University photographs, GV012-01</a> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GV012-01_UAPhotos_001381 Title A name given to the resource Grand Rapids visitors ride horse-drawn carriage in Poland Description An account of the resource Grand Rapids visitors ride horse-drawn carriage with Father Edward Kubiak in Poland, June 10, 1976. Subject The topic of the resource Grand Valley State University Grand Valley State College Michigan Allendale (Mich.) Universities & colleges-Michigan--Allendale Poland Language A language of the resource eng Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC-NC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted</a> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1976-06-10 Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives black and white photo https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/2d64531160805e2bd4f00f7f43378fe7.jpg 3890b7337a05403181e8894d0da5829f Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club collection Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club Description An account of the resource Scrapbooks of newsclippings, photographs, postcards, and ephemera of the Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club. Photos were taken at regattas on Reeds Lake; the Grand River; Peoria, Illinois; and in Chicago of club members, and events. Historical articles, reports of regatta events, and articles featuring members Charles McQuewan and Jack Corbett are included. Programs include the First Grand Regatta on Great Salt Lake 1888, and Peoria Rowing Festival, and banquet and music programs and the GR Log, a publication of the Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club. Materials from the Central States Amater Rowing Association, and the National Association of Amateur Oarsmen are also included. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource circa 1980s to 1940s Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/481">Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club scrapbooks, (RHC-54)</a> Subject The topic of the resource Grand Rapids (Mich.) Outdoor recreation Boats and boating Racing shells Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-54 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-54_Photographs-GRRC12 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1919-08 Title A name given to the resource Grand Rapids Winning 8 Race Description An account of the resource In the background, three racing 8-crew boats, with open water in the foreground. Two X marks drawn in pencil beneath the boats. Subject The topic of the resource Grand Rapids (Mich.) Outdoor recreation Boats and boating Racing shells Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/481">Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club scrapbooks (RHC-54)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/">No Known Copyright</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/3ad440d83c947be6d4b81f2a93a0fff5.jpg b1c902ba334de09e992e073a215476c0 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club collection Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club Description An account of the resource Scrapbooks of newsclippings, photographs, postcards, and ephemera of the Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club. Photos were taken at regattas on Reeds Lake; the Grand River; Peoria, Illinois; and in Chicago of club members, and events. Historical articles, reports of regatta events, and articles featuring members Charles McQuewan and Jack Corbett are included. Programs include the First Grand Regatta on Great Salt Lake 1888, and Peoria Rowing Festival, and banquet and music programs and the GR Log, a publication of the Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club. Materials from the Central States Amater Rowing Association, and the National Association of Amateur Oarsmen are also included. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource circa 1980s to 1940s Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/481">Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club scrapbooks, (RHC-54)</a> Subject The topic of the resource Grand Rapids (Mich.) Outdoor recreation Boats and boating Racing shells Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-54 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-54_Photographs-GRRC28 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1922 Title A name given to the resource Grand Rapids Winning Sr. Eight Description An account of the resource Three distant crewboats, triangular flag on a buouy in middleground at S. A. R. A. Peoria Lake. Subject The topic of the resource Grand Rapids (Mich.) Outdoor recreation Boats and boating Racing shells Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/481">Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club scrapbooks (RHC-54)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/">No Known Copyright</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/dd020f5f43700e6dfc94190d69cce697.jpg 0bad2da07128b287465645f9347cfdfc Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club collection Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club Description An account of the resource Scrapbooks of newsclippings, photographs, postcards, and ephemera of the Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club. Photos were taken at regattas on Reeds Lake; the Grand River; Peoria, Illinois; and in Chicago of club members, and events. Historical articles, reports of regatta events, and articles featuring members Charles McQuewan and Jack Corbett are included. Programs include the First Grand Regatta on Great Salt Lake 1888, and Peoria Rowing Festival, and banquet and music programs and the GR Log, a publication of the Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club. Materials from the Central States Amater Rowing Association, and the National Association of Amateur Oarsmen are also included. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource circa 1980s to 1940s Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/481">Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club scrapbooks, (RHC-54)</a> Subject The topic of the resource Grand Rapids (Mich.) Outdoor recreation Boats and boating Racing shells Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-54 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-54_Photographs-GRRC31 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1922 Title A name given to the resource Grand Rapids Wins Sr. Eight Description An account of the resource Single 8-man crewboat in the distance. Open water in the foreground. Subject The topic of the resource Grand Rapids (Mich.) Outdoor recreation Boats and boating Racing shells Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/481">Grand Rapids Boat and Canoe Club scrapbooks (RHC-54)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/">No Known Copyright</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/367ef2a037e8ba10854ca3a4918de118.jpg a3d8bc1252a55f664ea04a16bf1b6a37 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Robert H. Merrill photographs Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Merrill, Robert H., 1881-1955 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1909/1950 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Robert H. Merrill papers (RHC-222) Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copyright Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-222 Description An account of the resource Photographs, negatives, and lantern slides digitized from the papers of engineer and archaeologist Robert H. Merrill. A Grand Rapids native, Merrill held an accomplished career as a civil engineer. He founded the company Spooner & Merrill, which held offices in Grand Rapids and Chicago. From 1919-1921, Merrill lived in China, working as Assistant Principal Engineer on a reconstruction of the Grand Canal - the oldest and longest canal system in the world. Merrill became fascinated by archaeology, and among other projects, he traveled to the Uxmal Pyramids in Yucatan, Mexico, with a research expedition from Tulane University. Merrill's photo collection includes images of his travels and projects, friends and family. Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Merrill_ProcessFilm_P_015 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1937-10-03 Title A name given to the resource Grand River North from substation Description An account of the resource Black and white photograph of a Lena Merrill standing next to a river with bridges and buildings visible in the background. Subject The topic of the resource Bridges Grand Rapids (Mich.) Grand River (Mich.) Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Robert H. Merrill papers (RHC-222) Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copyright Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpg Language A language of the resource eng Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Merrill, Robert H., 1881-1955 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/be4cc3c08d389e880288d0995d4df38e.pdf 3a2d6ac23623496637b94f9dbd34db2c PDF Text Text GRAND OPENING WEEKEND $50,000~ MUST GO Grand Traverse Band Super Bingo Palace Located in Peshabetown (20 Miles North of Traverse City) 1984 CHEVY CHEVETTE TO BE RAFFLED OFF JULY 4, 1984 1984 CHEVY CHEVETTE TO BE RAFFLED OFF JULY 4, 1984 From All Admission Tickets From All Admission Tickets The Grand Traverse Band Super Bingo Palace will be open Memorial Weekend with $50,000°0 in prizes to be given away: May25 May26 May27 May28 Jackpot $2,500@ Entry Packet $25QQ Jackpot $7,500QQ Entry Packet $75QQ Jackpot $1 O,OOOQQ Entry Packet $1 OOQQ Jackpot $5,000QQ Entry Packet $50QQ MAKE YOUR RESERVATIONS NOW 24 Hour Bingo Hotline 1-800-96-BINGO (2 4 6 4 6) SUPER SUMMER WEEKEND SCHEDULE ADMISSION PACKET PRICE $25.00 MAY25 JUNE1 JUNES JUNE15 JUNE22 JUNE29 JULY6 JULY13 JULY 20 JULY27 AUGUST3 AUGUST10 AUGUST17 AUGUST24 AUGUST31 ADMISSION PACKET PRICE $75.00 MAY26 JUNE2 JUNE9 JUNE16 JUNE23 JUNE30 JULY? JULY14 JULY21 JULY 28 AUGUST4 AUGUST 11 AUGUST18 AUGUST25 SEPT. 1 ADMISSION PACKET PRICE $50.00 MAY28 JUNE3 JUNE10 JUNE17 JUNE24 JULY 1 JULYS JULY15 JULY22 JULY 29 AUGUSTS AUGUST 12 AUGUST19 AUGUST26 SEPT. 3 1984 ADMISSION PACKET PRICE $100.00 MAY27 JULY4 SEPT. 2 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Native American Publication Collection Subject The topic of the resource Native Americans Indians of North America Anthropology Indians of North America -- Michigan -- Periodicals Michigan Description An account of the resource Selected digital surrogates of published and unpublished materials from the Edward V. Gillis Native American publication collection dealing with different aspects of human culture and anthropology, with an emphasis on Native American people, events, organizations, and activities in Michigan. Includes newsletters, event programs, flyers, posters and other printed materials. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Gillis, Edward V. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/446">Edward V. Gillis Native American Publication Collection (RHC-14)</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2017-02-21 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Relation A related resource Gi-gikinomaage-min Project (Kutsche Office of Local History) Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-14 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1958-2000 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Source <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/446">Edward V. Gillis Native American publication collection, RHC-14</a> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-14_grand-traverse-bingo-opening_1984-07 Title A name given to the resource Grand Traverse Band Super Bingo Palaace Grand Opening Weekend, July 1984 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1984-07 Description An account of the resource Grand Traverse Band Super Bingo Palace Grand Opening Weekend flyer, Peshawbestown MI, July 4, 1980, collected by Edward Gillis included as part of his Native American publication collection. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Traverse Band Super Bingo Palace Subject The topic of the resource Indians of North America -- Michigan -- Periodicals Indians of North America Michigan Michigan -- Grand Rapids Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/b605d38f219cebfe2c05d4ab6cefb247.pdf e9c1d803b6e3d5ee3253965daae34550 PDF Text Text COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ... A VISION FOR THE FuTIJRE DECEMBER 2002 WILLIAMS & WoRKS �- I I GRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN December, 2002 ♦ Grand Traverse County Board of Commissioners Richard Thomas Chairperson II I -I I I I Peter Strom Vice Chairperson Richard Crowe Addison Wheelock, Jr. Virginia Olds Larry Inman Margaret Underwood Herbert Lemcool Wayne Schmidt ♦ Grand Traverse County Planning Commission Lee Grant, Chairperson Sherrin Hood, Vice Chair Robert Fudge Michael Conlon Marvin D. Radtke, Jr. Peter L. Hembrough, Sr. John Hagen Jearry Dobek Virginia Olds Lew Coulter, Ex. Officio Matt Skeels, Ex. Officio Maureen Templeton, Ex. Officio PLANNING DIRECTOR Roger Williams, AICP PLANNING TECHNICIAN Midge Werner ♦ PIANNING CONSULTANT I I I Williams & Works Jay Kilpatrick, AICP, PCP Erin Kilpatrick Lukas Hill �------~-!!!!"!'!'!!"'~~~~-=----========-~~=-=:============------------------ I I I I • • • • -I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SECTION I. INTRODUCTION ••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1 CHAPTER 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ••••••••••••..•••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••• 7 SECTION II. COMMUNITY PROFILE ••••.••••••••••••.••••..•••••••••..•••••••••••• 9 CHAPTER 2. NATURAL FEATURES AND THE ENVIRONMENT ••••••••••••••• 11 CHAPTER 3. POPULATION •.•.••••••••••••••••••••••..••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 23 CHAPTER 4. INCOME, HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT •••••• 33 CHAPTER 5. LANDUSEDEVELOPMENTPATTERNS ••••••••••••••••••.•••••••• 41 CHAPTER 6. COMMUNI'IY FACILITIES ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••. 53 CHAPTER 7. PuBLIC UTILITIES ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••...••.•• 57 CHAPTER 8. TRANSPORTATION······················································· 61 CHAPTER 9. COMMUNI'IY OPINIONS •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••. 67 SECTION Ill. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN •••••••••••••..•••••••••.•••••••••••••• 77 CHAPTER 10. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••• 81 CHAPTER 11. FuTURE LAND USE PLAN •••••••••••••.••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••• 93 CHAPTER 12. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES •••••.•••••••••••••.••••••••••••••• 107 BIBLIOGRAPHY •••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••.•.•..••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••• 109 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Hydrologic Cycle .....................................................•... 15 Figure 2. Historic Population Growth Trends ............................ 23 Figure 3. Rate of Population Change by Jurisdiction .................. 24 Figure 4. Population Projection Comparison ............................. 2 7 �I II II I I -I -I Figure 5. 2000 Age by Sex for Grand Traverse County ................ 30 Figure 6. Educational Attainment ............................................. 31 Figure 7. Per Capita Income ................................................•..... 33 Figure 8. Residential Building Permits, 8-Year Trend ............•.... 36 Figure 9. Total Building Permits .....•.........•...............•.•..•........... 37 Figure 10. Unemployment Rates ................................................. 38 Figure 11. Unemployment Rates 2000 and 2001 .......................•.. 38 Figure 12. Median Household Income .........................•............... 39 Figure 13. 2000 Land Cover ........................................................ 4 2 Figure 14. How concerned are you about the following? ..............• 70 Figure 15. How important are the following? ...•......•.................... 72 LIST OF MAPS Map 1. Watersheds ...............................................•................. 14 Map 2. Wetlands ...................•........................................•....... 18 Map 3. Soils .•......................................................................... 20 Map 4. 1990 Land Use ............................................................ 44 I I I I Map 5. 2000 Land Use ...............................................•............ 45 Map 6. Areas of Land Use Change 1990-2000 .......................... 47 Map 7. Composite Land Use Map ................................•.......... 49 Map 8. Composite Zoning Map ........................•....•................. 51 Map 9. Areas of Apparent Land Use Conflict .......................... 52 Map 10. Areas of Apparent Zoning Conflict. ............................. 54 I Map 11. 1996 Growth Management Levels ................................ 97 Map 12. 2002 Growth Management Levels ................................ 100 I �-, I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I INTRODUCTION SECTION I: INTRODUCTION A county master plan must be prepared " ... with the purpose of guiding and accomplishing a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development of the county ... " Act 282 of the Public Acts of 1945 This document is a comprehensive update of the Grand Traverse County Master Plan - Focus 2020, A County Master Plan. The original plan was adopted in December of 1996 and this plan expands and augments its analysis of current conditions and extends its land use guidance. The Grand Traverse County Master Plan has been developed by the Grand Traverse County Planning Commission with the support and input of County residents and local units of government. Its primary purpose is to foster an understanding of the fundamental challenges of our future as a community and to outline approaches to address them. The plan recognizes that the County will continue to grow and, without thoughtful and creative guidance, that growth threatens the quality of life that is the hallmark of the community. The purpose of the Master Plan is to describe current conditions in the County and the implications apparent in current trends. It also sets forth an alternative path to growth management, including a series of action strategies to begin the process. The Planning Commission seeks the cooperation and support of the professional and citizen planners in each of the County's sixteen local jurisdictions in the implementation of the Plan's recommendations. While this Plan provides overall guidance in managing the further growth and development of the County, responsibility for putting that guidance into practice must fall to the thirteen townships, two villages and the City of Traverse City. This Plan looks about twenty-five years into the future to determine the shape and content of development in the year 2025. This is an appropriate timeframe. It is distant enough to enable the completion of actions that may have broad effects on the shape of the region. On the other hand, it is not so distant as to lose meaning for today's residents. As was recognized with the adoption of the initial version of Focus 2020, a County Master Plan, effective planning is a continuous process. The initial plan was an appropriate first step. This expanded and refined version includes a more complete analysis of trends, and the growth management levels and implementation strategies have been adjusted accordingly. Grand Traverse County 1 Master Plan �• INTRODUCTION I •I • • • • • • • • •I I II THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT County-wide planning in Grand Traverse County is an on-going process. The effort to develop the initial version of Focus 2020, a County Master Plan, began early in the 1990s. The process began with a series of about twenty "townhall-type" meetings held throughout the County with citizens and local officials. The findings of these sessions formed the framework for further research by the Planning Commission . The County's residents were interested in protecting the natural resources of the County and the existing character of the community. A scientific survey of citizen perspectives was completed in 1991 as a part of the Focus 2020 effort. The survey was conducted by an independent research firm, and its findings substantiated the perspectives gained in the earlier town hall meetings. The County's residents were interested in protecting the natural resources of the County and the existing character of the community. They were concerned about traffic congestion and the need for employment and expanded housing opportunities for all residents . Out of this exposure to the concerns and hopes of the residents came the Grand Traverse Bay Region Development Guidebook. Led by the Planning Commission, with the active support of many local units of government and private organizations, the Guidebook is now embraced by jurisdictions over a multi-county areas with strong support from the Traverse City Area Chamber of Commerce. The Guidebook offers approaches to accommodate reasonable development without compromising the essential natural character of the area. There was a call for County leadership in coordinating the effort to address issues that were of "greater than local concern." Grand Traverse County The Planning Commission sponsored an assessment of all planning in the County to determine what the perceived role of the County was with respect to planning. Out of this effort came strong support from local units of government for the County planning process and the expressed need for an agency at the County level to coordinate, educate and provide technical support for local government planning. There was a call for County leadership in coordinating the effort to address issues that were of "greater than local concern." The 1996 Master Plan was the next step m the evolution of County planning in Grand Traverse County. Begun in late 1994, the process involved a blend of the skills of local professional and citizen planners with those of private consultants. The documents prepared during this process included: 2 Master Plan �• •I INTRODUCTION I • • • • The process of gaining the support of local units of government may have been as important as the plan preparation process itself. I I I I I ♦ Focus 2020 - A Current Assessment. This report was based on the many reports and studies completed in the recent past and described the current status of the County and the likely sequence of decline the County is facing. ♦ The Resource Book for the Focus 2020 Futuring Sessions. This report gave the sixty-plus participants in the two futuring sessions the basic demographic and land use information to reach useful conclusions relative to the preferred future of the County. ♦ Focus 2020 - The Future of Grand Traverse County. This report summarized the essential content of the futuring sessions including the threats and opportunities that will present themselves and the likely outcome of a business-as-usual approach to growth or a growth management approach . ♦ Focus 2020 - The Grand Traverse County Master Plan. This Plan was the final element in the process and set forth the goals, objectives and growth management provisions for the County. Ultimately, adopted by the Planning Commission on November 20, 1996, and adopted by the Grand Traverse County Board of Commissioners on December 30, 1996, the essential policies of Focus 2020: A County Master Plan, were eventually endorsed by all local units of government in the County. The process of gaining that support may have been as important as the plan preparation process itself. As described in Chapter 5, a review of local land use policies and zoning found remarkable consistency with the County plan. In addition, since the adoption of the 1996 Plan, many Townships have revised their local master plans; and in virtually all instances, those plans have incorporated much of the guidance of the County plan. However, there were many aspects of the 1996 plan that have proven difficult to apply. Two years after plan adoption, the Planning Commission sponsored a community-wide workshop to evaluate the progress made in plan implementation. Prior to that meeting, follow-up interviews were conducted with key leaders in the area of land use and development in the County. On November 9, 1998, about sixty community leaders met at the Civic Center to undertake an interim evaluation of the Plan and its various strategies. The participants in the meeting concluded that, in general, all of the twenty implementation strategies incorporated in the 1996 plan were viable and important. Significant progress had been made in implementing some of the strategies while others had languished. Grand Traverse County 3 Master Plan �• • • • • • INTRODUCTION Following that meeting, a report was prepared for the County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners and on February 17, 1999 both Boards met to reevaluate the implementation strategies of the plan and to establish a set of priorities for implementation . THE CURRENT PLAN This revised and expanded Plan is the result of efforts that began in 2000 with a comprehensive exercise to map land use changes. This effort was enhanced by digital satellite imagery mapping not readily available when the 1996 plan was completed. The first step was to use digital mapping systems to assess land use changes from satellite images taken in 1978, 1990 and 2000. These were used to identify areas where development patterns seemed to conflict with the policies outlined in the Plan. The results of the digital mapping analysis were combined with a demographic analysis to prepare a change report for the evaluation of the Planning Commission. • • I Based on the extent of change identified in this analysis, the Planning Commission determined that an update of the Plan was warranted. The work to complete the current plan followed a series of steps similar to that used for the original: • • •I I I I - Grand Traverse County ♦ A Community Opinion Survey. Completed in the spring of 2001, this activity built on the data originally gathered in 1992 and updated community opinions on growth and development. The results of this element of the process are summarized in Chapter 9 of this Plan . ♦ Current Assessment. This consists of a technical report completed in August of 2001 intended to provide a "snapshot" of current conditions and trends in the County and a preliminary assessment of what they imply for the future. The content of the current assessment report was updated to include elements from subsequent steps and updated data and has been incorporated into this Plan as Section II - Community Profile, including Chapters 2 through 8. ♦ Goal Setting. This task involved the Planning Commission in a series of discussions to identify the preferred future for the County from a number of land use perspectives and the major steps needed to achieve the desired vision of the future. The goals and objectives developed in this effort form the policy foundation for this Plan and are presented in detail in Chapter 10. 4 Master Plan �•,. • • • • • • • • •II I I I I I I INTRODUCTION Grand Traverse County ♦ Conflicts and Consistencies. The evaluation of progress in implementing its strategies revealed the very dynamic nature of local land use decision-making and the very real tendency for local policies, and eventually development patterns, to drift away from the general guidance of the County Plan. Therefore, in the preparation of this Plan, the Planning Commission directed the completion of a report on the degree of local plan and Zoning Ordinance conflict and consistency with the overall County growth management strategies. The results of this element are described in Chapter 5 . ♦ Future Land Use Plan. With the subsequent steps forming the underpinnings of the Plan, it was possible to craft an updated set of future land use growth management strategies. This included a revised Growth Management Map (see Map 12) and narrative to support the map as reflected in Chapter 11. ♦ Implementation Strategies. This final element of the work to complete the plan was deferred until the administration of the County Planning function could be effected. Eventually, it is likely that a further modification of the plan may be needed to adjust the strategies found in the 1996 Plan. However, for the initial adoption of this plan in 2002, Chapter 12 - Implemen tation Strategies has not been completed, as directed by the County Planning Commission . 5 Master Plan �CHAPTER 1- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CHAPTER 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • • • • • Grand Traverse County residents and visitors enjoy some of the most beautiful countryside in the Midwest. The citizens of the County take advantage of a generally healthy economy and a quality of life that offers the amenities of a modern urban environment situated in close proximity to the unspoiled natural resources of the region. The various jurisdictions within the County have proven themselves to be willing to cooperate with one another for the overall benefit of the region . ... the next twenty-five years will see a population increase of over 60%. The benefits and natural amenities of life in Grand Traverse County have not gone unnoticed. The community is among the fastest growing in the State, and the next twenty-five years will likely see an increase of population of over sixty percent. As a result, many of the unique features, the natural resources and the quality of life within the County are at risk. Certainly the region can sustain such an expansion of its population, but the area's current mechanisms for managing growth are inadequate if the desire is to accept that growth whil.e maintaining and preserving the natural environment and the local quality of life. A greater level of public and private stewardship is needed if this balance is to be achieved. Such stewardship must be founded on a set of commonly-held beliefs and perspectives. Based on a wide variety of input from the leaders and citizens of the County, a vision for the future has emerged. It sets forth the determination of the people of Grand Traverse County to effectively and proactively manage the growth that the County will experience: II I I I I I Grand Traverse County will continue to grow in harmony with the natural environment, protecting the area?s unique resources while assuring that the economic? cultural and recreational advantages of life in the County are within reach of all its citizens. This is the fundamental tenet upon: which this Master Plan is based. Its essential elements - harmony with the natural environment, protection of unique resources, and the inclusion of all residents in those benefits embody the spirit of the Plan. The strategies recommended are consistent with this vision, and the Planning Commission invites the citizens of Grand Traverse County to join in the effort to realize this vision. Grand Traverse County 7 Master Plan �CHAPTER 1- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A FRAMEWORK FOR GROWTII MANAGEMENT • • • •II The growth management strategy set forth in this Master Plan is based on five distinct and yet supportive levels of growth management policies. Each is intended to set standards and growth objectives for progressively more intense development. Since the specific nature of local land use regulation in each growth management area must be reflective of the character and objectives of the local jurisdiction, these five growth management policy levels are intended to provide general guidance for the use of each jurisdiction in framing a County-wide approach to land use regulation. The growth management levels are: These five growth management policy levels are intended to provide general guidance for the use of each jurisdiction in framing a Countywide approach to land use regulation. II II I I I I I I ♦ Level 1. Sensitive environmental areas. Policies are intended to restrict and control development in these areas. ♦ Level 2. Rural preservation areas. Policies are intended to minimize fragmentation of open lands and maintain lands in a natural state through the term of this Plan. ♦ Level 3. Agricultural areas. Policies are directed at retaining viable tracts of land to meet the needs of the agricultural segment of the County's economy. ♦ Level 4. Urban influence areas. Policies are intended to encourage the rational and efficient conversion of emerging areas by encouraging compact, livable communities. ♦ Level 5. Urban areas. Policies are intended to encourage efficient use of the existing and planned investment in infrastructure to accommodate growth. These growth management levels are presented in more detail along with a map of the suggested delineation of each level in Chapter 9. Summary of Action Strategies This Plan incorporates by reference the strategies included in the 1996 Master Plan, pending the finalization of decisions regarding the administration of the County Planning function. For a review of the action strategies to which the County is committed, the reader is referred to the 1996 Plan until such time as this text is amended to incorporate updated strategies. Grand Traverse County 8 Master Plan �COMMUNITY PROFILE SECTION II. COMMUNITY PROFILE • • • • I II I I I I I I In this section of the Master Plan, a general profile description of Grand Traverse County is presented. This section is not intended as an exhaustive inventory of all the numerous aspects of the County. Rather, its purpose is to give some general impressions of the natural features, demographics, land use patterns, infrastructure and community perspectives that make up the County. To plan effectively for the future, it is important to achieve a general understanding of current patterns and trends. Most of the material in this section has been drawn from Grand Traverse 1 County, A Current Assessment Report, published by the County as a part of this plan preparation process in August 2001. That report presented a "snapshot" of current conditions within the County and recent trends in population and housing. This Section also includes a profile of community opinions as reflected in an objective community opinion survey (see Chapter 9). The Current Assessment Report and the Community Opinion Survey set the stage for the finalization of plan goals and objectives, the future land use plan and map, and implementation strategies. All of those materials form the actual Master Plan set forth in Section III of this document. Each of the following chapters includes an overview of its subject matter along with a brief discussion of the planning trends that are relevant. The material presented in the Community Profile has been drawn from existing research and published texts. This approach provides an efficient use of the resources of the County in the completion of the Plan. However, in a few instances, this approach may result in some unanswered questions. Further research or analytical work could be undertaken to find answers to those questions, but extensive refinement of the details at this stage of the process seldom results in large-scale shifts in policy. The County and the consulting team have found that the resources available for the completion of the Plan are best directed at forming the outlines of land use policy and refining the details of strategies as implementation proceeds. Williams & Works in conjunction with Grand Traverse County staff, Grand Traverse County, A Current Assessment Report, August 1, 2001. Grand Traverse County 9 Master Plan �NATURAL FEATURES AND THE ENVIRONMENT CHAPTER 2. NATURAL FEATURES AND THE ENVIRONMENT Grand Traverse County is situated in the northwestern lower peninsula of Michigan at the southern end of Grand Traverse Bay. Numerous inland lakes, rivers, and a rolling terrain mixed with upland forests characterize the County. e e " ~ I ■ . 1,/ ' 'r The County is approximately 485 square miles in area and consists of 13 townships, which are Peninsula, Acme, Whitewater, East Bay Charter, Garfield Charter, Long Lake, Green Lake, Blair, Union, Fife Lake, Paradise, Mayfield, and Grant. The City of Traverse City is the only city and is the most urbanized area in the County. The Villages of Fife Lake and Kingsley are located in the southeast area of the County. Much of the County is home to the Pere Marquette State Forest. TI1e State Forest provides areas for wildlife, recreation, and timber resources and is located largely Union, Whitewater, Blair, Fife Lake, Long Lake, Grant and Mayfield Townships. I CLIMATE II According to the NOAA Climate Survey2 that averaged annual climatic conditions between 1960 and 1995, in January, temperatures in the County range from an average low of 13°F to an average high of 26°F. These temperatures, along with an average of 87 inches of snowfall annually, are conducive to many wintertime activities such as alpine skiing, cross-country skiing, snowmobiling, and ice fishing. I II I I I I In July, the average low temperature of 57°F and average high of 81 °F make for a pleasant and comfortable environment for fishing, golfing, hiking and many other outdoor summer activities. The average annual rainfall for the County is 30 inches. National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration Website, National Climate Data Center, 2001. Grand Traverse County 11 Master Plan �I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I NATURAL FEATURES AND THE ENVIRONMENT LAKES, WATERSHEDS AND DRAINAGE A defining characteristic of the County is the abundance of water. Inland lakes, such as Long Lake, Duck Lake, Green Lake, Lake Dubonnet, and Bass Lake, are located in the western portion of the County and offer excellent recreational, residential opportunities and wildlife habitat. Many of these lakes attract residential development that can produce potential water quality impacts due to fertilizer application and other human related activities. With continued development along the inland lakes, unspoiled natural lakefront areas are becoming rare. In the eastern portion of the County, Fife Lake is generally encompassed by residential land uses. The 2000 U.S. Census indicated that the population increased in the Village of Fife Lake by 72 residents between the year 1990 (394 residents) and 2000 (466 residents), representing a 14.1 % increase. Fife Lake, like many other lakes in the State of Michigan, is almost completely built out around its edges. Originally, this development consisted primarily of seasonal cottages on small lake lots. Local government officials and planning staff have observed a trend of cottages being remodeled, torn down or rebuilt to accommodate year-around living. These new, residents are beginning to require more services and place greater demands on utilities throughout the year. A public sewer serves the Village and parts of the perimeter of Fife Lake. The sewer system is controlled by a sewer authority that consists of Fife Lake Township, Fife Lake Village, and Springfield Township in Kalkaska County. The presence of a sewer helps protect surface and ground water quality, which may allow greater density. It also creates greater options for development in the sewer service area. In southern East Bay Township, many inland lakes, such as Spider Lake, Rennie Lake, Arbutus Lake, Tibbets Lake, Spring Lake, High Lake, Chandler Lake, and Bass Lake, are found in close proximity to one another in an area commonly known as the Forest Lakes area. The natural beauty of these lakes has also attracted substantial small lot development. In 1997, there were approximately 1,340 homes in the Forest Lakes area. 3 While no public sewer or water service currently With continued residential development along the inland lakes, unspoiled lakefront areas, like this at Bullhead Lake, are becoming rare. Gourdie/ Frasier & Associates, Inc., Sewer Facility Alternatives for Forest Lakes Area of East Bay Township, lune 1997. Grand Traverse County 12 Master Plan �I I I I I I I I NATURAL FEATURES AND THE ENVIRONMENT exists in the Forest Lakes area, the possibility of providing public services is being discussed. Grand Traverse Bay and Elk Lake are the prominent water bodies in the north part of County. Peninsula Township, a narrow peninsula approximately 15 miles long, divides Grand Traverse Bay and creates the east and west arm of the Bay. Traverse City is located at the base of the West Arm, and a majority of the land adjacent to these northern water bodies is developed. Development consists primarily of commercial uses in Traverse City, East Bay and Acme Townships and residential uses elsewhere. Water quality within a watershed is directly related to the land management practices within that watershed. I I I I I I I I I I WATERSHEDS A watershed is a region of land that is drained by a particular river or river system. Typically, these systems include many smaller tributaries such as creeks and streams that feed into a larger river and are influenced by elevation or the lay of the land. Eleven primary watersheds exist in Grand Traverse County. They are as follows: ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Manistee River Betsie River Platte River Leelanau Mitchell Creek Boardman River Acme Creek Yuba Creek Tobago Creek Elk River - Chain of Lakes Water quality within a watershed is directly related to the land management practices within that The Boardman River watershed is the largest and most watershed. For example, if a new development varied in the County. creates a large amount of impervious surface (i.e., asphalt and rooftops) and stormwater is not properly managed, it is possible that the flow of the run-off into the creek, stream, or river could As the population in be increased to a point that stream bank erosion occurs. Stream bank Grand Traverse County erosion has the potential to increase silt material on the streambed, continues to grow, thereby changing the chemistry of the water with pyosphates, nitrogen, natural resources will inevitably be impacted and otl1er chemicals, and altering the turbidity of tl1e water. All of these Grand Traverse County 13 Master Plan �I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I NATURAL FEATURES AND THE ENVIRONMENT changes have an effect on the wildlife that is dependent on the stream or river for survival. Map 1 illustrates the watersheds, rivers, streams, lakes, and wetlands in the County. A watershed, being an area where all of these water attributes are interconnected, should be looked at closely when assessing the impacts of new development within the County. GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER As the population in Grand Traverse County continues to grow, natural resources will inevitably be impacted. The groundwater supplies in the County, even though abundant, can be affected as more area becomes impervious and with greater demand placed on groundwater supplies. There are several organizations that are involved with water quality in the Grand Traverse County area. Some of them include The Watershed Center Grand Traverse Bay, the Grand Traverse Conservation District, the Grand Traverse Regional Land Conservancy and the Michigan Groundwater Stewardship Program at the Michigan State University Extension in Traverse City. These organizations all have an interest in water quality protection and provide various services available to the public. Figure 1 The State of Michigan has provided funding to many of these organizations through the Clean Michigan Initiative Clean Water Fund. 4 The funding will help organizations like the Watershed Center Grand Traverse Bay expand their database on failing septic systems, which includes identification and elimination of failing systems. Efforts to identify and eliminate point source polluting drains that are illegally connected to storm drains will also be strengthened with this funding. ~ 011 •I• David P. Lusch, Center for Remote Sensing, Michigan State University According to Dr. Roberta Dow of the Michigan Groundwater Stewardship Program at the Michigan State University Extension in Traverse City, there are many different ways ground water can be polluted. Two primary contributors are application of fertilizer on crops and residential lawns and septic tank drainfield effluent. Proper fertilizer Traverse City Record-Eagle, Page lB, July 24, 2001 Grand Traverse County 15 Master Plan �I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I NATURAL FEATURES AND THE ENVIRONMENT application management and septic tank maintenance may help to significantly reduce nitrate levels. Abandoned wells may also be a threat to ground water quality if they have not been properly closed. Open wells may expose groundwater supplies to surface contaminates. Leaking underground fuel storage tanks have also resulted in many point source contamination sites in Grand Traverse County. These areas are often monitored to measure the level of contamination. Other point sources of pollution include various industrial sites throughout the County. In 1990, the United States Geological Survey, in cooperation with Grand Traverse County and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, produced a report titled Hydrology and Land Use in Grand Traverse County. 5 The purpose of that report was to describe the chemical and physical characteristics of ground and surface water in Grand Traverse County and to relate these characteristics to land use. Data on the chemical inputs to the hydrological system, including precipitation, animal wastes, septic tank drainfields, and fertilizers were compiled and measured against data collected for geology, hydrology and land use. The report found that Peninsula Township had the highest rate in the County of application of fertilizer containing nitrogen. According to Hydrology and Land Use in Grand Traverse County, glacial deposits are the sole source of groundwater supplies in the County. These deposits vary in thickness (100' to 900') and consist of till, outwash and materials of lacustrine and eolian origin. Typically, domestic wells are fifty (50) feet to one hundred fifty (150) feet deep and can yield at least twenty (20) gallons per minute. Larger wells are capable of producing two hundred fifty (250) gallons per minute. The report found that Peninsula Township had the highest rate in the County of application of fertilizer containing nitrogen. Not surprisingly, it also showed evidence of higher nitrogen levels in groundwater. Of the four forms of inputs mentioned above, applied fertilizer represented forty percent (40%) of the nitrogen introduced to the groundwater. Nitrogen deposits associated with animal wastes were found to represent approximately fourteen percent (14%) of the nitrogen deposited in groundwater. Precipitation accounted for forty percent (40%) of the nitrogen levels in the groundwater supplies and septic tank deposition accounted for six percent (6%). Total Inorganic Nitrogen includes all forms of nitrogen with the exception of those bound in organic matter. This measure is important since it is felt to reflect the nitrogen that may be transmitted to the ground water. Most nitrogen is naturally converted to nitrates, which, at Hydrology and Land Use in Grand Traverse County, US Geological Survey Water Resources Investigation Report 90-4122, 1990. Grand Traverse County 16 Master Plan I• �I I I I I NATURAL FEATURES AND THE ENVIRONMENT high enough concentrations, have been implicated in infant health problems. In 1990, approximately 1.6 percent of the County's groundwater supplies was contaminated with nitrate levels that were equal to or greater than levels accepted under U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards. Overall, however, the ground and surface water in Grand Traverse County was considered to be safe and plentiful. WETLANDS Wetlands play a critical role in regulating the movement of water within watersheds. Wetlands are characterized by water saturation in the root zone, or above the soil surface, for a certain amount of time during the year. The fluctuation of the water table above and below the soil surface is unique to each wetland type. I I I I I I I I I I I I I Without wetlands, water quality decreases, areas are prone to flash flooding and habitat for specialized plants and animals is reduced. Wetlands store precipitation and surface water and then slowly release the water in associated water resources, ground water, and the atmosphere. They help maintain the level of the water table and may serve as filters for sediments and organic matter. They may also serve as a sink to catch water, or transform nutrients, organic compounds, metals, and components of organic matter. Wetlands have the ability to impact levels of nitrogen, phosphorous, carbon, sulfur, and various metals. Without them, water quality decreases, areas are prone to flash flooding and habitat for specialized plants and animals is reduced. The wetlands in Grand Traverse County are primarily associated with drainages in the County. Map 2 illustrates the wetlands in Grand Traverse County. Approximately fifteen percent (15%) of the land area in Grand Traverse County is considered wetlands. Large wetlands exist in northwest East Bay Township and eastern Garfield Township associated with Mitchell Creek and the Mitchell Creek Watershed. This wetland is in close proximity to expanding development from the Wetlands play an important role in the ecology of the area. concentrated population area of Traverse City. As development pressure continues, this wetland may be jeopardized. Other wetlands exist along the Boardman River and many of its tributaries in the central eastern portion of the County. These all exist in the Boardman Watershed, which is the largest watershed in the County extending in the east to include Union Township and a portion Grand Traverse County 17 Master Plan �I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I NATURAL F EATURES AND THE ENVIRONMENT of Whitewater, Fife Lake, Paradise, East Bay, Blair, Garfield, Long Lake, and Green Lake Townships. Wetlands located within and upstream of urban areas (like Traverse City) are particularly valuable for flood protection. The impervious surface in urban areas greatly increases the rate and volume of runoff. Wetlands provide an area for water to be absorbed like a sponge and slowly distributed to downtown areas. SOILS Soil composition is an important aspect of planning for many reasons. Some soils are not well suited for individual septic systems and, therefore, may threaten ground water or surface water quality due to lack of proper filtration. The composition of soils determines stability and suitability for structural development. Agricultural productivity is also determined by the fertility of the soils. With the soils of the County classified, areas can be appropriately designated for a suitable use. With the soils of the County classified, areas may be designated for a suitable use. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, classifies the soils of Grand Traverse County into six different general soil associations. They are 1) Emmet-Leelanau, 2) McBride-Montcalm, 3) Conventry-Karlin 4) Kalkaska-Mancelona, 5) Rubicon-Grayling, and 6) Lupton-Roscommon. These are illustrated on Map 3, which is reproduced from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. The Emmet-Leelanau association exists primarily in Peninsula Township, along the northeastern portion of the County and in the central area of the County south of the City of Traverse City. These are typically well-drained and sandy soils that are fairly well suited to agriculture. The 2000 Current Land Use Map (Map 5) illustrates that these are largely used for orchards, bush fruits, and vineyards. Septic tank absorption fields are moderately to severely limited due to poor filtration of effluent and slope and generally not suitable for building site development without modification. The McBride-Montcalm association exists primarily in Some of the County's soils are uniquely suited for raising specialty crops. the south-central and in the southeastern areas of the County. Though this soil is well drained and suited for agriculture, many of the old farms sit idle and are considered pasture. Limitations may exist for individual septic disposal due to lack of proper filtration and potential soil wetness. Grand Traverse County 19 Master Plan �I NATIJRAL FEATIJRES AND THE ENVIRONMENT The Conventry-KarLin association is located primarily in Grant Township in I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I the southwest area of the County. This soil is primarily sandy, well drained, and is used for cropland and forests according to the 2000 Land Use Map. Septic systems are moderately suitable on this soil type but may cause well water pollution due to poor filtration. The Kalkaska-Mancelona association are also sandy, well drained soils located in various locations throughout the County. Following the pattern of soils in the County, they are generally sandy well-drained soils that are not associated with a particular land use. They have severe septic limitations and are not very well suited for buildings and structures. The Rubicon-Grayling association consists of doughty sands located in the eastern-central, western-central, southeast corner, areas of the county and in the City of Traverse City. A considerable part of this association is in the Pere Marquette State Forest and many of the large and small lakes are found in this association. Much of this soil is also used for residential development. This sandy soil has severe septic system limitation as effluent is poorly filtered through the soil. The Lupton-Roscommon association is typically found close to water bodies including rivers and streams. This soil, often located in flood plains, is usually level and composed of mucks, peat, and sand. Not well suited for development or agriculture due to instability and wetness, this association can provide excellent areas for wildlife and forests. Individual disposal of effluent is severely limited due to low permeability and high water tables. FLORA & FAUNA WILDLIFE The Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) 6 is a complete listing of all State plants, communities and wildlife considered as endangered, threatened or of special concern. This listing is completed annually by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Michigan State University. Oakland County has over 100 species listed for some kind of action or observation. Flora The only plant species listed on the Michigan Natural Features Inventory that also has Federal status is the plant Pitcher's Thistle (Cirsium pitcheri) . This plant is classified as threatened in both Federal and State standards. Woolly-leafed, with flowers ranging from cream to yellow, the Pitcher's Thistle grows along the shores of the Great Lakes in stabilized dune areas. Its habitat is primarily Pitcher's Thistle, photo courtesy of MDNR website. Grand Traverse County 6 Michigan County Element Lists, Michigan Natural Features Inventory: March 2001. 21 Master Plan �I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I NATURAL FEATURES AND THE ENVIRONMENT threatened due to development and recreational activities, which fragments the population. This plant is sensitive to changing environmental conditions. Loss of habitat and increased human activity overall threatens the plant and animal diversity of Grand Traverse County. Three other vascular plants including Hill's Thistle (Cirsium hiHii), Pussytoes (Antennaria parvifolia), and Lake Huron Tansy (Tanacetum huronense) are listed as either threatened or species of special concern. The MNFI listed six champion tree species for consideration. These species included: • • • • • • Black Willow (salix nigra) American Chestnut (castanea dentata) Eastern Red-Cedar (juniperus virginiana) Ironwood, Hop-Hornbeam (ostrya) Basswood (tilia americana) Rock Elm, Cork Elm (ulmus thomasii) Fauna Like the proverbial canary in the coal mine, the Wood Turtle may be an indicator species of the impact of development on the watersheds in the County. According to the MNFI, the Wood Turtle is considered a species of State special concern in Grand Traverse County. Habitat for the Wood Turtle is found near moving water and wooded floodplain areas. The population of the Wood Turtle has declined significantly over the last 20 to 30 years, and part of that decline is attributed to habitat loss. Human activities including the construction of streamside homes, roads, timber harvesting, stream channelization, and bank stabilization have resulted in loss of habitat. Like the proverbial canary in the coal mine, the Wood Turtle may be an indicator species of the impact of development on the watersheds in the County. According to the MNFI, endangered species in Grand Traverse County include the Migrant Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus migrans) and the King Rail (RaHus degans). The Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus), Common Loon (Gavia immer), Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and Osprey (Pandion haliaetus), have been listed as threatened species. In addition, the reptile Eastern massasauga (Sistrurus catenatus) and the invertebrate Ebony boghaunter (WiWamsonia fietcheri) have been listed as species of special concern in the County. If the human population of Grand Traverse County continues to expand, it is possible that plant and animal diversity will also continue to decrease without proper management. Grand Traverse County 22 Master Plan �I I I I I I I I POPULATION CHAPTER 3. POPULATION Population is among the most important measures to express growth and its likely impact on land uses in a community. Therefore, it is vitally important to achieve an understanding of the County's population and its growth trends in order to prepare a meaningful and realistic Master Plan. In this section, the population of Grand Traverse County is analyzed and the current and likely future growth trends are discussed. HISTORICAL POPULATION TRENDS The 2000 Census indicates a continued trend of strong population growth within Grand Traverse County To begin, it is appropriate to determine the overall growth the County has experienced in the recent past. Historically, the population of Grand Traverse County has grown at a fairly steady pace. The only decline in the region's population took place between 1910 and 1930. This decline was the result of a failing lumber industry, the closure of rail lines to the area, and an epidemic of deaths related to pollution and typhoid fever.7 In the decade between 1970 and 1980, the area experienced a rather steep increase in population. While that trend has slowed some, the Grand Traverse region is still growing at a moderately rapid pace. Figure 2 I 100 Year Population Trends for Grand Traverse County I I I I I I I c:: .g 80000 ~-----------------70000 60000 50000 "3 40000 2 30000 ,,t------------ 20000 10000 0, 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year The recently released data for the 2000 Census indicate a continued trend of strong population growth within Grand Traverse County. In 7 Grand Traverse County Grand Traverse Area Genealogical Society 23 Master Plan �I I I the ten-year period between 1990 and 2000, the County grew from 64,273 residents to 77,654 residents, representing a 20.8% increase. I The Townships with substantial populations that experienced the greatest growth within the County are Garfield Township (31.6%), Green Lake Township (36.2%), Long Lake (28%) and East Bay (19.4%). POPULATION I While the population in the City of Traverse City continues to decline slightly, all of the surrounding townships have grown. This trend has been illustrated in the past and indicates that urbanization is continuing to spread to the east, west, and soutl1 from the City of Traverse City. I I Figure 3 Rate of Population Change by Jurisdiction I 250% 11 1970-80 200% V 150% V 01980-90 D 1990-00 - 100% 50% I 0% - - 11 rt - ~ Pt ri. ' rllJ 1 ~111ll . - -L~ - rt fu Table 1 below illustrates, the rate of natural population increase for the County from 1900 to 1999 was estimated to be 4.8%, while the rate of total population increase over this same time period was 17 .2 %. 8 It I can, therefore, be determined that the rate of in-migration to Grand Traverse County over the same time period was 12.4%. In other words, almost three-quarters of the County's rate of population growth results from people moving into the community. In comparison, the average I I Natural population increase or decrease is directly related to births and deaths within the existing population. If births outnumber deaths, the natural population increases; if deaths outnumber births, the natural population decreases. The total population increase or decrease includes natural population increases or decreases and tl1e in-migration and out-migration of population. I Grand Traverse County 24 Master Plan �I I I POPULATION natural increase for the State of Michigan between 1990 and 1999 was 2.6%, while the overall average rate of growth for all Michigan counties over the same period was 9.3%. There are many reasons this influx of people continues to occur. Certainly the natural beauty of the area, relatively strong economy and local quality of life account for much of the draw. In addition, the recently "tight" labor market in the region means that the community continues to attract workers from farther away to fill jobs locally. I I I I Table 1- Component Change of Population in Grand Traverse County: 1990-2000 Total Population 1990-1999 Change 4/1/90-7/1/99 Natural Increase (9 years) 1900 64,273 Source: U.S. Census 10-Year Number Increase 77,654 13,381 11,079 2000 Percent Births Deaths Number Percent 17.2% 8,310 5,219 3,091 4.8% COUNTY POPULATION PROJECTIONS I For the purposes of the Current Assessment, statistical averaging techniques were utilized to project the County's population growth to the year 2025. These approaches are adequate to give a general sense of growth trends, but they have limitations especially in areas of rapid growth or decline that may run counter to statistical trends. I It is estimated that over this time period the population will increase from 77,654 to about 127,408, representing an increase of about 64%. This population growth translates into a substantial increased demand for public services, infrastructure, commercial developments, and housing over the next twenty years. I I I Data also supports that much of this population will continue to locate in the northern portion of the County, including Garfield, East Bay, and Long Lake Townships. Reasons for this include continued investment in these Townships (refer to the next section, Growth in Equalized Value) and the presence of infrastructure. Of course, extrapolating growth into the future based on past trends provides only a rough approximation of the future; and it may mask other shifts in demographic trends. I Grand Traverse County 25 Master Plan �I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I POPULATION In Table 2 below, similar projections are presented for each of the jurisdictions in the County. This was done to illustrate the particular areas of the County that have the highest population and the areas that have the highest rate of population growth. This is useful in attempting to forecast the likely areas of future growth. These figures may be compared with the population projections found in local community Master Plans. Table 2, Grand Traverse County Population Forecast Population Change Jurisdiction Grand Traverse Acme Blair East Bay Fife Lake Garfield Grant Green Lake Long Lake Mayfield Paradise Peninsula Traverse City Union Whitewater Population 1990 64,273 3,447 5,249 8,307 1,344 10,516 745 3,677 5,977 967 2,508 4,340 15,116 255 1,825 2000 77,654 4,332 6,448 9,919 1,517 13,840 947 5,009 7,648 1,271 4,191 5,265 14,383 417 2,467 Population Projections % Change 1990-2000 20.8% 25.7% 22.8% 19.4% 12.9% 31.6% 27.1% 36.2% 28.0% 31.4% 67.1% 21.3% -4.8% 63.5% 35.2% 2005 85,737 4,888 7,184 10,881 1,615 16,027 1,075 5,916 8,717 1,471 5,597 5,826 14,034 549 2,901 2010 2015 2020 2025 94,662 104,516 115,396 127,408 5,516 6,224 7,023 7,924 8,005 9,938 8,919 11,073 11,937 13,095 14,366 15,760 1,719 1,829 2,072 1,947 18,560 21,494 28,825 24,891 1,221 1,387 1,575 1,788 6,988 8,254 9,748 11,514 9,936 11,324 12,907 14,712 1,702 1,970 2,279 2,637 9,983 13,333 7,475 17,807 6,447 7,134 7,894 8,735 13,694 13,362 13,038 12,722 1,257 1,656 724 954 3,411 4,011 4,717 5,546 The percent of population change was derived from the U.S. Census estimates of population in 1990 and 2000. Population projections are based on an extrapolation of the rates of growth experienced from 1990 to 2000 in five year increments. For example, the average growth rate of all townships was 28. 7% between 1990 and 2000. If this rate of increase continues, the townships that have the larger populations will naturally continue to gain more people due to exponential growth. In Garfield Township, the population was 13,840 and in Green Lake the population was 5,009 in Grand Traverse County 26 Master Plan �I I I I I POPULATION 2000. If both of these communities gain population at the average rate of 28. 7% over ten years, Garfield Township's population would increase by 3,972 and Green Lake would have increased by 1,438. Simply put, the more populated townships in the County would gain a larger population due to exponential growth using this relatively simplistic methodology. The projections in Table 2 result from a simple extension of the rates of growth experienced between 1990 and 2000. Of course, this method assumes a continuation of all growth factors resulting in an identical rate of growth through 2025. The Office of the Michigan State Demographer has, in the past, prepared more detailed projections; and the most recent such projection was prepared in 1996. The State Demographer uses a cohort-component method to prepare population projections, based on 1990 census counts, estimated 1996 population and projected fertility, mortality, and migration rates by age, sex, and race. Figure 4 below compares those projections with the growth rate method reflected in Table 2, at least through 2020. According to staff in the State Demographer's office, new projections will not be produced until more detailed Census information has been released. I I I I -I I I I I Figure 4 Population Projection Comparison 140 ,000 C 0 'i; :i C. 0 Q. .... 80 ,000 60 ,000 Q) ·o . 40 ,000 Q. 20 ,000 ~ .... 100,000 'O 2010 2005 ~ I I I 120,000 Growth Rate Model 2015 2020 State Demographer This projection is based on the growth in the population from 1990 to 2000 when the population grew at an average rate of about 2.08% per year. Using a longer historical perspective would likely alter the projection somewhat. From 1970 to 2000, the population grew at a slightly higher average annual rate of 3.27%. Applying this rate to the Grand Traverse County 27 Master Plan �I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I POPULATION 2000 population and assuming a constant rate of growth through 2025 results in a project population of over 140,000. However, this may be skewed by the relatively greater rate of growth in the 1970s (4% per year) which has not been duplicated since. REGIONAL POPUIATION Comparing the counties surrounding Grand Traverse County is an excellent way to gauge what type of growth is happening on a regional level. Of the counties listed below in Table 3, Grand Traverse County has the largest population and experienced the greatest growth. Wexford County, located directly to the south, has a 2000 population of 30,484. The City of Cadillac, containing approximately one third of this population, decreased by 1% or 104 people between 1990 and 2000 while areas like Buckley and Mesick have gained population over the same period. Table 3. Regional Population Projections Census County Population Projections* 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Grand Traverse 39,175 54,899 64,273 76,500 81,800 87,400 93,500 99,600 Benzie 8,593 11,205 12,200 14,500 15,300 16,200 16,900 17,700 Antrim 12,612 16,194 18,185 21,700 23,200 24,600 26,200 27,700 Kalkaska 5,372 10,952 13,497 15,900 17,100 18,500 19,900 21,200 Leelanau 10,872 14,007 16,527 19,400 20,000 20,600 21,400 22,200 Wexford 19,717 25,102 26,360 29,100 29,500 29,800 30,200 30,500 Source: Michigan Department of Management and Budget, Office of the State Demographer, January, 1996 Note: The cohort-component method was used to prepare population projections for every five year interval based on the 1990 census and projected fertility, mortality and migration rates by age, sex and race. Another important trend for the County includes the continued decline in the number of persons per household. In the 1996 County Plan, it was projected that average household size in the County would slowly decline from 2.62 persons to about 2.5 by the year 2020. In fact, however, household size has already fallen below that level to 2.49 persons per household, and it appears to be continuing to decline. To Grand Traverse County 28 Master Plan �I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I POPULATION place this statistic in perspective, the average household size in Michigan overall is 2.56 persons. The combination of an increasing population and decreasing household size was pointed out in the earlier Plan as an area of concern, since it indicates a likelihood of less efficient development patterns. AGE, SEX AND ETHNICITY CHARACTERISTICS Comparing the age distribution of a community over time provides another opportunity to measure change. Also, an age breakdown of a community's residents helps to determine the type of housing demands and recreational facilities that may be needed. Paralleling national trends, the population of the Grand Traverse County is aging. In 2000, the median age of Grand Traverse County residents was 37.7 years compared to the median age for the State overall of 35.5 years. The median age represents the mid-point in the range of all ages within the County and State with one-half of the population younger and onehalf of the population older than the median. Typically, the median age is viewed as an appropriate measure of the overall age of the population. These figures also reveal persons 65 years and older comprise over 13% of the County's population compared with 12.2% for Michigan overall. Although these differences are relatively slight, they may have implications on the land use and public service needs of the community. The median age of Grand Traverse residents continues to go up: MEDIAN AGE Grand Traverse Michigan U.S. 1980 1990 2000 28.8 28.8 30.0 33 .2 32.6 33 .0 37.7 35.5 35.3 The fastest growing age group is the "empty nesters" age 45 to 64 year old cohort, which includes the oldest of the "baby boomers. This group grew by 7,487 or 67.2% since 1990." Persons in this age group typically have reached their peak earning potential and have higher disposable incomes. Those citizens age 65 and over grew by 2,299 or 29.3% since 1990. In other words, one in eight Grand Traverse residents is age 65 or older. Grand Traverse County 29 Master Plan �I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I POPULATION This significant aging population indicates many people are choosing Grand Traverse County as a place to retire. The 20 to 59 years age group is important as it represents the prime wage earning population as well as the principal child rearing group. About 55% of the population falls in this age group in Grand Traverse County. This relatively high percentage of the population translates into family formations, the need for single-family housing stock, recreational facilities, future increases in the under 5 and 5 to 19 year age groups, and increases in retail trade. Figure 5 2000 Age by Sex for Grand Traverse County ~ 80 and over I t 70 to 79 I 60 to 69 50 to 59 40 to 49 I M les I I 30 to 39 20 to 29 10 to Under 5 8000 I ~ I I I ~ -I -~ --j I I I I 6000 4000 1 Fem es I I I I I I I I 19 5 to 9 -I 11 I I I ' 2000 0 2000 4000 6000 Source: Michigan Information Center State Demographer Office 8000 It is clear from the age-sex cohort graph (Figure 5) that the age group from 20 to 29 years old is the smallest. This is likely because there are no major universities in the Grand Traverse area, and many college age students seek their education elsewhere. School age children age 5 to 19 make up approximately 21.9% of the population of Grand Traverse County. This is compared to 19.4% for Michigan. This number is up slightly from the 1990 population, indicating an increased need for schools and services. Grand Traverse County is a very homogeneously white community. The County's population is 95.6% white, compared to 78.6% of the State's population. Persons of African American, American Indian, Asian, Hispanic or Latino and persons of two or more races also reside in the County in numbers of 1.5% or lower. SCHOOL D ISTRICT The quality of the local school system is generally an important consideration for families choosing a place to raise a family. In Grand Grand Traverse County 30 Master Plan �I I I I I I I I POPULATION Traverse County, residents are served by the Traverse City Area Public Schools (TCAPS), the Kingsley Public Schools, the Elk Rapids and Forest Area Public Schools as well as the Buckley Community Schools. In addition such charter schools as Grand Traverse Academy and Traverse Bay Community serve the community. School administrators report that in the last few years there has been a decline in enrollment, but all expect that trend to reverse within the next two years. Figure 6 Educational Attainment for Persons Aged Age 25 and Over -------------------1 □ _________ 90 ____________, 80 Grand Traverse 1980 ___, □ Grand ■ Grand Traverse 1990 Traverse 2000 D Michigan 1980 70 -------------' ■ Michigan 1990 ■ Michigan 2000 / 60 I I c QI ~ QI Q. 50 40 30 / 20 10 I I I I I I I 0 Some College High School College+ Note: Educational information from the 2000 Census has not been released at this writing. Grand Traverse ranks 7'h among Michigan's 83 counties for persons age 25 and over with a college degree. Grand Traverse County High school graduation rates increased significantly (7.7%) from 1980 to 1990 for persons age twenty-five and over in Grand Traverse County. This appears to have followed a State trend, as Michigan residents with a high school diploma increased by 8.8%. Michigan State University Grand Traverse County Extension attributes this to a much higher rate of high school completion today than in the past. Grand Traverse County exceeds Michigan for those persons age 25 and over with a college degree. In 1990, 17.4% of the State's population had a college degree (i.e., Bachelor's or higher), while in Grand Traverse County the rate was 22.1 percent. Grand Traverse ranks 7'" among Michigan's 83 counties for persons age 25 and over with a college degree. 31 Master Plan �I I I POPULATION By 2000, the difference between the County and the State in terms of educational attainment had narrowed somewhat. In 2000, more than one-quarter of the County' population (26.1 %) had attained a college education. This reflects a rate of increase of over 18% in educational attainment during the 1990s. By comparison, in Michigan, the 2000 census reported that 21.8% of the State's population held college degrees, for a rate of increase in educational attainment of 25.3% during the preceding decade. I I I Nevertheless, Grand Traverse County's workforce reflects an impressive level of educational attainment with nearly nine out of ten (89.3%) of the population 25 years of age or older holding at least a high school education. This is com.pared with about 83.4% for Michigan overall. I I I I I I I I I I I I I Grand Traverse County 32 Master Plan �I I I I I I I I Housing, Employment and Economic Development CHAPTER 4. INCOME, HOUSING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT An important measure of the overall vitality of a community is its economic health. Incomes and job growth are key indicators in this area, and this chapter seeks to evaluate the County's position relative to other areas. INCOME In 1995 the estimated median household income in Grand Traverse County ($37,303) exceeded the State median household income ($35,940). The median household income in the County in 1980 was $16,686. By 1990, it had increased to $29,034, placing the County just below the median for the State of Michigan which was $31,020. However, the U.S. Census reported the 1999 median household income in Grand Traverse County ($43,169) barely trailed the State median household income ($44,667). Between 1990 and 1995, households in Grand Traverse County experienced an increase in real median income of 10.2%, from $33,854 to $37,303. Real income is adjusted for inflation based on changes in the Consumer Price Index. Compared to other Michigan Counties, Grand Traverse County ranked 19 th in 1995 in median household income. Per capita income in Grand Traverse County in 1998 was estimated to be $26,535 compared to $22,713 in 1990, a 16.8 percent increase. I I I I Figure 7 - Grand Traverse Per Capita Income $30,000 $25,000 0 s 0 u $20,000 iS';: .....i:: ·o.5 $15,000 <d u $10,000 ...0 I I I I )'6' i!';: , l',9)' ,f i8',,.,9 'o'c9. f )' '?~ i!',,. ,,96'> c9 [5' 0... $5,000 $0 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Source: Office of Labor Market Information, Michigan Department of Labor Grand Traverse County 33 Master Plan �I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Housing, Employment and Economic Development The relatively higher incomes of County residents have important implications for the community relating to the development of land use and growth management goals. Generally, higher income populations invest relatively greater sums in housing and expect higher levels of service from their local government. EQUALIZED VALUE GROWTH While the values in the City of Traverse City continue to grow, it is apparent that the surrounding areas are the focus of new investment, extending the boundaries of intense land uses . It is likely that agricultural land is increasing in value not as a result of its agricultural use, but rather as poential development sites. Grand Traverse County The total State equalized value (SEY) for Grand Traverse County for 1999 was $2.71 billion and $3 .03 billion for 2000, representing a oneyear growth rate of nearly 12%. Between the period of 1990 and 1994, the average annual growth rate was 8.3%. Clearly, Grand Traverse County continues to be a location of development and investment. Since 1999, Garfield Township surpassed the City of Traverse City in total assessed value; $589 million to $584 million for 2000, respectively. Furthermore, East Bay and Peninsula Townships have experienced an increase in their total assessed value, reaching well into the $300 million range. While the values in the City of Traverse City continue to grow, it is apparent that the surrounding areas are the focus of new investment, extending the boundaries of intense land uses. The 1996 County Master Plan determined that Garfield Charter Township, Peninsula, East Bay, Long Lake, and Acme Townships constituted nearly 60% of the SEY for the County, as they did in 2000. Although such other Townships as Union, Mayfield, Fife Lake, and Grant have significantly lower total SEY, they show a high rate of increase. These Townships also have the lowest population in the County, illustrating a direct relationship between population and SEY. Current trends indicate that the SEY has continued to rise in all of the townships in Grand Traverse County at rates significantly greater than inflation. Recently, the annual rate of inflation has been under 3%, while the County SEY rate of increase is 12%. If these trends continue, the townships surrounding the City of Traverse City will continue to be the major investment centers in the area. Proximity to the central business district (downtown Traverse City), population concentrations, and existing infrastructure, all may be attributes that facilitate investment and, therefore, greater property values. 34 Master Plan �I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Housing, Employment and Economic Development Table 4 - Grand Traverse County Equalized Value Classifications Classification Agriculture Commercial Industrial Residential Other Total 1995 Equalized Percent of Value Whole 2.85% 51,207,464 $ 329,534,859 18.33% 32,085,788 1.78% 1,235,129,491 68.70% 149,871,428 8.34% 1,797,829,030 100.00% 2000 Equalized Percent of Percent Change Value in Value Whole 3.20% 97,108,665 89.64% $ 587,310,343 19.35% 78.22% 53,470,606 1.76% 66.65% 2,091,589,129 68.91% 69.34% 205,660,806 6.78% 37.22% 3,035,139,549 100.00% Table 4 reveals that the SEY of agricultural land has increased dramatically between 1995 and 2000. This increase may be accounted for by the property assessment process. It is likely that agricultural land is increasing in value not as a result of its agricultural use, but rather as potential development sites. With new population pressures increasing the demand for housing and commercial uses, as development occurs adjacent agricultural land will become more valuable. HOUSING The attractiveness of Grand Traverse County is evident in the pace of new home construction within the community. This includes homes in platted subdivisions and condominiums and on scattered parcels in rural areas. Residential building permit activity, as reported by local jurisdictions in the County, has risen steadily for the past ten years. Table 5 reflects the trends of the five year period between 1995 and 1999, indicating a total of about 10,300 net new single family residential building permits, for an average of about 2,000 permits per year. Building permits are a good indication of investment in the community. The number of total building permits issued in Grand Traverse County has remained relatively constant from 1995 through 1997, with sizable increases in 1998 and 1999. Grand Traverse County 35 Master Plan �I I I I I I I I Housing, Employment and Economic Development Table 5 - Grand Traverse County Building Permits Community Acme Blair East Bay Fife Lake Garfield Grant Green Lake Long Lake Mayfield Paradise Peninsula Traverse City Union Whitewater Total Permits 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 97 98 159 211 38 407 38 267 174 40 122 130 218 16 80 166 185 65 379 24 224 158 34 131 124 200 19 73 73 196 232 46 359 38 194 165 27 149 127 222 14 99 120 259 342 50 437 28 196 192 34 116 147 240 16 77 113 240 295 53 420 26 236 184 36 151 143 210 10 102 96 186 271 52 348 30 187 29 124 144 214 13 70 87 189 265 49 300 23 85 201 40 123 109 239 16 72 1,997 1,880 1,941 2,254 2,219 1,416 1,798 * * Data for Green Lake Township for 2000 was not available. I I I I I I I I I Figure 8 focuses on residential building permits in Grand Traverse County from 1993 through 1999. It is obvious that building activity has increased substantially since 1993 and is directly related to new population. Extending the rate of residential building throughout the County at the 1999 rate of 800 permits per year provides a good indication of the type of investment and population growth that may be expected. Figure 8 - Grand Traverse County Residential Building Permits - 8 Year Trend Line J'.l ·a... l000 <I) p... 00 .S ::9 ·5 '° 800 600 400 200 ~ ..-- ~ .... 1998 1999 ~ ........... ~ 0 1993 Grand Traverse County - ....- - ~ 1994 1995 36 1996 1997 2000 Master Plan �I I I I Housing, Employment and Economic Development While still far out-pacing the mid 90s, residential building permit activity for the year 2000 decreased for the first time since 1997. Similar to the overall economy in 2001, it was probably inevitable that new residential building would eventually plateau and decline slightly. I I I I I State-wide the housing stock is about 73% owner occupied. In Grand Traverse County, owner-occupied housing accounts for 77.4% of the housing stock. Traditionally, a high level of owner-occupancy is seen as a strong indicator of stability within a community. Figure 9 -Total Building Permits, 1995 - 1999 450 400 350 300 I I I I I I I I I 250 200 150 100 50 1999 Source: Grand Traverse County. Data is limited to permits for new residential dwellings. County tabulations classify multi-family units as corn.mercial building permits. Grand Traverse County 37 Master Plan �I I I Housing, Employment and Economic Development EMPLOYMENT. The Grand Traverse County unemployment rate steadily dropped from 4.8% in 1996 to 3.6% in 1999. The year 2000 unemployment rate of 3.7% indicates the first increase in Figure 10 four years (see Figure 10). The currently increasing unemployment Grand Traverse County Unemployment Rates rate has been a result of the national 2002 7.2% economic downturn. A noticeable 2001 5.0% unemployment trend has been 2000 3.7% seasonal changes in unemployment. 1999 3.6% In January of 2000, the employment 1998 rate was 5.2%, while in July it was only 1997 2.8% (see Figure 11). This is a good indicator that the economy thrives in 1996 4.8% the summer months, and · summer 0.0% 2.0% 6.0% 8.0% 40% season work is more abundant. YearRate to-date figures for 2002 indicate that Source: Office of Labor Market Information, Michigan Department unemployment is 7.2%, suggesting of Labor that during the first half of the year, the strong employment has softened significantly. However, the State's year-to-date unemployment rate is 6.2%, which shows the State 1s recovering more quickly from a lagging economy than the region. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Figure 11 Unemployment Rates for 2000 to Aug 2002 ~ ~ 10.00% 8.00% 6.00% 4.00% 2.00% 0.00% Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 2001 ....... 2002 I l-+- 2000 - While unemployment percentage rates were declining in the County, per capita income over the last ten years has risen steadily. As Figure 7 illustrates, the per capita income has increased from $15,235 in 1988 to $26,535 in 1998. 9 This represents an average increase of 5.71 % per year over the ten year span. In comparison, the 1998 State of Michigan average per capita income was $26,885, and the overall United States average was $27,203 in 1998. With Consumer Price Index 9 Note that the earnings and employment statistics from the 2000 Census have not been issued as of the date of this writing. Grand Traverse County 38 Master Plan ~ �I I I I I I I I I Housing, Employment and Economic Development adjustments typically in the 2½% to 4% range over this period, it is evident that incomes and real earnings in the County have improved marginally in the recent past. Some of the principal employers in Grand Traverse County include the Munson Medical Center, employing approximately 2,700, Traverse City Public Schools, employing approximately 1,826, Grand Traverse Resort, employing up to 900 during the summer season, and Northwestern Michigan College, employing approximately 608 persons. The industries in the County that currently supply jobs are United Technologies Automotive in Traverse City, employing around 800 employees, Sara Lee Bakery Company, employing 700, Cherry Growers, Inc., in Grawn, employing 700, and Cone Drive Operations, Inc., employing around 320. In 1998, services accounted for 31.8% of the earnings of persons being employed, retail trade accounted for 13.1 % and local government accounted for 10.8%. Figure 12 Median Household Income I I I I I I I I I I $0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 0 Michigan D Grand Traverse Figure 12 illustrates Grand Traverse County median household income over time, compared to the median household income for the entire State. In 1980, Grand Traverse County was slightly below the median for the State. However, by 1995 Grand Traverse County's median household income had surpassed the State's figures by over $1,360. This trend, combined with the in-migration trend discussed in Chapter 3, suggests that residents choosing to relocate to Grand Traverse County are by and large more affluent. Grand Traverse County 39 Master Plan �I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS CHAPTER 5. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS In 2000, Grand Traverse County completed a new detailed Current Land Use Map (see Map 3). This new map alone is an excellent resource for planning purposes, and it becomes an even more powerful tool since it is possible to make comparisons between the 2000 Current Land Use Map (Map 5) and the 1990 Land Use Map (Map 4). These comparisons can gauge how much land, if any, has changed uses over the last ten years and what kind of change occurred. Land Cover The total land area of Grand Traverse County is about 310,453 acres. Land cover describes the land uses that comprise the landscape throughout the County. The land cover in Grand Traverse County is reflected in Map 5. The land uses in the County have been consolidated into nine categories using the 48 detailed classifications provided by 3Di. 10 These categories provide a reasonable reference for comparison in making land use decisions. The allocation of the acreage for each category has been estimated as well: LAND COVER CATEGORY CIASSIFICATION LAND COVER DESCRIPTION Residential (22,769 acres) Including single- and multi-family dwellings, mobile home parks with single and double-wide units Recreation and Cemeteries (1,921 acres) Parks, trails, cemeteries Commercial (1,602 acres) Neighborhood scale commercial and highway commercial areas Industrial (2,739 acres) Industrial, utilities, assembly manufacturing Institutional (974 acres) Colleges, schools Transportation & Utilities (1,407 acres) Airport, roads, rail, communication facilities, etc. Agricultural (65,729 acres) Cropland, orchards, permanent pasture, other agriculture Water/Wetlands (22,228 acres, 8.2%) Lakes and streams, wetlands Open/Wooded (191,084 acres, 36.8%) Fallow fields, woods, camps and park lands, beaches 10 In 2000, Williams & Works together with 3Di undertook a land cover update us ing spatially enhanced Landsat TM7 satellite imagery and automated change analytical processes to identify changes in the land uses in the County since 1990. Grand Traverse County 41 Master Plan �I I I I lAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS The predominate current land cover is, by far, open and wooded lands. This is followed by a substantial amount of agricultural lands. Agricultural land is concentrated in bands on Old Mission Peninsula, on the fringe of the urban area of Traverse City, and throughout the southern portion of the County. More intense land uses such as commercial, industrial, institutional and transportation are found primarily in the Traverse City area and scattered in small parcels on major corridors throughout the County. Residential uses are found predominantly in and around Traverse City and around lakes or the Bay coastline. I I I I I I I Figure 13 2000 LAND COVER Recreatio n & Cemeteries 0.62% Water & Wetlands 7.16% Agricultural 21.17 % I I Land Use Changes I In total, since 1990, about 4,250 acres of formerly vacant or forested land has been converted to some more intense use (exclusive of former rangelands). In addition, about 3,181 acres of former agricultural land has been converted to some other more intense use (exclusive of shifts in agricultural uses). Table 6 breaks down the changes from 1990 to 2000 from the relatively rural and undeveloped land cover classifications to more intense uses. I I I I I Transportation & Utilities 0.45% Residential 7.33% Commercial 0.52% Industrial 0.88% Institutional 0.31 % Grand Traverse County 42 Master Plan �• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS Table 6-Areas of Formerly Vacant or Forested Land Converted to More Intense Uses 2000 Land Cover Designation Commercial Industrial Residential Agricultural Institutional Open Pit/Gravel Mine Range Land Land Cover Designations Total Changed Acreage by Designation Acres Vacant 109 374 251 626 2,900 5,412 731 775 212 236 52 47 2,166 2,166 4 1 Acres in Agriculture 265 375 2,512 44 3 24 2 5 N/A Notes: 1 Vacant lands include forested land and range land. Agricultural and developed lands are not included in this definition . 2 Agricultural lands include croplands, orchards, pasture and Christmas tree plantations. 3 Denotes agricultural lands that have changed from one type of agriculture to another. 4 Denotes formerly forested lands that have been logged. Maps 4 and 5 illustrate the affects of these changes and clearly illustrate the scattered patterns of residential development in the rural portions of the County. Map 6 illustrates significant changes in land uses between 1990 and 2000 . It should be noted that these maps were prepared digitally from satellite imagery and should be considered generally accurate. Due to noted discrepancies, the mapping has been adjusted through local knowledge and input. For example, the computer analysis recognized the significant land cover change that occurred when Traverse City West High School was developed. However, the system misinterpreted the facility as an industrial use rather than an institutional use. As a result, each of the jurisdictions in the County were provided with copies of these maps and asked to help assure their accuracy. Even with this approach, it is not impossible that further discrepancies may be observed and may be corrected with further local input. From Table 6, it is clear that the vast majority of the land cover conversion in the past ten years has been due to residential expansion within the County. A total of 9,641 acres is estimated to have changed Grand Traverse County 43 Master Plan �LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I from agricultural or vacant land uses to another more intense use. Of that area, residential development accounted for 56%. In addition, within the total of 9,641 acres, 2,166 acres were formerly forested lands that had been logged. Therefore, while their land use has changed, these lands still remain essentially undeveloped. If these areas are removed from this calculation, residential development amounts to about 72% of all changes in use. As is apparent from Maps 4 and 5, most of this development is found in scattered residential developments in the formerly rural portions of the County, primarily in Green Lake, Long Lake, Mayfield and Blair Townships. CONFLICTS AND CONSISTENCIES It is important to examine the degree to which local land use and zoning policies supported the original growth management approach of Focus 2020: A County Master Plan. In the preparation of this Master Plan, it was important to examine the degree to which local land use and zoning policies supported the original growth management approach of Focus 2020: A County Master Plan. Accordingly, the process to develop this plan included a Conflict and Consistency Report. That report reviews the extent to which local land use policies and practices support the guidelines of the 1996 Plan, and it compares those policies to the emerging goals and objectives for the County's 2002 Master Plan developed by the Planning Commission. In general, the composite of local land use goals and objectives and master plans form a fairly consistent mosaic when compared with the County Master Plan (compare Map 11 with Map 7). However, as illustrated in Map 9, there are some areas that clearly depart from the general growth management objectives outlined in Focus 2020: A County Master Plan. It was also necessary to determine the degree to which land use regulations reflected in local zoning maps were consistent with the overall growth management strategies of the County plan. Again, a comparison of Map 11 and Map 8 makes this possible. Map 10 identifies areas of significant conflict between local zoning regulations and the County plan. These inconsistencies may be due to a number of factors. A few of the local plans and Zoning Ordinances predate the 1996 Focus 2020 Plan and have not been adjusted in recognition of its growth management guidance. It is possible that new challenges or opportunities have Grand Traverse County 48 Master Plan �• • • • • • • LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS developed in the six years since the adoption of the County Plan which are now reflected in local policies, but not at the County level. It is also possible that the 1996 County Plan, as a general guidance document, did not provide sufficient precision in its guidance; and the differences result from refinement of the growth management strategies at the local level. Finally, it may be that the deviations identified are simply the result of decisions made at the local level either without consideration of the guidance provided by the County Plan or with due consideration and a subsequent rejection of that guidance . Some of the more significant conflicts identified include the following: Grand Traverse County ♦ A significant portion of the land uses planned in Long Lake Township depart from those set forth in the Focus 2020 Plan. In a few instances, the Township's plan indicates less intense uses than called for in the County document; and, in other cases, the opposite is true. ♦ An extended pattern of commercial and industrial development is planned along M-72 in both Acme and Whitewater Townships that may foster a strip pattern extending from the Grand Traverse Bay to Williamsburg. ♦ An area identified as sensitive in Acme Township is zoned for high density residential uses. ♦ A sizable area in Southern Fife Lake Township is likewise zoned for high density residential development. ♦ A large portion of Grant Township is zoned for low density residential development, including some areas identified in the County Plan as sensitive environmental areas. ♦ An significant area of higher-intensity development is planned in Green Lake Township extending north and south of US-31. It includes a mix of uses and seems to promote the westward expansion of the developed portions of the County. ♦ Many local zoning ordinances identify small village settlements that were not addressed in the 1996 Focus 2020 Plan. 55 Master Plan �"• "• • • • • • COMMUNITY FACILITIES CHAPTER 6. COMMUNITY FACILITIES Community facilities, such as schools, parks and public buildings play an important role in maintaining and improving quality of life. This chapter discusses these facilities and the comprehensive development needs of the County. PUBLIC SCHOOLS Community facilities, such as schools, parks and public buildings play an important role in maintaining and improving quality of life. The Traverse City Area Public Schools (TCAPS) and the Kingsley Area Public Schools currently serve Grand Traverse County. The TCAPS includes four secondary schools (Central Senior High, West Senior High, East Junior High, and West Junior High) and eighteen elementary schools spread across three counties. Almost 11,200 students are enrolled in the school system. The Kingsley Area Public School system is located in Paradise Township in the southern portion of the County. The school system has an enrollment of approximately 1,300 kindergarten through grade 12 students. The system is divided into an elementary, middle and high school, located in the Village of Kingsley. PARK FACILITIES AND RECREATION PLANS • • • • • Grand Traverse County completed a Comprehensive Recreation Development Plan (CRDP) in January of 1997 . 11 The Plan described the community, inventoried all of the recreational facilities for the County, created an action program and created a basis for action. The Plan was tailored to meets the recreational needs of the County through 2001 . The five Goal Statements that were developed in the CRDP are as follows: 1. To develop a maintenance plan for Parks and Recreation facilities and properties. When developing new facilities, have maintenance plans initiated for the facilities. Follow the maintenance plan. 11 Grand Traverse County Grand Traverse County, Comprehensive Recreation Development Plan, A Plan for 199 7-2001, completed in 1997. 56 Master Plan �I I I I I I COMMUNITY FACILITIES 2. Bring to completion the work begun by the County Board and the Parks and Recreation Commission as to the future of a regional parks and recreation delivery system. 3. Develop a marketing plan for the Parks and Recreational facilities in order to maximize the revenue producing capabilities of the department. This may require the assistance of an outside marketing firm which will work with staff in accomplishing this strategy. Included in this strategy is working with the private sector toward the possibility of having the operation of certain facilities taken over by the private sector. I I I I I I I I I I I I I According to Parks and Recreation director Tim Schreiner, approximately 70% of the projects have been completed or are in the process of being completed. Grand Traverse County boasts an enviable network of nature trails and bike paths. 4. Complete the project of demolishing the old fairground buildings, which serve as the storage and maintenance facility for the Civic Center and the Sheriff's Department. Construct a smaller maintenance facility on the Civic Center grounds and a second facility on some other property to serve as storage for Parks and Recreation and the Sheriffs Department. As part of the new maintenance facility construct office space to be utilized by the many user groups of the Parks and Recreation Department. 5. Improve communications between the Board, Commission, administrative staff, support, front line staff, and user groups. Table 7 of the Grand Traverse County Recreation Plan is the implementation schedule for State and Federal grants for particular projects within the County. This list places projects in order of priority and lists the cost to complete each specific project. According to Parks and Recreation Director Tim Schreiner, approximately 70% of the projects have been completed or are in the process of being completed. Recreation accomplishments in Grand Traverse County include the new construction of a skateboard park located on the County Civic Center facility grounds . According to the Grand Traverse County web site, the success of this new facility has been due to the commitment of key users and adults, as well as continued support from the Grand Traverse County Parks and Recreation Commission. The cost of the project is estimated at $365,000, and approximately $270,000 has been committed so far. Trail systems in Grand Traverse County are also an important recreational feature . In 1991, the Grand Traverse County Master Trail Plan was completed with assistance of the Coastal Management Program and with funds from Grand Traverse County, the City of Traverse City, and Garfield Township. The Trail Plan inventoried all Grand Traverse County 57 Master Plan �I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I COMMUNITY FACILITIES existing trails and described the infrastructure needed to integrate ex1stmg trails to form a comprehensive trail system. Priorities and development criteria were established for segment completion. The current trail systems include the Vasa Pathway, the TART Trail, the Boardman Riverwalk, the Brown Bridge and Nature Education Reserve Trails, and the Shore to Shore Trail. In 1976, the Grand Traverse Nature Education Reserve was established through cooperation of the County and the City of Traverse City. The Reserve is located south of Traverse City in the Boardman River Valley and contains approximately 3 70 acres of undeveloped land. With the Reserve located in an increasingly urbanized area, maintaining the integrity of the natural area has become challenging. The Grand Traverse Soil and Water Conservation District was retained in 1992 to improve and maintain the Reserve, while its success has also been dependent on community volunteer support. FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES Grand Traverse County has a number of organized fire protection districts. The Metro and Rural Fire Departments serve a majority of the area in the County. The Metro District includes the Townships that border the City of Traverse City (Acme, East Bay, Garfield, but not Peninsula, which has its own fire district) and the Rural Fire Department serves all of the other Townships not included in the Metro Fire District. A majority of employees in the Metro and Rural Fire Departments are volunteer and respond via emergency pagers. Full-time staff includes inspectors, marshals, chiefs and secretaries. The Traverse City Fire Department (TCFD) has two stations within the City limits, with approximately 23 full-time staff and no volunteers. Currently, the TCFD has limited water fire and rescue ability but will be shortly expanding services to include water fire fighting and hazardous waste containment capabilities. Emergency responses by the TCFD are currently 83% to 90% medical rescue calls. This leaves the remainder to fire responses, which have been reduced in part to enforced City fire codes. Similarly, the County Fire Department performs fire code inspection for all businesses, multifamily housing developments, and industrial facilities, reducing the potential for fires. Calls to Traverse City Fire Department have been Grand Traverse County 58 Master Plan �I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I COMMUNITY FACILITIES increasing by 7% to 10% every year even though the City's population has remained relatively constant. Table 7 - Battalion Locations Grand Traverse Fire Department No. Division Name Address 1 2 GTFD Rural Office Kingsley 897 Parsons Road 115 E Blair Street 8 9 3 Rural Williamsburg 8380 Old M-72 10 4 Rural Rural Rural lnterlocken Grawn Fife Lake 10th Street 2120 Co. Hwy 633 134 Morgan Street 11 7-1 7-2 5 6 Grand Traverse County No. 59 Division Name Metro Metro Acme East Bay Address 604 2 Acme Street 110 High Lake Road 8870 N. Long Lake Rural Long Lake Road Metro Garfield 3000 Albany Street Peninsula Peninsula 14 24 7 Center Road Peninsula Peninsula 8150 Center Road Master Plan �I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PUBLIC UTILITIES CHAPTER 7. PUBLIC UTILITIES Public utilities are an important element in a growth management plan. Through the delivery of reliable and plentiful water and the safe and efficient disposal of wastewater, communities can achieve an improved quality of life for local residents. Utility systems also have the potential to aid in growth management by enabling greater densities in selected locations. Finally, and most importantly, public utility systems give the community the ability to provide effective stewardship over such important natural features as groundwater and surface water features . PUBLIC WASTEWATER SYSTEMS Public wastewater plants are found in Traverse City, Fife Lake Village and the Village of Kingsley. The regional wastewater treatment plant in Traverse City serves the City of Traverse City, East Bay, Garfield, Peninsula, Acme Townships, and Elmwood Township in Leelanau ~ - - - - -- --_- _- _- _- _ -_- __ ________ ',, ..-•, County. Due to residential, commercial, and ' I/ I ...· _,..,_ .. -· 1industrial expansion in these areas, certain . ' ·~. '' :; ~ I ' v'--J \ West Grand ('~ . ..)· · Cast Grand ' "/z_ · sewer collection lines will be at capacity in ~ Tr~-.,.,< / l two to four years, and the plant will be at full -. - .f_.;.- ·:• . H / - .~f / ·l capacity in five to ten years. Studies have .'' . .:;·.J=71·r I been completed and are currently in progress ✓ r C .' ~ - •, ··- ·,\ IJJulL1 1v1Ki.:.PJ11IJ ..• • · .• 1 • )llnk,nl~1 .• ' r •;·. ("':>.i W• . .J,• )~I in order to maximize the capacity of the r,11_-.11'11rt . . T;,. · ,1;itl: ;.,-, °'.:- 1• , A ' , / "'1 • _,, • • • ' "' I;' •• } • existing plant and explore options for future - - I _.",J . : L I -· ~ ~---- ,··,1.-·-:. .....~~:->•. ~ expansion. -_ ·. ,.-·/ ' r _ ____ .:.__ / . l ~_( ,\.Tr~11;;~ / ( { O 1 1 • \ • . ••• £ ·-'---:'r I. .......• l ti -~ .. . ·r:a. "'•i,-.-f >l:::,,)f~;-~\ , ,:~}· ;:.=!I...V i~ · . .·. 1-<' I ---~ -~t~-~-:. ·-..·,}·-rd'.a..__,•. •.'-~ \l -~f:-L1J---!'; . ~ ~--ii:J ' ···:-;...,.-·_· -1 ._:;\ !.oft' --~~- :1. ,--.'i~ 0 "'.J ·-..<j~ -, ·· ~ f • '.• ·,,. l :-.,. ,}11 .,.:,,. r, ·, 1, ."t1 1 · ~-~ ~, - "°TFf'" , vr · . . 1: '·. ·.', }, ~ I . . , . ._,_( , ·. <-:-.1 · .. : ~· - -\ti. ;. ·. · ,· .· • : • {1( J'r/ , 1 • -. ~ 1 I . rADf)of$,:,w . orcd.\rOll~ ~ j 0 0 ~":l !S ... 11ntJl l.tuu'ld111v &l'Yffl Un1111 - to 1 , _.;:'-,: ; , I;,_, -. ' •," , -•, Community meetings conducted in 1999 and 2000 focused on gaining citizen and consultant input and have produced a number of possible solutions for future wastewater treatment in Grand Traverse County. 12 These included the following: Source: Grand Traverse County Website Grand Traverse County ♦ Maximize the use of the existing plant through internally upgrading the facility. This option will increase the capacity of wastewater treatment and will improve the quality of the water discharged from the plant. Equipment upgrades and modifications tl1at need to occur, whether the upgrade is completed or not, will also be part of this option. The estimated cost for this upgrade is 12 Grand Traverse County Website, July 2001. 60 Master Plan �I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PUBLIC UTILITIES approximately $28 million. These costs will be shared by all jurisdictions utilizing the system through an increase in the monthly sewer rate. At this time, almost 75%, or over 20,000 homes in Grand Traverse County are utilizing on site septic systems. ♦ Water Conservation. Implementation of educational, financial incentives, and technical assistance programs that focus on reducing volume and strength of wastewater. Research is currently being completed by different governmental units to determine the most effective techniques for water conservation. ♦ Satellite Plants. Development of at least two plants that will connect to the existing collection and treatment system. Proposed sites are on the west and east side of the Boardman River and will be phased to match demand and will provide room for future expansion. Septage Treatment. This option would include development of satellite septage treatment plants that would reduce cost for sewer and on-site system users. Grand Traverse County has instituted a septage treatment program, which includes local units of government geared towards aggressively addressing the issue of septage and holding tank disposal. At this time, all septage and holding tank waste is land applied under a permitting process established by the State of Michigan and supervised by the County Health Department. Almost 75%, or over 20,000 homes, in Grand Traverse County are utilizing on site septic systems. New home development in the County adds approximately 500 new on-site septic systems every year, increasing the need for septage disposal systems. Stricter land application regulations passed in 1995 increased standards for setbacks from residential uses and reduced volumes of application per acre. This has resulted in a reduction in the amount of land available for land application purposes. While the regional wastewater treatment plant in Traverse City is meeting the current needs of the community, it will be important to consider where, and if, new facilities should be built. The Traverse City Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. Source: Grand Traverse County Website. availability of sewer will provide opportunities for dense development, which may or may not be in the County's or Township's best interest. Grand Traverse County 61 Master Plan �I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PUBLIC UTILITIES The County has acquired property on Keystone Road for a future wastewater treatment facility. This facility is intended to service portions of the County and would be integrated as support to the existing treatment system. Planning for this facility is expected to begin in five to ten years. Kingsley has published a study of the feasibility and effect of an expansion of its wastewater plant and is currently arranging financing and design for an expanded facility. Fife Lake, located in Fife Lake Village and Township and partially in Springfield Township, Kalkaska County, is served by a public sewer. The sewer serves areas within the Village and the perimeter of Fife Lake. The population in this area is not growing as fast as other parts of the County, but many homes on the lake are evolving from seasonal cottages to year around homes. The lake is obviously the draw to the area, and the presence of a sewer will help to protect the water quality for future generations. The Village of Kingsley also has a wastewater treatment facility, which protects ground water quality and increases options for different types of development. The population in Kingsley grew from 738 in 1990 to 1,469 in 2000, representing a 99% increase in population. If the population continues to grow at this pace, it may be necessary to evaluate the limitations and future options for this community sewer system. Kingsley has published a study of the feasibility and effect of such an expansion and is currently arranging financing and design for an expanded facility. A sewer alternatives study was completed in 1997 for the area commonly known as Forest Lakes located in East Bay Township (i.e., Spider and Arbutus Lakes). 13 This study was initiated because of the dense single family development around the lakes which utilizes on-site wastewater disposal. As the natural beauty of the lakes and the rolling, wooded terrain continue to draw new homes, East Bay Township residents questioned the potential impact on the lakes of a continuation of this approach to wastewater disposal. The study identified several alternatives that may be implemented including a major sewer extension to serve the area, a new community sewer system and a continuation of the status quo. 13 Grand Traverse County Gourdie/ Frasier & Associates, Inc., Sewer Facility Alternatives for Forest Lakes Area of East Bay Township, June 1997. 62 Master Plan �I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PUBLIC UTILITIES PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS Public water systems serve the City of Traverse City and portions of East Bay Township, Garfield Township, Peninsula Township, and Elmwood Township. The Village of Kingsley and Blair Township also maintain public water systems. In addition to public water suppliers in these areas, there are also smaller private water systems that have been developed for specific developments. Water to serve these systems is drawn from both surface and ground water sources. The City of Traverse City utilizes water from the East Arm of the Grand Traverse Bay and also provides water to Garfield Township. Garfield Township is currently consuming an average of approximately three million gallons per day, and Traverse City has an annual average of around six million gallons a day. During the summer season, water usage has a tendency to increase due to irrigation and other summer activities. Further, pumps are adjusted appropriately for peak demand times throughout the day. East Bay T ownship, Blair Township and the Village of Kingsley along with other private systems such as Holiday East, Hope Village, Timberlee, Underwood Farms, and Cherry Ridge utilize groundwater supplies. The Grand Traverse County Department of Public Works monitors these wells for contaminants and produces annual Drinking Water Quality Reports. These reports indicate that the water supply is plentiful and safe. Grand Traverse County 63 Master Plan �I I I I I TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER 8. TRANSPORTATION Transportation networks have historically played a "driving" role in the growth, development and pattern of land uses in Grand Traverse County and throughout the Country. Major transportation elements include roads and highways, airports, railroads and mass transit facilities. Sidewalks, bike paths and off-road vehicle routes play a lesser role in the traditional transportation network. The following is a summary of the available data of transportation networks in Grand Traverse County. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The main ground transportation routes to and from the County include I-75, US-131, and US-31. The M-72 route serves as a main east-west route from I-75, to US-131, through Traverse City and westward to the beaches of Lake Michigan. M-22 serves the Leelanau Peninsula area and allows direct access to the City of Traverse City from the north. According to the 1995 TC-TALUS 14 Long Range Plan, all of these transportation routes, including most major local routes, experience more traffic than they were originally designed for in the summer months with heavy tourist traffic. The TCTALUS Plan is currently being updated with expected completion in 2003. Traffic congestion is a growing concern in the County. NEW ROAD PIANS The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) produces Five Year Road and Bridge Programs for each region of the State. Grand Traverse County falls into the "north region," which includes 24 counties in the northern lower peninsula. The major State highways in this region include I-75, US-27, US-23, US-131, and US-31. The plan recognizes that quality transportation routes to and throughout this area are essential to Michigan's year-round tourism industry. The 2001-2005 Five-Year Program states that more than 15 miles of passing relief lanes are planned in the region, 1.8% of the bridges are 14 Grand Traverse County TC-TALUS is the Traverse City Transportation and Land Use, a local organization dedicated to transportation planning in the northwest region of Michigan. 64 Master Plan �I I I TRANSPORTATION scheduled for repairs, and that more than $230 million will be invested into the north region over the five-year period. Targeted corridor improvement strategies that are being developed and implemented through this program include M-72 between Grayling and Traverse City. Improving access management, reconstruction and widening selected locations along M-72 in Grand Traverse County are components of a long-term strategy to improve this heavily traveled connection between 1-75 and US-31. Some of the more specific improvements in the Grand Traverse County area are li.5ted below: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ♦ Cass Road bridge replacement. ♦ Capacity Improvement Research on M-72 including stretches between US-31 to east of Lautner Road, east of Lautner Road to west of Arnold Road, west of Arnold Road to east of old M-72, and on US-131 from south of the Manistee River to M-113. ♦ Passing relief lanes on M-113 two miles east of Kingsley are scheduled for 2004. ♦ Road resurfacing on M-37 from south of the County line to M-113. ♦ Passing relief lanes along M-3 7 from south of Vance Road to north ofUS-31 are scheduled for 2003. ♦ Bridge reconstruction at the Traverse City State Park under pedestrian overpass on US-31 ♦ Road resurfacing is scheduled for US-31 and M-37 south of south Airport Road north to Silver Lake in 2001. TRANSPORTATION P LANS In 1995, TGTALUS formed a Long Range Transportation Land Use Plan. The goals of the Plan are as follows: Grand Traverse County ♦ Help build community consensus around transportation and land use and projects plan. ♦ Advocate an intermodal transportation network that enhances local prosperity and safety. ♦ Promote future land use and transportation development that reduces demand on the road system and preserves community character. 65 a regional Master Plan �I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TRANSPORTATION Land use alternatives are presented which include two concepts to potentially ease the pressure on County road system. ♦ Preserve the environmental, agricultural, and open space assets of the area. ♦ Encourage the best use of the existing transportation network, while investigating the funding for transportation improvements. The TC-Talus Plan provides details on all of the existing transportation services within the County, describes different management systems and explains traffic modeling techniques used to determine road systems that may be deficient in handling the traffic volume anticipated. With deficiencies identified, land use alternatives are presented which include two concepts to potentially ease the pressure on the County's road system, both of which were supported in the 1996 Master Plan: 1. Village Center: Small village centers develop in the rural areas around Traverse City. 2. Urban Growth Boundary: Determine a boundary around Traverse City, which separates urban and rural services. This concept allows higher density and more intense land uses within the boundary and low density residential outside the boundary. Public utilities would be a major determinate on where the boundary would be drawn. Road improvement alternatives, transit alternatives, railroad possibilities, were all discussed with the pros and cons of each alternative noted. The final section of the plan recommends a number of programmed alternatives (options) for the study area. This document is currently in the process of being updated. A key project examined in the TC-TALUS Long Range Transportation Land Use Plan is the long-term plan to form a circumferential roadway to relieve east-west congestion in the City. An important element of that network is the proposed new bridge over the Boardman River resulting in a connection between Hartman and Hammond Roads in Garfield Township. The environmental impact statement for that project has received tentative Federal approval, and the Road Commission is initiating design activities. In addition, the Road Commission, together with Garfield Township and East Bay Township, have cooperated in a corridor planning exercise to provide for appropriate land use tools for this area of the proposed new artery. Grand Traverse County 66 Master Plan �I I I TRANSPORTATION TRAFFIC VOLUME Increased traffic is typically a direct result of a growing population. The Grand Traverse County Road Commission keeps a tally of vehicle counts at specific locations in the County, which may provide essential data when assessing future capacity of a road. Table 8 illustrates some of the areas that experience high traffic counts along with their low count areas. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 8 - Average Daily Volume High Volume Road Name Location 100' SE OF US-31 THREE MILE ROAD 0.1 MILE E OF US M-72 31 LOGANS South Airport LANDING-E BOUND 250' NE OF M-37 M-37 (GARFIELD RD) Garfield IAT BOON Peninsula 750' S OF M-37 500' E OF US-31 14th Street INBOUND BWTUS31 & Three Mile PARSONS BWT3 &4 MILE Hammond Keystone Beitner Low Volume Count 50,000 22,400 22,224 Location 300' NE OF M72 - SW DIRECTION 0.1 MILE E OF BATES 200' E OF SILVER LAKE Count 10,700 19,700 11,635 15,100 200' N OF ANDERSON ST 10,100 20,550 14,590 13,843 NIA* NIA* NIA* NIA* 500' E OF M-31WBOUND BWTPARSONS &SAIRPORT WOFHIGH LAKE 400' S OF BIRMLEY 11,773 NIA* NIA* 18,690 14,863 1000' N OF RIVER 14,733 500' E OF US-31 INBOUND 13,843 15,416 10,650 11,564 Source: T.C. TALUS. *In these locations only one count was performed. ,I Grand Traverse County 67 Master Plan �I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TRANSPORTATION CHERRY CAPITAL AIRPORT The Cherry Capital Airport serves not only Grand Traverse County but also the entire northwest Michigan region with modern air travel. It is located at the southern edge of the City of Traverse City, adjoining East Bay Township and contains approximately 1,353 acres in total. The facility, served by American Eagle, Northwest, United Express, Northwest Airlink, and Midwest Express, is under construction for the expansion the terminal. The expansion was warranted when there were more flights than ramps available, creating inefficiency. Air passenger travel increased by over 75% in ten years. The passenger travel through the Cherry Capital Airport in 1990 was 229,361 and increased to 401,803 in 2000. This represents a 75.2% increase in air travel for over the ten-year period. This relationship far surpasses the County population increase of 21 %, illustrating the expanding demand for air travel. In 199 5, the airport was the sixth largest in Michigan with over 200 regularly scheduled flights weekly. Table 9- MDOT Measures of Michigan Air Carrier Demand-Total Scheduled Passengers Community Traverse City Lansing Grand Rapids State Total Jan-90 Jul-90 12,432 21,598 50,822 39,727 128,295 107,199 1,848,659 2,807,256 Jan-00 Jul-00 1990 Total 2000 Total 31,516 57,164 229,361 401,803 53,363 43,407 528,719 656,703 119,262 170,509 1,386,501 1,905,236 2,260,116 3,671,370 25,034,268 40,528,139 % Increase 19902000 75.2% 24.2% 37.4% 61.9% Table 9 illustrates that growth in passenger volume at Cherry Capital Airport outpaced that of other regional facilities between 1990 and 2000. Cherry Capital Airport also experiences strong seasonal travel with passenger volumes increasing by almost 84% from January to July 2000. This is a good indication that the County has a strong influx of summer season tourists, residents, and business activity. Grand Traverse County 68 Master Plan �I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TRANSPORTATION With the demand in flight services to the Grand Traverse region, a new $4 7 .6 million terminal is under construction to provide additional flight service and increased passenger amenities. The new terminal will feature a restaurant with outdoor seating, gift shop, lounge, rental car service, and five additional gates with room to expand to ten. The new terminal will include horizontal architecture elements and stained glass. Due to surrounding land uses, no further runway expansions are planned for the facility. The Traverse City Area Chamber of Commerce reported that a recent MDOT study credits the airport with adding about $110 million in economic activity in the Grand Traverse region. 15 This was measured by wages paid to airport workers, fuel sold, passengers brought in as well as "spin off' spending. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION In 2000, total ridership using BATA increased by 18% to about 390,000 Public Transportation is available in Grand Traverse County through the Bay Area Transportation Authority (BATA). This public transportation service was established in 1985 when the City of Traverse City Dial-A-Ride and the former Leelanau County Public Transit combined to create an organization that serves both counties. In addition to its regular service, BATA provides transportation for the Headstart Program, senior center, and essential services for those with disabilities. BATA currently operates seven days a week with 42 vehicles and eighty employees. In 1999, BATA vehicles drove 1,293,630 miles and served over 330,066 passengers. In 2000, total ridership increased by 18% to about 390,000. This amounts to slightly more than 2% of the adult population of the County. BATA is primarily a curb to curb service throughout both counties but does serve the Traverse City area with a continuous flow system Monday through Friday. This relatively continuous flow system is known as "The Cherriot." The system is also designed to cater to contract business and schools. 15 Grand Traverse County Traverse City Area Chamber of Commerce, Gmnd Traverse Business, August 2000. 69 Master Plan �I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I COMMUNITY OPINIONS CHAPTER 9. COMMUNITY OPINIONS In 1991, Grand Traverse County commissioned a scientific survey of the opinions of community residents regarding the pace, form and content of growth and development facing the community. The results of that survey formed the basis for Focus 2020: A County Master Plan. It was important to re-assess community opinions to determine the degree the perspectives of the community had shifted. In the completion of this updated Plan, it was important to re-assess community opinions to determine the degree the perspectives of the community had shifted over the intervening ten years. Therefore, in May 2001, the Grand Traverse County Planning Commission issued opinion surveys to a random sample of registered voters in the County for the purpose of gathering public opinions relative to growth and development. This Chapter presents the findings of that survey. It includes a summary of its findings both in terms of the quantified data received and an analysis of the significance of the conclusions plus the survey methodology. For a more comprehensive presentation of the findings and the survey methodology, the reader is referred to the survey report. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The following summarize the primary findings of the survey. 1. A total rate of response of 24.2% was achieved, which is considered more than adequate for reliable results. adequate for reliable results with a level of confidence of plus or minus 5%. The total population represented by the survey was 1,826 persons. This is about 2.4% of the County's 2000 population. 16 Responses represented 1,470 adults and 356 children under the age of eighteen. 2. 16 Grand Traverse County A total of 3,000 forms were mailed to registered voters in the County. Of the total of 3,000 surveys issued, a total of 726 were returned by the cut-off date of May 25, 2001. This results in a rate of return of 24.2%, which is considered more than Since the sample was drawn from all 56,849 registered voters, it only included adults of voting age whom have made the effort to register to vote. The sample was relatively representative of the geographic distribution of the population of the County, as indicated by the following table: U.S. Census Bureau, Compiled by the Michigan Information Center 70 Master Plan �I I I I I COMMUNITY OPINIONS Table 10. Responses by Jurisdiction Community Acme Township Blair Township East Bay Township Fife Lake Township Garfield Township Grant Township Green Lake Township Long Lake Towns hip Mayfield Township Paradise Township Peninsula Township Traverse City Union Township Whitewater Township I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3. 2000 Population Percent of Co. 4,332 5.6% 6,448 9,919 1,517 13,840 847 5,009 7,648 1,271 4,191 5,265 14,383 417 2,467 8.3% 12.8% 2.0% 17.8% 1.1% 6.5% 9.8% 1.6% 5.4% 6.8% 18.5% 0.5% 3.2% Percent of Responses 5.3% 5.8% 13.4% 2.3% 16.5% 1.6% 5.3% 8.1% 1.5% 2.7% 12.8% 18.0% 0.7% 2.0% Respondents were asked to select the two most important reasons they chose to live where they do. "Close to Nature, Good Neighborhood, and Rural Lifestyle" topped the list of reasons with 24.6% (n=263), 16.4% (n=l 76) and 16.4% (n= 17 5), respectively. The following list presents the responses in order of frequency of selection: Reason Close to nature Good neighborhood Rural lifestyle Safe area Close to downtown Good schools Close to shopping 24.6% 16.4% 16.4% 13.6% 8.1% 6.4% 5.9% n* 263 176 175 146 87 69 63 Quality housing Suburban livestyle 5.4% 3.1% 58 33 % * n - Raw numeric responses. Grand Traverse County 71 Master Plan �I I I I I I I I I COMMUNITY OPINIONS 4. When asked for opinions concerning the pace of growth in the County, nearly three of four (74%, n=527) indicated that they believe the Grand Traverse Area is growing "too quickly." However, one in five (21.9%, n=l56) believe the pace of growth is "about right." This may be consistent with responses to Questions 15 and 16 in which respondents were asked to rate the effectiveness of efforts of government in general and their local governments to guide growth. Less than one-quarter (23.4%, n= 168) indicated that they felt the efforts of government, in general, were "excellent" or "good," while 45.5% (n=326) believed those efforts would be rated as "fair," and 26.4% (n= 189) gave government, in general, "poor" marks. 5. Respondents were asked to indicate their level of concern about thirteen issues or conditions in the community. Responses are ranked in Figure 15 on the next page, based on the average overall score with the higher scores indicating a greater percentage of "very concerned" for each issue. Increased traffic congestion was ranked most highly with 60.27% (n=432) responding that they were "very concerned" about this matter. "Other" concerns listed by 124 respondents may be found in the survey report. Nearly three-quarters (74%, n:537) believe the Grand Traverse area is growing "too quickly." I I I I I Clearly the impacts of growth and development on residents' lifestyle and natural features were in the forefront of most responses. I I I I I Grand Traverse County 72 Master Plan �I I I I COMMUNITY OPINIONS Figure 14. How concerned are you about the following: Issue and (Rank) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Increased traffic congestion (1) Pollution of water resources (2) Development in open lands and natural areas (3) Ground water quality (4) Over-development of the lakes area (5) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Loss of private property rights (7) Availability of affordable housing (8) I I I I I I I Conversion of farms into house lots (6) Failing septic systems (9) I Increasing number of tourists (10) Lack of public sewer (11) 1 Lack of skilled workers (12) Lack of public water system (13) I Not Concerned 6. I I I I to Very Concerned The County sought respondent opinions with regard to certain steps that could be taken to guide growth. These were structured as "agree-disagree" statements. Strongest agreement was shown with regard to the statement: "I support increased controls in land use to protect water quality in the rivers, lakes and the Bay" with 84.8% (n=613) strongly agreeing or agreeing. This was followed by 75.7% (n=542) strongly agreeing or agreeing that "The County needs programs to prevent the conversion of large tracts of farmland into residential or commercial developments." On the other hand, strongest disagreement was found with the statement: "I am willing to pay higher taxes to purchase and protect sensitive areas threatened by development," with 4 7.5% Grand Traverse County 73 Master Plan �I I I I I I I I I I I I COMMUNITY OPINIONS (n=339) disagreeing or strongly disagreeing with that statement. On balance, however, it should be noted that nearly the same percentage (45.4%, n=324) agreed or strongly agreed with that statement. 7. With regard to housing, the survey asked which type(s) of housing the County should encourage. About half of the responses favored single-family homes on suburban scale lots with 23.2% (n=223) favoring lots of 1 to 3 acres and 27.0% (n=259) supporting ¼ to 1 acre lots. Larger lot (greater than 3 acres) single-family housing was favored by only 9.5% (n=91). Apartments and duplexes were favored by 14.4% (n= 138) and 7.2% (n=69) supported a mix of housing and commercial uses. 8. A similar question was asked with regard to commercial development. A sizable number of the respondents (n= 183) selected "None" in response to the question, "What types of commercial development should be encouraged." Of those types of establishments rece1vmg sizable responses, Neighborhood Shops (28.8%, n= 151) and Sit Down Restaurants (24.8%, n= 130) received the most interest. In addition, a few (n=39) took advantage of the write-in blank to express their ideas concerning the types of commercial services needed in the Township. 9. Respondents were asked for their impressions of the importance of various issues facing the community and the priority those issues should be given by local officials. These were rated on an ordinal scale ranging from 5 for "very important" to 1 for "not important." In addition, because an arbitrary numeric interval value of 1 was assigned to each level of the scale, it is possible to state an arithmetic average for the results. Figure 16 presents the selections in order of importance as indicated by the survey: Of those types of establishments receiving sizable responses, Neighborhood Shopping Centers and Sit Down Restaurants received the most interest. I I I Grand Traverse County 74 Master Plan �I I I I I I I I I I I I COMMUNITY OPINIONS Figure 15. How important are the following: Issue and (Rank) Protect surface water (1) I Protect ground water (2) I I Preserve open space (3) I I I I I I I I I I Preserve scenic view (4) Improving traffic flow (5) I Preserving farmlands (6) I I I I Improving E/W traffic (7) I I Reducing sprawl (8) I Support working farm (9) I I I I I I I I I ! ! I I I I Improving N/S traffic (10) Pedestrian friendly (11) Hsng. for young faml. (12) I Hsng. for seniors (13) I I I Increased access to lakes (14) I I Estab. Ped/bike trails (1 5) I I Expand industrial development (16) I Expand office development (17) Not Important 10. I I I I Grand Traverse County to Very Important Respondents were asked for their impressions as to whether various services and conditions in the County had improved, stayed the same or gotten worse over the past ten years. According to the survey, "Bus service in the area" was most improved, with 46.9% (n= 331) indicating it had improved. This was followed by "Landscaping of commercial areas" and "Availability of recreation facilities" with 45.0% (n= 318) and 30.2% 3 (n=212), respectively, indicating these conditions had improved. On the other hand, the survey indicated that "Traffic congestion in the City" had gotten worse, with 89 .6% (n=640) so indicating. This was followed by "Traffic congestion in your community" and "Availability of affordable housing for young families" with 73.4% (n=523) and 55.5% (n=391), respectively, reporting these conditions had gotten worse. 75 Master Plan �I I I I I I I COMMUNITY OPINIONS COMPARISON WITH 1991 SURVEY The following paragraphs compare the results of the 1991 community opinion survey with the current effort. While the methodology of these two surveys varied somewhat, both focused on resident opinions of growth and development patterns and the impact of the resulting changes on the community. It is possible, therefore, to measure some shifts in community perceptions and to draw some conclusions about changing opinions. The 1991 survey was distributed to a smaller sample of residents (350) selected at random; but, through extensive follow-up, that effort achieved a total response rate of 90%, involving 315 County households. The 2001 effort involved a sample of 3,000 registered voters selected at random. Other than a newspaper article, no followup effort was attempted to increase the rate of response. The resulting responses amounted to 726 households for an overall rate of response of 24.2%. Both techniques used generated a 95% confidence level. I I I I I I I I I In the 2001 survey, care was taken to seek opinions concerning many of the issues addressed in the 1991 survey. As conditions change in the County, this approach will help to measure shifts in opinions and concerns. The following table compares seven issues or concerns highlighted in the 1991 survey, with responses expressed in the current effort. For the purposes of this comparison, "don't know" or "no opinion" responses have been dropped. Table 11. SIMILAR SURVEY RESPONSE CATEGORIES 1991 Survey ''Major Problem" 2001 Survey ''Very Concerned" 1991 Survey "Minor Problem" 2001 Survey "Somewhat Concerned" 1991 Survey ''Not A Problem" 2001 Survey "Not Concerned" Pollution of water resources Loss of farmland or other open space• Increased traffic congestion Need more cooperation among governments b 44% 51% 60.2% 49.2% (F) 61.5% (0) 68.4% 28.6% (" won,e ") 40% 31% 7% 10% 4.2% 12.5% (F) 7.3% (0) 4.9% 4.3% ("·improved") Availability of affordable housing 58% 34.7% 35.6% (F) 30.4% (0) 26.4% 40.0% ("about the same") 35.4% Issue or Concern 80% 38% 33.8% 16% 34% 25% 4% 7% 12% 24.0% Table 11 (cont'd.) SIMILAR SURVEY RESPONSE CATEGORIES 1991 Survey ''Major Grand Traverse County 2001 Survey ''Very 76 1991 Survey 2001 Survey "Somewhat 1991 Survey 2001 Survey ''Not Master Plan �I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I COMMUNITY OPINIONS Issue or Concern Unemployment c Problem" 54% Concerned" "Minor Problem" 31.2% 33% (" worse ") Concerned" "NotA Problem" 42.2% 5% Concerned" 13.4% ("·improve d") ("about the same") Increased number of 29.2% 42% 29% 32.1% 27% 35.3% tourists Notes: a In the 2001 survey, two questions were asked on this subject. The first related to conversion of farms into house lots (item 14,h) and the second related to development in open lands and natural areas (14,c). The responses for the 2001 survey are keyed (F) for the farmlands question and (0) for the open space question. b The most comparable question asked on this subject in 2001 related to whether the respondents thought cooperation among local governments had improved, gotten worse or remained the same. C The most comparable question asked on this subject in 2001 related to whether the respondents thought unemployment had improved, gotten worse or remained the same. The 1991 survey and the 2001 survey included several "agree-disagree" questions related to conditions in the County. The following table compares the responses to several of the key items relating to land use controls and development policy. Table 12. Shifts in Community Opinions Strongly Agree Disagree Agree Statement 1991 2001 1991 2001 1991 2001 There should be uniform county30% 20% 47% 46% 12% 16% wide development guidelines adopted locally. The general public should not have to pay for public improvements that are needed due to new development projects. I am willing to pay higher taxes to purchase and protect sensitive areas threatened by development. I support increased controls in land use to protect water quality in the rivers, lakes and the Bay. Grand Traverse County Strongly Disagree 1991 2001 1% 6% 36% 33% 47% 41% 9% 18% 1% 3% 12% 7% 28% 38% 30% 29% 19% 18% 43% 35% 46% 50% 6% 8% 2% 3% 77 Master Plan �I I I I I I I I I COMMUNITY OPINIONS Looking at the "strongly agree" and "agree" columns together, there appears to be some shifting of opinions regarding development regulations. For example, in 1991, 77% of the respondents agreed that there should be a uniform set of development standards adopted locally. By 2001, support has declined slightly to 66%. There also appears to be some change in attitudes regarding public investment in improvements necessitated by development. In 1991, 83% of respondents agreed that the public should not have to pay those costs; while in 2001, 74% still agree. In botl1 instances, substantial majorities support these statements, but the shifts are noteworthy. On the other hand, support for increased controls on development to protect water has not changed significantly. In 1991, 89% of the respondents agreed with this position while in 2001, 85% did. This modest change is too slight to be significant with a general survey such as this. Finally, there appears to be some slight increase in the willingness of taxpayers to pay higher taxes to preserve sensitive lands threatened by development. In 1991, 40% expressed some willingness; and by 2001, 45% were willing to support such a levy. I I Based on this relatively general survey instrument, it appears that, among the more heavily populated jurisdictions, the strongest support for additional taxation to preserve sensitive lands may be found in the City of Traverse City, Peninsula Township and Garfield Township. I I I Grand Traverse County 78 Master Plan �I I I I I I I FUTURE lAND USE PLAN SECTION III. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN The previous sections of this Master Plan provide an overview of the existing conditions in the County. For the most part, they are presented in an objective manner without judgment. However, it is also important to examine conditions and trends for the key implications they may have on the future of the Co _nty. In other words, it is important to ask and answer the question: What does it all mean? The following paragraphs present the key implications identified in the Master Plan preparation process: 1. The population will continue to grow at rates in excess of those in most of the remainder of Michigan. This implies a number of land use challenges. For example, if the County adds about 20,000 persons to its population in the next eighteen years, using current growth patterns the following are some of the statistics this growth would generate: I I I I I I Population growth implies a number of land use challenges. About 13 square miles of land will be consumed by residential development. 9,133 additional housing units, based on the 2000 average household size of 2.49 persons. ♦ 87,220 additional automobile trips per day. 17 ♦ 3.3 million gallons per day of additional wastewater flow. 18 ♦ 5,000 additional school-age children 2. A general analysis of the changes in land cover together with the residential building permit information reveals that low density residential development patterns continue in the County. About 566 new residential building permits were issued annually in the 1990s. In addition, the land cover change analysis reveals that about 5,400 acres of formerly vacant or agricultural land was converted to residential uses during the same period. Therefore, the average land area consumed for each new residence was about 0.96 acres. Continuing this pattern to accommodate the 9,133 new housing units cited above means that about 8,700 acres, or about 13 square miles of land, will be consumed by residential development. 17 18 Grand Traverse County ♦ Instirute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation, 5 th Edition, 1991 Lindeburg, Michael, R., P.E., Civil Engineering Reference Manual, 1989. This text suggests an average factor of 165 gallons per day, per capita. 80 Master Plan �I I I I I I FUTIJRE LAND USE PLAN 3. The data in the Community Profile is somewhat less explicit with regard to new families and where they are choosing to locate. However, based on the median age of the population, it is clear that some of the more rural areas of the County (e.g., Paradise, Blair and Mayfield Townships) have a generally younger population. In addition, in Paradise and Blair Townships, the percentage of the population under 18 years of age exceeds that nf the County overall. It may be speculated that a greater share of the population is electing to begin families in these relatively rural areas of the County, possibly in response to rising home values in the more urbanized portions of the community. I I I I I The marketplace continues to seek very low density and isolated development. 4. As discussed in the 1996 Plan and in numerous public media since, the eventual construction of the connection between Hartman and Hammond Roads will improve traffic flow in the City and along South Airport Road, and it will generate the potential for further outward development of the urbanized area of the community. Whether this roadway becomes a platform for further sprawl or a confining element to guide growth will depend on local and County land use planning and the will of local jurisdictions to implement them. 5. There has been continued public discussion about the problems inherent in low density and sprawling patterns of development. However, the continued outward progression of housing development and the growth of traffic volumes suggests that the marketplace continues to seek very low density and isolated development sites. 6. The proposed plans to expand wastewater treatment capacity present the County with an excellent opportunity to use this important utility to guide growth. This topic and the need to place on-site disposal systems on an equal footing with public systems were both addressed as a part of the effort to develop the 1996 Plan. Now, six years later, decision-makers are nearing decisions to expand the existing wastewater treatment plant and to develop satellite plants and/or a septage treatment facility. Therefore, the time is ripe to act on the opportunity to use these major public investments to aid the growth management process. Grand Traverse County 81 Master Plan �•I • •II FUTURE lAND USE PLAN Local endorsement of the Plan implies political support for an over-arching land use framework. II This is a very important development, and it implies continued political support for an over-arching land use framework that embodies a consensus view of the County. By working cooperatively, each jurisdiction has signaled its willingness to do its share in managing and guiding the growth that faces the County. I I Deviations in local plans from the growth management guidelines may be the result of decisions made either without consideration of the County Plan, or with due consideration and a subsequent rejection of it. I I I I 8. Nevertheless, it is clear that, in some instances, local communities have taken land use decisions that work against the growth management guidelines of the County Plan. This may be due to a number of factors. A few of the local plans and zoning ordinances predate the 1996 Focus 2020 Plan and have not been adjusted in recognition of its growth management guidance. It is possible that new challenges or opportunities have developed in the six years since the adoption of the County Plan, which are now reflected in local policies but not at the County level. It is also possible that the 1996 County Plan, as a general guidance document, did not provide sufficient precision in its guidance and the differences result from refinement of the growth management strategies at the local level. Finally, it may be that the deviations identified are simply the result of decisions made at the local level either without consideration of the guidance provided by the County Plan or with due consideration and a subsequent rejection of that guidance. 9. Based on community opinions, it appears that the County residents are becoming slightly more tolerant of the impacts of growth and development on tl1e community and local quality of life. This is reflected in slight shifts in preferences and concerns that were measured in the 2001 Community Opinion Survey when compared to the 1991 instrument. While there is still significant concern about loss of farmlands and open space and increased traffic and congestion, in some areas the level of concern seems to have moderated. I I I 7. Although not discussed in depth in this report, it is important to remember that planning at the County level must be carried out from a very general perspective. Without zoning authority, County land use plans are, at best, advisory in nature assisting to guide local decision-making. In Grand Traverse County, this has been the case, as well. But when the 1996 Plan was adopted, all of the local jurisdictions adopted resolutions of support for its policies and many undertook land use plan updates to embrace its growth management provisions. Grand Traverse County 82 Master Plan �. ~- I ~ FUTIJRE lAND USE PIAN These paragraphs present an outline of the likely results of a continuation of tl1e current trends. The remaining steps in the planning process is to determine what a preferred future for the County would be and what steps are needed to achieve it. The remaining sections of this plan seek to respond to these questions. •II II II I II I I I I I I I I I Grand Traverse County 83 Master Plan �GOALS AND OBJECTIVES CHAPTER 10. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The goals and objectives form the policy foundation for this County Master Plan . The following statements outline a preferred future for Grand Traverse County and its residents. These statements include goals, which may be thought of as a description of a desired end state or outcome. These are supported by known objectives, or milestones, that must be reached if the goal is to be achieved. The overall time horizon for these statements is about twenty-five years. However, some of the goals may be reached in less time, and others may prove to be more elusive. Nevertheless, the Planning Commission believes that these goals establish a framework for a future in Grand Traverse County that is preferable to a continuation of current land use, economic and environmental trends. I I I I I I I I I I I I As a part of the effort to develop this Plan, the County Planning Commission undertook an extensive effort to obtain residents' opinions about the preferred future of the community. The following goals and objectives were informed by the input of residents attending two open house presentations of the Community Profile Report and the Community Opinion Survey, as well as the content of the survey itself. Achieving many of the objectives outlined in this section will require the cooperative effort of many agencies and individuals in the County. The inclusion of a particular objective statement in this document is intended as a signal of the County's support for activities that advance that objective. The work to carry out specific activities may be the province of agencies or organizations other than the County. Therefore, these expressions of support are consistent with the role of the County Planning Commission to promote and provide support and assistance to others as well as to carry out implementation of certain activities, when appropriate. 1. Grand Traverse County will have clean air and water resources and significant areas of open space, shoreline, wetlands and Grand Traverse County 84 Master Plan �GOALS AND OBJECTIVES woodlands to provide natural wildlife habitat and to ensure that current and future generations will enjoy the benefits of the natural features of the area. OBJECTIVES: a. II I I I b. Complete the inventory of areas of important natural features. c. Identify significant institutional and regulatory obstacles to effective natural feature protection and strategies to address them. d. Develop and promote the implementation of a County wetlands protection ordinance aimed at parcels of less than five acres. I I e. Strengthen the current technical assistance program designed to help private landowners manage their timber and wildlife resources. f. I Develop and implement programs to help communities, subdivision associations and others to establish municipal wellhead protection programs. 2. The community's commitment to its natural features will be reflected in effective measures to preserve, enhance and improve its open space, shoreline, wetlands and woodlands as well as its lakes, streams and groundwater. I I I I I I I I Using the Mitchell Creek study as a model, develop and implement practical and workable standards for impervious cover and natural feature protection to be applied on a watershed basis. OBJECTIVES: a. Inventory potential financial resources to support the preservation of features. b. Develop and implement an on-going program to inform and educate residents, businesses and government pertaining to the value of natural feature preservation and protection. c. Foster and encourage grass-roots efforts to implement natural feature preservation and protection act1v1t1es, such as open space easements and development rights donations to conservancies. Grand Traverse County 85 Master Plan �•II GOALS AND OBJECTIVES II d. Establish a program that promotes and demonstrates low-input, sustainable landscaping practices to residential riparians. Such practices may include emphasis on the use of native vegetation and natural fertilization techniques. •I e. II 3. The natural resource-based industries of the County, such as agriculture, recreation, forestry and mining, will sustain and strengthen those resources while maintaining healthy and viable economic enterprises. I I OBJECTIVES: a. Work with the Federal and State Legislature and other communities seeking to preserve large tracts of undeveloped lands to consider and adopt equitable and effective land division standards in accord with rational development goals. I I b. Develop and implement an on-going education program on the importance of efforts to preserve non-fragmented parcels to support resource-based industries. c. I I I I I I - Help local governmental units to develop approaches to regulating innovative value-added agriculture enterprises (agritourism, processing, wine tasting, etc.) in a manner that will allow farm owners to enhance net farm income while maintaining the attractive rural character of the community. 4. The manufacturing and processing operations of local businesses will be characterized by sustainable practices intended to protect and preserve natural features. O BJECTIVES: a. Develop and promote the implementation of programs of raw material and industrial by-product resource recovery in conjunction with the Traverse Bay Economic Development Corporation. b. Promote the implementation of business attraction programs that target industries and businesses that employ sustainable manufacturing practices. I I Develop and implement an on-going program to inform and educate residents and homeowners on the need for property septic tank drainfield inspection and maintenance. Grand Traverse County 86 Master Plan �I I I GOALS AND OBJECTIVES B. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION 1. A safe and efficient system of roadways and public transportation will serve the citizens of the County, providing effective linkages with non-motorized facilities and between and among neighborhoods, shopping and employment areas. OBJECTIVES: a. Expand and strengthen the role of the Master Plan and Planning Commission in reviewing and approving road plans, roadway funding priorities and new development that impacts roadway capacity. b. Explore impact fees to offset the public costs for new infrastructure resulting from new development. c. Develop programs and policies to encourage new and in-fill development that can be served by existing roads with available capacity. 2. Transportation facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists and other modes of non-motorized transit will enable residents to commute to jobs, shopping and for recreation in a safe and convenient manner. I I I I I I I OBJECTIVES: a. Update the County non-motorized plan to address current conditions and the objectives of the Master Plan. b. Develop standards to require non-motorized connections and walkable designs in all new development. c. Develop and implement an on-going program to inform and educate residents, businesses and government of the benefits of non-motorized modes of transportation. 3. The residents and business of Grand Traverse County will enjoy efficient and effective air, surface, rail and marine connections to regional markets and population centers. OBJECTIVES: I a. Work with the Regional Airport Commission to develop and implement a program to improve and expand commercial air service to the Grand Traverse Area. Grand Traverse County 87 Master Plan �I I I I I I I I GOALS AND OBJECTIVES b. Work with railroads and shipping interests to expand freight and passenger service to the community. c. Develop and promote the implementation of plans to facilitate the rail consolidation goals of the Traverse City Area Chamber of Commerce in accord with the goals and objectives of the Master Plan. d. Adopt and implement programs to increase public awareness of the advantages of Great Lakes shipping and activities related to tourism within the County. 4. Transportation elements will be discretely designed to compliment and support natural features, land uses and human activities and to function efficiently. OBJECTIVES: a. I I I Develop and implement design guidelines to improve roadway screening from areas of human activity. b. Develop and implement programs to foster the use of access management techniques in local site plan review. c. I I I I Implement programs to proactively plan and encourage the completion of transportation improvements guided by the future land use and growth management plan of the County Master Plan. C. UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE. 1. Grand Traverse County will be served with abundant clean water, power, fuel and communication linkages to support the requirements of a vibrant and active community. OBJECTIVES: a. Prepare a short- and long-term projection of water, power, fuel and communication needs of the community and an evaluation of existing and projected capacities to meet those needs. b. Develop and implement programs I I I I to assure abundant services. 2. Wastewater and storm water treatment and solid waste management will serve the broader land use goals of the community through resource recovery and natural feature protection techniques. Grand Traverse County 88 Master Plan �--------- II GOALS AND OBJECTIVES I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I OBJECTIVES: a. Support the implementation of programs related to solid waste resource recovery. b. Develop and promote the implementation of stonn water pollution prevention initiatives on a watershed basis. 3. Utility services will be extended strategically to encourage growth and development that is consistent with local and county land use goals and objectives. OBJECTIVES: a. Develop programs and policies to encourage new development that can be served by existing utility systems with available capacity. b . Develop programs and policies to discourage new development that fosters the premature extension of utilities contrary to land use policies. D. PLANNING AND REGIONAL COOPERATION. 1. Grand Traverse County will play a leadership role with the State of Michigan in promoting regional cooperation and mutual support between and among the communities and school districts of Northwest lower Michigan to strengthen the entire region. O BJECTIVES: a. Support and encourage an overall general development plan for the NWMCOG area that strengthens and solidifies the respective roles of all communities. b. Complete and publish an analysis of institutional and legislative obstacles to effective regional cooperation within the five-county region including Grand Traverse, Leelanau, Benzie, Wexford, Kalkaska and Antrim Counties. 2. The County will provide leadership to facilitate the development and implementation of effective programs to encourage growth and in-fill development in areas that have the capacity in public facilities and services to support and accommodate such growth. Grand Traverse County 89 Master Plan �I I I I I I I I GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OBJECTIVES: a. Refine and institutionalize the growth management levels expressed in the County Master Plan, both around the urban areas of the County and in the vicinity of villages and hamlets in the rural portions of the community. b. Develop, support and encourage programs that provide incentives to development within the growth boundaries of the County and disincentives for growth outside those boundaries. E. AGRICULTURE AND RURAL PRESERVATION. 1. Grand Traverse County will include vibrant rural communities surrounded by healthy and sustainable agricultural enterprises. OBJECTIVES: a. Working with the various agricultural interests, develop and promote implementation of a strategic plan for the support of agricultural operations in the County. I I b. Strengthen and enhance the emerging village hamlets within the growth boundaries of the implement programs to purchase and transfer rights to preserve open lands and agriculture and centers from urban sprawl. I I I centers and County, and development protect those 2. Areas of the County important to resource-based industries, such as agriculture, recreation, forestry and mining, will be protected from conflicting land uses and preserved in large, non-fragmented parcels appropriate for those uses. OBJECTIVES: I I I I I I a. Develop and implement zoning, land division and land use standards to preserve appropriate land areas for resource-based industries. b. Develop and implement an on-going program to educate the public on the importance of resource-based industries in the region. c. Complete a study of the feasibility of a County-wide program for purchase and transfer of development rights. cl. If feasible, establish a County-wide PDR and TDR program, establish a County Farmland Preservation Board and educate Grand Traverse County 90 Master Plan �I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I GOALS AND OBJECTIVES farmers on the benefits of participating in a PDR/TDR program. F. NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING. 1. Grand Traverse County will offer a variety of environments to serve all residents with attractive, efficient and affordable homes located in safe and quiet urban neighborhoods, villages and hamlets and in rural areas. Residential areas will be located in harmony with the area's natural features and arranged to promote social interaction among neighbors. OBJECTIVES: a. Work with and support the Affordable Housing Task Force to develop and implement programs of incentives to achieve mixed use developments including affordable housing within all areas of the community. b. Strengthen and enhance the emerging village centers and hamlets within the growth boundaries of the County and implement programs to purchase and transfer development rights to preserve open lands and agriculture and protect those centers from urban sprawl. c. Develop model regulations and ordinances to regulate low-intensity home-based businesses that strengthen communities and reduce the demand on transportation systems while maintaining the attractive residential character of the County's neighborhoods. Photo courtesy of Walkable Communities, Inc. G. COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INSTITUTIONS. 1. The citizens of Grand Traverse County will enjoy and support the finest quality services delivered efficiently and effectively. OBJECTIVES: a. Develop and promote the implementation of strategic plans for all public services in the County in support of the overall goals and objectives of the Master Plan. b. Maintain an on-going communication program with the citizens of the County to enhance public understanding of and support for the financial requirements of quality public services. Grand Traverse County 91 Master Plan �I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I GOALS AND OB]ECTNES H. RECREATION. 1. Recreational opportunities in Grand Traverse County will be located in proximity to population centers and include a diverse range of outdoor and indoor activities that further the physical and mental well-being of residents and visitors. OBJECTIVES: Support the County Parks Commission as it continues to refine, maintain and implement a parks and recreation plan that supports the Master Plan. 2. Outdoor recreational facilities will be located m harmony with the area's natural features and designed to promote effective stewardship of those resources and the area's wildlife. OBJECTIVES: a. Develop and promulgate advisory guidelines for public and private recreational activities outlining sustainable recreational activities to maintain and enhance natural resources while promoting the use of those resources. b . Provide support for and encourage local units to adopt master plans and zoning that protect the integrity of the State forest lands in the vicinity of population centers. I. ECON OMIC DEVELOPMENT. 1. The vitality of Grand Traverse County will be assured through the growth of existing businesses and the addition of new business resulting in a diverse local economy balanced with an expanding population. O BJECTIVES: a. Complete a targeted industries analysis in cooperation with the Traverse Bay Economic Development Corporation to identify desirable industries that are underrepresented in the local economy and mechanisms to attract them to the County. I I I I Grand Traverse County 92 Master Plan �I I I I I GOALS AND OBJECTIVES b. Support the efforts of the Traverse Bay Economic Development Corporation to implement a business attraction program that targets industries and businesses that employ sustainable manufacturing practices and those identified in the targeted industries analysis. c. I I 2. Land use patterns and infrastructure in the County will promote a range of quality employment opportunities and clean and desirable job-producing development. I I I I I OBJECTIVES: a. Implement an on-going program to coordinate zoning and development policies with the evolving requirements for clean and desirable job-producing development. b. Prepare a short- and long-term projection of water, power, fuel and communication needs of the community and an evaluation of existing and projected capacities to meet those needs. c. I I I Develop model regulations and ordinances to regulate lowintensity home based businesses that strengthen communities and reduce the demand on transportation systems while maintaining the attractive residential character of the County's neighborhoods. J. QUALI1YOFLIFE 1. Recognizing that the growth of the area is inevitable and potentially desirable, Grand Traverse County will accommodate growth while maintaining and strengthening the qualities that make the community attractive. Such qualities include a friendly and inclusive social climate, a relaxed and casual pace of life, unspoiled natural resources, a commitment to strengthen families and a willingness to cooperate to achieve common ends. I I I I In cooperation with the Traverse Bay Economic Development Corporation, develop and implement expanded business retention activities intended to support and strengthen a diverse and vibrant local economy. OBJECTIVES: a. Grand Traverse County Develop and implement a program to educate and inform the community of the challenges and opportunities that face the community. 93 Master Plan �I I I I I GOALS AND OBJECTIVES b. Support the work of the Leadership Grand Traverse program to recruit and orient the future leadership of the community and to foster a broadly-held appreciation for the essential characteristics of the community. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Grand Traverse County 94 Master Plan �I I I I I I I I I GROWfH MANAGEMENT LEVELS CHAPTER 11. GROWTH MANAGEMENT LEVELS The Grand Traverse County Master Plan conceives of the community developing in accord with a policy of growth management. It assumes that each local jurisdiction will need to cooperate in the effort to effectively manage growth within its boundaries in accord with a broad County-wide strategy and in keeping with local objectives. It is critically important that there be a solid consensus about the needforsomelevelof growth management in the County. This strategy outlined in this Plan, as reflected in Map 12, envisions a set of policies intended to encourage the growth of "village centers" in such places as Kingsley, Fife Lake, Williamsburg, Mapleton, Karlin, Summit City and Interlachen. These villages should be encouraged to develop as smaller, self-contained communities with a broad range of economic and social amenities. In addition, green areas formed by open lands, agricultural uses and/ or forests should be used to provide buffers that will enable these centers to retain their separate identities. I I I I I I I I I I Map 11 reflects the growth management levels as defined in the 1996 Plan, and Map 12 illustrates an adjusted growth management strategy based on the work to create this Plan. A comparison of these plans reveals many similarities, but certain adjustments have been made based on the analysis completed in the current planning process. However, the fundamental tenets of Focus 2020 - A County Master Plan have been preserved. The County Planning Commission is in an ideal position to provide the policy leadership to build and maintain that consensus. Grand Traverse County It is clear that the edges of urbanized development in Grand Traverse County will need to expand. Modest increases in density (i.e., 1 to 1.5 units per acre) will be needed in some communities while planned densities within the City of Traverse City need not be increased. These shifts in development patterns can occur through a set of coordinated public policies. They will be effective, however, only if supported by the entire community, including those that may see greater short-term economic gain in sprawl. Therefore, it is critically important that there be a solid consensus about the need for some level of growth management in the County and public support for the regulatory and financial commitments needed to carry it out. The County Planning Commission is in an ideal position to provide the policy leadership to build and maintain that consensus. 96 Master Plan �I I I I I I I I I GROWTH MANAGEMENT LEVELS It is important that citizens understand the costs of the business-asusual path. In addition to the relatively obvious expenses associated with the extension of utility systems and roads and the construction of schools farther from the core, are the corollary costs of comparable facilities going underutilized in the core. In addition, costs to the private sector and to individual families are higher, as well. Increased time spent commuting from home to work, or to school or shopping consumes fuel and time that could be spent for more productive or enjoyable activities. The economic segregation that occurs in a sprawling community has both social and public policy costs which are more difficult to quantify as are the less tangible costs of a declining quality of life. A FRAMEWORK FOR GROWTI-I MANAGEMENT The growth management strategy set forth in this Master Plan is based on five distinct and yet supportive levels of growth management policies. Each is intended to set standards and growth objectives for progressively more intense development. It is recognized that this Plan can only provide guidance for growth management in each city, village or township. I I I I I I I I I I Role of Local Government ... local land use regulation in each growth management area must be reflective of the character and objectives of the local jurisdiction The specific nature of local land use regulation in each growth management area must be reflective of the character and objectives of the local jurisdiction. However, the pressures of growth and development that each jurisdiction will face will require a coordinated and managed approach if the County is to avoid the pattern of wasteful urban sprawl that has afflicted most growing areas. Therefore, the following paragraphs are intended to provide local Planning Commissions with a uniform and coordinated framework for locallyspecific land use regulation. In each instance, the overall objectives of the growth management policies are outlined and associated with the goal statements adopted by the Planning Commission as a part of the planning process. Certainly, it will take many years to realize the vision contemplated by this growth management framework. However, with the framework in place, each local land use decision will become an important part of that emerging vision. Grand Traverse County 99 Master Plan �I I I I I I I I I GROWTH MANAGEMENT LEVELS Population Growth The proposed Growth Management Map (Map 12) provides area for population growth within the County that is expected to be sufficient well into the future. As indicated below, with the approximate densities proposed, the population of the County may grow to more than 200,000 persons - or by more than 150%, without encouraging further expansion into sensitive areas. This assumes the implementation of policies to guide growth to areas that are suitable for growth. Essentially level 4 and 5 areas as defined below should have the ability to accommodate virtually all of that project growth at densities that are not significantly greater than currently in place. Therefore, the fundamental message of this plan may be that with this change, the County has planned areas for growth that should carry it virtually through the 21 st Century without further expansion of its urban and urbanizing land use areas. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED GROWfH MANAGEMENT LEVELS I I I I I I I I I I Growth Management Level 1. Sensitive Environmental Areas The purpose of policies directed at Level 1 areas is the preservation of lands that may be protected by environmental regulations or lands that are worthy of preservation because they are important to the natural character of Grand Traverse County. These are areas of the County which include important natural features such as wetlands, coastal zones and floodplains and other areas that are felt to be essential to the local natural character. The foundation of the Level 1 policies was established by the Planning Commission with the support of the Planning Advisory Council and Citizens Resource Council in the goal-setting process completed for the 1996 Plan. These policies are reaffirmed in the current Plan: Grand Traverse County will have clean air and water resources and significant areas of open space, shoreline, wetlands and woodlands to provide natural wildlife habitat and to ensure that current and future generations will enjoy the benefits of the natural features of the area. The community's commitment to its natural features will be reflected iJ1 eHective measures to preserve, enhance and Grand Traverse County 102 Master Plan �• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • GROWTH MANAGEMENT LEVELS improve its open space, shoreline, wetlands and woodlands as well as its lakes, streams and groundwater. Map 2 reflects those areas of the County where environmental regulations are in effect - primarily floodplain and wetland regulations. In addition, certain other areas that require sensitive treatment are also identified. These include smaller areas of wetlands, stream corridors, important woodlands and some viewsheds. Since the 1996 Plan, local jurisdictions were offered the opportunity to designate additional areas for inclusion in Level 1, but no such areas were suggested . While preservation of natural areas is the ultimate objective of Level 1 policies, it must be recognized that - short of public acquisition of the lands in the area - property owners have rights that must be respected . Therefore, land use policies in Level 1 areas may also encourage integration of development and natural features, to the extent possible, without significantly degrading the resource. As a general standard, this Plan suggests that overall residential densities in Level 1 areas be limited to a range of one unit per 100 acres to 150 acres. There are approximately 34,600 acres in the currently designated Level 1 areas . Assuming an average density of one unit in 125 acres, the total population in Level l areas should be less than 1,000 persons, based on an average household size of 2.5 persons . Growth Management Level 2. Rural Preservation Areas The purpose of policies directed at lands designated in Level 2 is to support local communities in their efforts to maintain their rural character while enabling some agricultural and forestry operations, where conditions are favorable. Included in the Level 2 designation are undeveloped rural lands that are generally not classified as "prime" or "unique" farmlands and which do not generally include important regulated features like wetlands or stream corridors. Also included in the Level 2 classification are State-owned lands within the Pere Marquette State Forest. Privately-owned properties in the Level 2 classification may be significantly threatened by development pressures if they have good access or views, since there are few other competing uses for these lands currently. Grand Traverse County 103 Master Plan �• • • • • • • • GROWTH MANAGEMENT LEVELS Many properties in Level 2 areas may have some farming or forestry activity or they may simply be left in a natural and unattended state in anticipation of a more intense use later on. This is appropriate, but policies directed at Level 2 properties must be structured to continue this status through the planning horizon of this Master Plan. In some instances, development proposals for Level 2 properties may support other objectives in the Plan and these should be given serious consideration depending on the overall effect on the properties and the degree to which the project advances the County's growth management strategy . The policy foundation for Level 2 policies was initially established with the goal setting efforts of the Planning Commission and others in the completion of the Focus 2020 Plan in 1996. This is carried forward in the current Plan: • • Areas of the County important to resource-based industries, such as agriculture, recreation, forestry and mining, will he protected from con.iicting land uses and preserved in large, non-fragmented parcels appropriate for those uses. • • • • • •II I While protection of rural areas is the ultimate objective of Level 2 policies, it must be recognized that - short of public acquisition of the lands in the area - property owners have rights that must be respected . Therefore, land use policies in Level 2 areas may also encourage integration of development and natural features, to the extent possible, without significantly degrading the resource. As a standard, this Plan suggests that communities seek to limit residential densities to between 1 unit per 40 acres and 1 unit per 100 acres in Level 2 areas, except in those locations where effective clustering is proposed. To the greatest extent possible, the fragmentation of Level 2 parcels should be avoided to retain the flexibility for those lands to move either into agricultural or more intense land uses in the future. There are approximately 117,760 acres in the currently designated Level 2 areas. Using a standard of 1 unit to 40 acres (the midpoint of the above range) and excepting potential cluster development, the total population in Level 2 areas should be about 4,200 persons, based on an average household size of 2.5 persons. Grand Traverse County 104 Master Plan �• • • GROWTH MANAGEMENT LEVELS Growth Management Level 3. Agricultural Areas The purpose of policies directed at lands designated in Level 3 is to support the local agricultural industries, including orchards, dairy, field crops and similar operations. Included in the Level 3 classification are those lands in active agricultural operation and designated as "prime," or "unique" farmlands as well as many lands enrolled in the Farmlands Preservation program (P.A. 116). The areas reflected within the Level 3 designation parallel those identified in the 1996 Plan and were based on designated prime and unique farmlands and properties enrolled in the P.A. 116 Farmlands Preservation Act program. In addition, a portion of Acme Township has been added to the Level 3 designation, based on local input. • • • • • • • However, a comparison of Maps 11 and 12 reveals that much agricultural land has been excluded from the Level 3 designation. This is especially true in Long Lake, East Bay, Peninsula and Garfield Townships. Based on a realistic assessment of the probable growth in the County, it is likely that significant areas of otherwise useable farmland will become more intensely developed over the next twenty-five years. Level 3 policies must encourage and enable continued agricultural activities. However, they must also permit some limited development which does not preclude agricultural activities on the land or m its v1cm1ty, either concurrently or in the future. Agriculture located in Level 3 areas should be viewed as an important part of the County's economy, not merely as a marginal land use for properties that will later be developed. This perspective requires the support of local government, the development community and, most importantly, the land owner. Many farmers see their land as a source of retirement income and, as development encroaches into agricultural areas, rising assessments, complaints about dust and odors, and weak markets for agricultural products often accelerate the decision to "sell the farm ." Level 3 policies must be sensitive to this economic reality and offer the land owner the ability to continue agricultural operations without severe restrictions on property rights. It will be a difficult balance to achieve. II I II Grand Traverse County 105 Master Plan �•I GROWTH MANAGEMENT LEVELS This Plan recommends that overall densities in Level 3 areas be limited to between 1 unit to forty acres and 1 unit to 100 acres, except where effective clustering is proposed. The Level 3 designation includes about 70,800 acres. Based on this standard, total population in Level 3 should be about 4,500 persons, assuming an average of 2.5 persons per household, 1 unit per 40 acres, and · excepting potential cluster development. • • • •II The preservation of agriculture as a viable part of the Grand Traverse County lifestyle has been a fundamental tenet of the planning process. The current goal-setting activity reflects this priority with several longterm goal statements, for example: The natural resource-based industries of the County, such as agriculture, recreation, forestry and mining, will sustain and strengthen those resources while maintaining healthy and viable economic enterprises. Grand Traverse County wiD include vibrant rural communities surrounded by healthy and sustainable agricultural enterprises. I -I Growth Management Level 4. Urban Influence Areas Urban influence areas either are experiencing the effects of nearby growth currently or can expect those effects within the planning timeframe of this Plan. Essentially, these are lands in a state of change. Portions may remain in a relatively undisturbed rural state but, given growth patterns and trends, could shift to more intense development characteristics over the next twenty-five years. The intent of policies directed at lands in the urban influence designation is the rational and sequential shift to more intense levels of development activity while maintaining an aesthetically attractive environment and convenient quality of life. The boundaries of the Level 4 areas are meant to be interpreted as somewhat indistinct. Certainly local jurisdictions are much better positioned to determine tl1e status of particular parcels and, from a County-wide perspective, the actual boundary of the designation is less important than the consistent application of appropriate policies to the areas designated. In other words, with consistent treatment of urban influence areas from one jurisdiction to the next, the overall development patterns of the County will be more rational and efficient than the "leapfrog" patterns that typically accompany urban sprawl. I I I ~ Grand Traverse County 106 Master Plan �I I GROWTH MANAGEMENT LEVELS • • In Level 4 areas, a range of densities is suggested from one unit on three acres on the least dense end of the range to two units per acre on the more dense end of the range. Level 4 areas account for about 34,000 acres. Assuming about 75% of the land area may ultimately be utilized for residential development, and using a median overall density for Level 4 areas of 1.2 units per acre, the total population in Level 4 can grow to about 76,500 persons, based on 2.5 persons per household. Many of the goals developed by the Planning Commission, both in 1996 and with the current Plan update, directly support the Level 4 policies: Utility services will be extended strategically to encourage growth and development that is consistent with local and County land use goals and objectives. Grand Traverse County will oHer a variety of environments to serve all residents with attractive, eHicient and aHordable homes located in safe and quiet urban neighborhoods, villages and hamlets and in rural areas. Residential areas will be located in harmony with the area's natural features and arranged to promote social interaction among neighbors. I I I I I Recognizing that the growth of the area is inevitable and potentially desirable, Grand Traverse County will accommodate growth while maintaining and strengthening the qualities that make the community attractive. Such qualities include a friendly and inclusive social climate, a relaxed and casual pace of life, unspoiled natural resources, a commitment to strengthen families and a willingness to cooperate to achieve common ends. As indicated in Map 12, the Level 4 designation extends the "developed" portions of the County outward into most of Long Lake Township, the remaining undeveloped portions of Garfield Township, the forest lakes area of East Bay Township, the shoreline areas of Grand Traverse County 107 Master Plan �• • • • •II -I GROWTH MANAGEMENT LEVELS Among the objectives of Level 4 policies must be a set of techniques to assure that the aesthetics and quality of new development are on a par with the natural features of the region. Peninsula Township and much of the northern half of Green Lake Township. In addition, expanded "village centers" are embedded in otherwise Level 2 and 3 areas at Interlachen, Kingsley, Fife Lake, Williamsburg, Mapleton, Karlin and Summit City. Development policies within Level 4 areas must include careful consideration of the implications of each new project, site plan, re-zoning and variance request. Appropriate uses in Level 4 areas will extend across the full range - from agriculture to regional commercial developments. As development proceeds and as public facilities permit, communities may expect less intense land uses to gradually shift to higher levels of development. New developments may include traditional residential sub-divisions, clustered residential (or open space preservation development), neighborhood commercial land uses and some regional commercial and industrial uses where public facilities are appropriate. Among the objectives of Level 4 policies must be a set of techniques to assure that the aesthetics and quality of new development are on a par with the natural features of the region. Communities facing sprawling growth are developing innovative methodologies to cope with the effects of growth while minimizing sprawl. Such approaches as clustered development to preserve open areas, the establishment of compact village centers, open space development design and mixed use developments all seek to retain significant open and natural areas while creating human-scale, aesthetically pleasing and highly functional communities. It is in the Level 4 areas where these innovative techniques will be most appropriate. I Growth Management Level 5. Urban Areas The urban areas of the County are those that are typically thought of as fully developed and those emerging areas that will be fully developed within twenty-five years. These are areas that are, or will soon be, served with public water and wastewater utilities, fully-improved roads and public services. Level 5 areas include Traverse City, as well as most of Garfield Township and parts of Blair, East Bay, Peninsula and Acme Townships. In addition, small urbanized village centers are found at Fife Lake, Kingsley, and Interlachen; and other centers are emerging elsewhere. The objective of growth management policies applicable to urban areas is the efficient and responsible utilization of lands to support the economic, cultural and social needs of the citizens of the County. I I I Grand Traverse County 108 Master Plan �• GROWfH MANAGEMENT LEVELS Appropriate development policies for Level 5 area should be directed at expanding development and redevelopment opportunities, while advancing aesthetic and high quality uses. Some parts of the Level 5 areas may be able to sustain highly dense development; while in other parts, less dense development is still appropriate. Therefore, a density target covering a broad range is suggested - from ten units per acre at the most dense end of the spectrum to one unit per 1.5 acres at the least. This standard also serves to create some overlap between Levels 4 and 5. Total land area in the Level 5 designation is about 39,800 acres. Assuming about 50% of the land area may ultimately be utilized for residential purposes, and using a median overall density of about 2.5 units per acre, Level 5 can sustain a population of over 120,000, based on average household size of 2.5 persons. I 11 Several of the stated goals of the Planning Commission, Planning Advisory Council and Community Resources Council adopted in 1996 support the land use policies directed at urban areas. In addition, with the update of the Master Plan completed in 2002, these additional policy statements have been adopted: The vimlity of Grand Traverse County will be assured through the growth of existing businesses and the addition of new business resulting in a diverse local economy balanced with an expanding population. A safe and efficient system of roadways and public transportation will serve the citizens of the County, providing eHective linkages with non-motorized facilities and between and among neighborhoods, shopping and employment areas. The County will provide leadership to facilitate the development and implementation of eHective programs to encourage growth and in-fill development in areas that have the capacity in public facilities and services to support and accommodate such growth. I I This Plan projects that about 73,000 persons, or about 78% of the County's population, will reside in Traverse City, Garfield, Long Lake, Grand Traverse County 109 Master Plan �GROWTH MANAGEMENT LEVELS Blair, East Bay, Peninsula and Acme Townships by the year 2020 with more than half living in the Level 5 areas. If the County's approach to the Level 5 areas is successful, these areas will continue to be the economic heart of the County. In addition to economic viability, however, policies directed at urban areas must also foster a stronger overall community and encourage the efficient reuse of previously developed sites. Finally, land use policies in all areas, but especially in Level 5 areas, must also advance the overall aesthetic, human scale environment for the benefit of residents and visitors to the area. ~ -Ill I I -I I I I - Grand Traverse County 110 Master Plan �IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES CHAPTER 12. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES The success of this County Master Plan will depend on the creativity, energy and dedication of the officials and citizens of Grand Traverse County. While the vision for the future has been carefully prepared, it is, at best, only a rough approximation of the reality all residents desire. Making the Plan "real" requires the specific efforts of numerous agencies, businesses and individuals. I I I I I I I I I In essence these strategies become the community's work plan to achieve the vision. Grand Traverse County The final step in the completion of a master plan is the establishment of specific strategies to implement it. These include the details on what needs to be done, by whom, when and with what resources. In essence, these strategies become the community's work plan to achieve the vision. The preparation of implementation strategies for this County Master Plan has been deferred until a revised County planning structure is in place. In the interim, the implementation strategies found in the 1996 Plan continue to support the growth management goals of this plan and will serve to maintain momentum until this Plan can be amended to incorporate this final critical element. 112 Master Plan �-II II BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY The following texts, websites, articles and official reports were consulted in the compilation of this Community Profile Report. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1000 Friends of Florida, Greenways Project Website, June 2002. Airnav.com Center for Livable Communities, Streets and Sidewalks, People and Cars April 2000. Community Opinion Survey Report, Grand Traverse County prepared by Williams & Works, July 2001. Federal Emergency Management Website, July 2002. Focus 2020 - The Future of Grand Traverse County Gourdie/Frasier & Associates, Inc., Sewer Facility Alternatives for Forest Lakes Area of East Bay Township, June 1997. Grand Traverse Area Genealogical Society website, July 2002. Grand Traverse Bay Region Development Guidebook, Traverse City Area Chamber of Commerce, prepared by the Planning and Zoning Center; April 1995. Grand Traverse County Board of Commissioners and Grand Traverse County Planning Commission Joint Meeting Minutes, October 16, 1996. Grand Traverse County Equalization Department, 2000 Equalization Report, April 18, 2000. Grand Traverse County Website, July 2001. Grand Traverse County, Comprehensive Recreation Development Plan, A Plan for 1997-2001, completed in 1997. Hydrology and Land Use in Grand Traverse County, US Geological Survey Water Resources Investigation Report 90-4122, 1990. h Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation, 5' Edition, 1991 Land Protection Survey, Grant Traverse Parks and Recreation Commission and Grand Traverse Regional Land Conservancy. Land Use/Land Cover Changes Detection Analysis for Grand Grand Traverse County 114 Master Plan �I I BIBLIOGRAPHY I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Traverse County, 301 LLC, October 10, 2000. Lindeburg, Michael, R., P.E., CiviL Engineering Reference Manual, 1989. Michigan County Element Lists, Michigan Natural Features Inventory: March 2001. Michigan Department of Management and Budget, Office of the State Demographer, January, 1996 Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Michigan Resource Inventory Act, 1979 PA 204. Michigan Department of Transportation Website, July 2002. Michigan Information Center State Demographer Office Michigan State Housing Development Authority Website, August 2002. Mitchell Creek Watershed Implementation Study, Grand Traverse County, Michigan; July 1994. Mitchell Creek Watershed Protection Strategy, Grand Traverse County, Michigan; February 1995. National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-448) as amended and by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-234) as amended, and any supplemental changes to such rules and regulations. National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration Website, National Climate Data Center, 2001. Office of Labor Market Information, Michigan Department of Labor Resource Management Plan for the Pere Marquette State Forest, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, February 1994. State of Michigan Annual Schools Report, July 2001. Stone, Mark. Mitchell Creek Watershed Landowner's Handbook; Fen's Rim Publications. TC-TALUS Long Range Transportation Land Use Plan, July 1995. The Resource Book for the Focus 2020 Futuring Sessions, Williams & Works, 1995. Thomas, Holly L. The Economic Benefits of Land Conservation, Planning & Zoning News, January, 1993. Traverse City Area Chamber of Commerce, Grand Traverse Business, August 2000 Grand Traverse County 115 Master Plan �-I BIBLIOGRAPHY I I Traverse City Parks and Recreation Plan. Traverse City Public Schools Website, July 2002. Traverse City Record-Eagle, Page lB, July 24, 2001 United States Bureau of the Census Website, July 2002. I I I I I I I I I I I US Environmental Protection Agency Website, July 2002. Vanengen, Allison; "Trust Fund Dollars at Work: Grants help protect water, woods, wildlife at Maple Bay Farm", Traverse City Record Eagle, July 1, 2002. Williams & Works in conjunction with Grand Traverse County staff, Grand Traverse County, A Current Assessment Report, August 1, 2001. Photography: In addition to the photo sources indicated in the text, we gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the Traverse City Record Eagle, Walkable Communities, Inc., Long Lake Township and Grand Traverse County. Certain other photos used herein from Williams & Works files. I I I - Grand Traverse County 116 Master Plan � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Wyckoff Planning and Zoning Collection Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Planning & Zoning Center (Lansing, Mich.) (Organization) Wyckoff, Mark A. Description An account of the resource Municipal master plans and zoning ordinances from across the state of Michigan, spanning from the 1960s to the early 2020s. The bulk of the collection was compiled by urban planner Mark Wyckoff over the course of his career as the founder and principal planner of the Planning and Zoning Center in Lansing, Michigan. Some additions have been made to the collection by municipalities since it was transferred to Grand Valley State University. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Michigan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1960/2023 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Subject The topic of the resource Michigan Comprehensive plan publications Master plan reports Zoning--Michigan Zoning--Maps Maps Land use--planning Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RHC-240 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Grand-Traverse-County_Comprehensive-Plan_2002 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Traverse County Planning Commission, Grand Traverse County, Michigan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2002-12 Title A name given to the resource Grand Traverse County Comprehensive Plan Description An account of the resource The Grand Traverse County Comprehensive Plan was prepared by the Grand Traverse County Planning Commission with assistance from planning consultants Williams & Works in December 2002. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Williams & Works (consultant) Subject The topic of the resource Comprehensive plan publications Grand Traverse County (Mich.) Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/870">Planning and Zoning Center Collection (RHC-240)</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/">No Copyright - United States</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/e47a3641610f661d79ea7559154bb808.jpg 1721c7c0f46460934c55c347243131f4 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Grand Valley State University Photographs Subject The topic of the resource Aerial photographs Universities and colleges Michigan Grand Rapids (Mich.) Allendale (Mich.) Building Facilities Dormitories Students Events 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s Description An account of the resource People, places, and events of Grand Valley State University from its founding in 1960 as a 4-year college in western Michigan. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource News & Information Services. University Communications Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/41">News &amp; Information Services. University Photographs. (GV012-01)</a> Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2017-03-03 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC-NC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted</a> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpg Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource image Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GV012-01 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1960s-2000s Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Local Subject Subject headings specific to a particular image collection 1960s Source <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/41">University photographs, GV012-01</a> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GV012-01_UAPhotos_001304 Title A name given to the resource Grand Valley Apartments during winter Description An account of the resource Grand Valley Apartments on the Allendale campus during winter. Subject The topic of the resource Grand Valley State University Grand Valley State College Michigan Allendale (Mich.) Universities and colleges Language A language of the resource eng Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC-NC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives black and white photo https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/398f1bb708e0bf7aac63af8aaa46bd6a.jpg ea89a35e5cc7f1497e3d343e383717a1 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Grand Valley State University Photographs Subject The topic of the resource Aerial photographs Universities and colleges Michigan Grand Rapids (Mich.) Allendale (Mich.) Building Facilities Dormitories Students Events 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s Description An account of the resource People, places, and events of Grand Valley State University from its founding in 1960 as a 4-year college in western Michigan. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource News & Information Services. University Communications Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/41">News &amp; Information Services. University Photographs. (GV012-01)</a> Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2017-03-03 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC-NC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted</a> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpg Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource image Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GV012-01 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1960s-2000s Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Local Subject Subject headings specific to a particular image collection 1960s Source <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/41">University photographs, GV012-01</a> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GV012-01_UAPhotos_000147 Title A name given to the resource Grand Valley Apartments. Female students at home Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Colorama Description An account of the resource Female students at home in the Grand Valley Apartments. Subject The topic of the resource Grand Valley State University Michigan Allendale (Mich.) Universities and colleges Students Facilities Dormitories Language A language of the resource eng Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC-NC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives black and white photo https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/4226aff27e9ecaab058a357f3f627564.jpg fe92c17354d5e17eec2c400dd62b38cc Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Grand Valley State University Photographs Subject The topic of the resource Aerial photographs Universities and colleges Michigan Grand Rapids (Mich.) Allendale (Mich.) Building Facilities Dormitories Students Events 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s Description An account of the resource People, places, and events of Grand Valley State University from its founding in 1960 as a 4-year college in western Michigan. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource News & Information Services. University Communications Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/41">News &amp; Information Services. University Photographs. (GV012-01)</a> Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2017-03-03 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC-NC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted</a> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpg Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource image Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GV012-01 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1960s-2000s Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Local Subject Subject headings specific to a particular image collection 1960s Source <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/41">University photographs, GV012-01</a> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GV012-01_UAPhotos_000146 Title A name given to the resource Grand Valley Apartments. Male students in Grand Valley Apartment living room Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Colorama Description An account of the resource Male students at home in the Grand Valley Apartments. Subject The topic of the resource Grand Valley State University Michigan Allendale (Mich.) Universities and colleges Students Facilities Dormitories Language A language of the resource eng Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC-NC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives black and white photo https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/060b4f1eb35cef2314a8e58314695df0.jpg dacd6cbdb8a02780a83cf7ddf87a3408 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Grand Valley State University Photographs Subject The topic of the resource Aerial photographs Universities and colleges Michigan Grand Rapids (Mich.) Allendale (Mich.) Building Facilities Dormitories Students Events 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s Description An account of the resource People, places, and events of Grand Valley State University from its founding in 1960 as a 4-year college in western Michigan. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource News & Information Services. University Communications Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/41">News &amp; Information Services. University Photographs. (GV012-01)</a> Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2017-03-03 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC-NC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted</a> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpg Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource image Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GV012-01 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1960s-2000s Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Local Subject Subject headings specific to a particular image collection 1990s Source <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/41">University photographs, GV012-01</a> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GV012-01_UAPhotos_001352 Title A name given to the resource Grand Valley Band outdoor performance Description An account of the resource The Grand Valley Symphonic Band performs outside near Au Sable Hall, September 6, 1990. Subject The topic of the resource Grand Valley State University Grand Valley State College Michigan Allendale (Mich.) Universities & colleges-Michigan--Allendale Music Language A language of the resource eng Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC-NC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted</a> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1990-09-06 Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives black and white photo https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/b74d005a380ddf10eaad1011e463da31.jpg af81de523fae28c8180abcc545e0b937 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Grand Valley State University Photographs Subject The topic of the resource Aerial photographs Universities and colleges Michigan Grand Rapids (Mich.) Allendale (Mich.) Building Facilities Dormitories Students Events 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s Description An account of the resource People, places, and events of Grand Valley State University from its founding in 1960 as a 4-year college in western Michigan. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource News & Information Services. University Communications Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/41">News &amp; Information Services. University Photographs. (GV012-01)</a> Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2017-03-03 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC-NC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted</a> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpg Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource image Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GV012-01 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1960s-2000s Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Local Subject Subject headings specific to a particular image collection 1990s Source <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/41">University photographs, GV012-01</a> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GV012-01_UAPhotos_001000 Title A name given to the resource Grand Valley basketball team plays against Swedish club Planja Description An account of the resource Grand Valley basketball team plays against Swedish Club Planja, November 7, 1991. Subject The topic of the resource Grand Valley State University Michigan Allendale (Mich.) Universities and colleges Language A language of the resource eng Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC-NC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives black and white photo https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/64c52d4df6b8f8935d306b0d2c4acb1b.jpg c39dc5b2e3e3d5ee1d3deb0ca44fb743 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Grand Valley State University Photographs Subject The topic of the resource Aerial photographs Universities and colleges Michigan Grand Rapids (Mich.) Allendale (Mich.) Building Facilities Dormitories Students Events 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s Description An account of the resource People, places, and events of Grand Valley State University from its founding in 1960 as a 4-year college in western Michigan. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource News & Information Services. University Communications Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/41">News &amp; Information Services. University Photographs. (GV012-01)</a> Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2017-03-03 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC-NC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted</a> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpg Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource image Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GV012-01 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1960s-2000s Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Local Subject Subject headings specific to a particular image collection 1980s Source <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/41">University photographs, GV012-01</a> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GV012-01_UAPhotos_000999 Title A name given to the resource Grand Valley football player Description An account of the resource Grand Valley football player, September 29, 1989. Subject The topic of the resource Students Events Grand Valley State University Michigan Allendale (Mich.) Universities and colleges Language A language of the resource eng Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC-NC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Lemmen Library and Archives black and white photo