Chapter 10:

Community Opinion Survey

The Suttons Bay Township and the Suttons Bay Village Planning Commissions decided to share resources and coordinate their efforts as a part of their individual master planning programs. Under a joint grant from New Designs for Growth, the communities undertook a community opinion survey. Each community wanted to involve as many area residents as possible into the planning process and therefore utilized a community opinion survey regarding land use issues to reach as many residents as possible.

The mailing list was compiled from voter registration records maintained by the Township Clerk. From this mailing list, a random sample was taken. Surveys were distributed in August 1997. Residents had until September 17, 1997 to respond to the survey. A total of 815 surveys were mailed to Village and Township residents. Approximately thirty percent of those surveyed responded (244 responses were received).

Below is a summary of the percentage of favorable responses (strongly agree or agree) for each of the survey questions. Please note that the each question is answered independent of the next. Consequently, there may be high percentages of agreement on related survey topics.

Respondents/Demographics

A series of questions asked respondents about themselves.

Ø Almost one-half of respondents have lived in the area for more than 15 years. Another approximate one-third have lived in the community for 6-15 years.

Ø The vast majority of respondents were either a married couple or a married couple with children.

Ø Respondents were of all different ages, but the majority were between the ages of 35 and 64. A large number of respondents were 65 or older (27 percent).

Ø Most respondents lived in one of three home-types: nonfarm rural residence, lakeside residence, or single-family home.

Ø Respondents were asked in which of five areas they lived in the Township or Village. The highest number of respondents came from the southeastern portion of the community (37 percent). Another twenty-nine percent indicated the Village area. The third largest portion of respondents came from the northwestern portion of the Township (14 percent), followed by the southwestern portion of the Township (10 percent). The least number of respondents were from the northeastern portion of the Township (8 percent).

Ø Three-quarters of respondents were from the Township and one-quarter from the Village.

Agriculture (Farms and Orchards)

Respondents agree that agricultural land is an important asset in the community. Responses varied in regards to how much effort should be made to preserve the land and whether people were willing to pay additional taxes to conserve land.

Ø Existing farms and orchards should be encouraged to:

1. Remain as long as economically viable (89%)

2. Remain regardless of economic cost (28%)

Ø Farm and orchard land is valuable for:

1. The open space it provides (83%)

2. The economic benefits/jobs it provides (81%)

3. The scenic views it provides (80%)

Ø Non-farm residences should not encroach on productive farmland (62.4%)

Ø What type of non-farm uses should be encouraged in agricultural areas?

1. Seasonal or specialty markets, such as farm, artisan or antique markets (75%)

2. Lodging facilities such as bed and breakfasts and dude ranches (67%)

3. Commercial recreation facilities such as golf courses and riding stables (63%)

4. Commercial storage and/or warehouse facilities (33%)

Ø A local PDR program should be established (57%)

Ø I am willing to pay additional property tax to fund a local PDR program (36.8%)

Ø Conservancy purchases should be encouraged (82%)

Ø Conservancy donations should be encouraged (81%)

Ø I am willing to help fund land conservancy purchases (48%)

Residential Development

Township residents, in general, support siting residential development away from the community’s natural features. They also support providing moderate density single-family residential development in areas that are already developed or starting to develop. Those also holds true, for the most part, to limiting high density development to existing areas.

Ø It is preferable for residential development to avoid:

1. Wetlands (85%)

2. Shorelines (70%)

3. Steep Hillsides (69%)

4. Scenic Views (63%)

5. Forested Lands (63%)

6. Agricultural/Orchard Lands (60%)

Ø Low density residential development should be encouraged to provide lots clustered on a portion of the property with the balance left as open space (72.8%)

Ø Where should moderate density single family residential development occur:

1. Land adjacent to the Village (72%)

2. Land in the Village (64%)

3. Near Peshawbestown (60%)

4. Near Lake Leelanau (51%)

5. Stony Point Area (42%)

Ø High density residential development (more than 4 units per acre) should be limited to:

1. Land inside the Village (58%)

2. Land adjacent to the Village (56%)

3. Near Peshawbestown (50%)

4. Near Lake Leelanau (29.5%)

5. Grand Traverse Bay Shoreline (14.1%)

Ø Require neighborhood parks in new residential developments (75%)

Ø Permit home based businesses within residential neighborhoods (64%)

Ø Connect residential neighborhoods and commercial areas by pedestrian/bike paths (60%)

Ø Discourage strip residential development (60%)

Ø Encourage residential developments which provide affordable housing options for low and moderate income households (56%)

Ø Allow accessory apartments in single-family neighborhoods (53%)

Ø Permit commercial uses, such as corner stores, to develop within single-family neighborhoods (48%)

Commercial Development

Some commercial uses were strongly favored to be promoted and encouraged (local businesses), while others had less support (regional centers).

Ø What type of commercial uses should be encouraged?

1. Commercial uses which meet the needs of local residents such as grocery stores, hair salons, and offices (84%)

2. Commercial uses which primarily meet the needs of tourists, such as art galleries, craft stores, restaurants and lodging (67%)

3. Mixed use resort development, such as Timber Shores, Sugar Loaf and the Homestead (42%)

4. Commercial uses which meet regional needs, such as Meijer’s and Target stores (16%)

Ø Existing commercial development adequate to meet the future needs of the community 41%)

Ø Where should future commercial development should be encouraged?

1. In the Village (83%)

2. South of the Village at M-22 (45%)

3. M-22 near Peshawbestown (29%)

4. At Center Highway, south of the Village (29%)

5. At Duck Lake Road (23%)

6. S. Lake Leelanau Road (11.5%)

Ø The size and character of commercial signs should be controlled (93%)

Ø Commercial developments should be encouraged to share road access and driveways (84%)

Ø Strip commercial development should be discouraged (80%)

Industrial Development

Respondents did not indicate a clear consensus on existing industrial development is adequate for the future needs of the community (respondents were almost equally split between agree, disagree and undecided).

Ø Existing industrial development is adequate to meet the future needs of the community (40%)

Ø Where should industrial development be encouraged to locate?

1. At M-22 south of the Village (35%)

2. At Center Highway, south of the Village (26%)

3. At Duck Lake Road (21%)

4. At M-22 north of the Village (19%)

5. Inside the Village (17%)

6. At S. Leelanau Lake Road (11%)

Ø Industrial uses should be landscaped to screen views of parking and service areas (91%)

Ø A planned industrial park should be established in the Township (52%)

Waterfront Development

While 48% of respondents agree or strongly agree that waterfront property should be acquired for public recreation, only 30% are willing to pay and additional property tax to fund acquisition.

Ø Waterfront property should be acquired for public recreation (48%)

Ø I am willing to pay additional property tax to purchase waterfront property for public use (30%)

Recreation

Less than half of respondents feel that existing recreation facilities are adequate to meet future needs. Improving or constructing recreational trails received the greatest amount of support (53%) followed by swimming areas (46%).

Ø Existing recreation facilities are adequate to meet the future needs of the community (45%)

Ø Which facilities should be improved or constructed:

1. The recreational trails (53%)

2. The swimming areas (46%)

3. The playgrounds (42%)

4. The boat launch sites (39%)

5. The sports fields (36%)

Action Items

Ø The Suttons Bay community needs to address:

1. Ground water pollution (80%)

2. Surface water pollution (79%)

3. Hillside erosion (63%)

4. Loss of scenic views (63%)

5. Loss of privacy (63%)

6. Loss of forested land (60%)