[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
TRANSPORTATION, PUBLIC FACILITIES, AND PHYSICAL SERVICES A A.1 DRA THE [LEELANAU GENEML PLAN Policy Guidelines for Managing Growth on the Uelanau Peninsula Woikng Paper Number 8 A Mety 7,1992 7bis Domment is Printed on Reqded Pa-xr LEELANAU COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS John D. Stanek Philip E. Deering Chairman Vice Chairman Donald W. Mitchell Rochelle Steimel Gerald N. Henshaw Joseph F. Brzezinski LEELANAU COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Daniel Heinz Chairman Merle Bredehoeft Margot Power Barbara Cruden Lois Cole Steve Kalchik Daniel Heinz Richard (Rick) N. Stein Lawrence Verdier John Dozier Philip E. Deering LEELANAU GENERAL PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE John D. Stanek Chairman John April Max Hart Karen Nielsen John Avis Carl Headland Glen Noonan Gary Bardenhagen Beverly Heinz Richard Pleva Joanne Beare Dan Hubbell Margot Power Sargent Begeman Richard Hufford Robert Price Jack Burton Kalin Johnson Larry Price Stephen Chambers Linda Johnson Ed Reinsch Ross Childs Colleen Kalchik George Rosinski Lois Cole Edward Kazenko Richard Sander Thomas Coleman Ray Kimple Charlene Schlueter Barbara Collins Kay Kingery Kimberly Schopieray Shirley Cucchi Stu Kogge Chris Shafer Catherine J. Cunningham Stan Kouchnerkavich Ruth Shaffran Walter Daniels Fred Lanham Jr. Thomas Shimek Phil Deering Elizabeth Lafferty-Esch Derith Smith Judy Egeler Don Lewis Dennis Stavros Randy Emmeot Dana Hoyle MacLellan Harry Stryker Kathy Feys Douglas Manning Mitsume Takayama Kathleen B. Firestone Larry Mawby John VanRaalte Mary Frank John McGettrick Tom VanZoeren Gary Fredrickson Jack Mobley' David Viskochil James Frey James Modrall Midge Werner Paul Gardner Dave Monstrey Ben Whitfield Alex Garvin John Naymick Ruth Wilber John Hardy Mary Newman Dick Wilson DRAFT Working Paper #8 TRANSPORTATION, PUBLIC FACILITIES, AND PHYSICAL SERVICES ON THE LEELANAU PENINSULA Prepared by Mark A. Eidelson, AICP Planning & Zoning Center, Inc. 302 S. Waverly Rd. Lansing, MI 48917 CY) with data assistance from Leelanau County Planning Department Tim Dolehanty, Director 113 Grand Ave. Leland, MI 49654 616/256-9812 May, 1992 DRAFT LEELANAU GENERAL PLAN PROJECT STAFF Timothy J. Dolehanty Karen J. Gleason County Planning Director Planning Department Secretary Trudy J. Galla Duane C. Beard Assistant Planner County Administrator Andrew Schmidt Pat Stratton Planning Assistant Administrative Secretary LEELANAU GENERAL PLAN TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE STAFF Planning & Zoning Center, Inc. 302 S. Waverly Road Lansing, MI 48917 (517)886-0555 (517)886-0564 FAX Mark A. Wyckoff, AICP, President Mark Eidelson, AICP (principal report author) (Tim Dolehanty author of Chapter 6) Tim McCauley, Community Planner Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services DRAFT TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface .......................................................................................................................................i Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... ii Chapter 1: Public Facilities and Physical Services provided by Local Municipalities .............. 1-1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1-1 Public Facilities and Physical Services ........................................................................ 1-3 Emerging Issues .......................................................................................................... 1-7 Items for Discussion ..................................................................................................... 1-8 Chapter 2: Public Facilities and Physical Services provided by Leelanau County .................. 2-1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 2-1 Public Facilities and Physical Services ........................................................................ 2-1 Emerging Issues .......................................................................................................... 2-3 Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 2-4 Chapter 3: Transportation ....................................................................................................... 3-1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3-1 State Road Network ..................................................................................................... 3-1 County Roadway Network ............................................................................................ 3-1 Transit Services ........................................................................................................... 3-3 Airplane Facilities ......................................................................................................... 3-3 Railroad Facilities ......................................................................................................... 3-3 Bicycle Facilities ........................................................................................................... 3-3 Pedestrian Facilities ..................................................................................................... 3-3 Road Ends ................................................................................................................... 3-3 Emerging Issues .......................................................................................................... 3-3 Items for Discussion ....................................................................4 ................................ 3-4 Chapter 4: Schools ................................................................................................................. 4-1 Emerging Issues .......................................................................................................... 4-1 Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 4-2 Chapter 5: Nonmunicipal Public Services ............................................................................... 5-1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 5-1 Electricity ...................................................................................................................... 5-1 Gas ............................................................................................................................... 5-2 Communications .......................................................................................................... 5-2 Health Facilities and Services ...................................................................................... 5-3 Other Medical Facilities and Services .......................................................................... 5-3 Emerging Issues .......................................................................................................... 5-4 Items for Discussion ...................................................................................................... 5-4 Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services DRAFT Chapter 6: Solid Waste Management Facilities ...................................................................... 6-1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 6-1 Facilities and Physical Services ................................................................................... 6-1 Hazardous Waste Disposal .......................................................................................... 6-3 Planning and Administrative Functions ........................................................................ 6-3 Emerging Issues .......................................................................................................... 6-3 Chapter 7: Federal and State Facilities (forthcoming) ............................................................ 7-1 Appendix A: Available Fire and Rescue Equipment at Stations .............................................. A- 1 Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services DRAFT LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1 Municipal Public Facilities and Services 1-2 Table 3-1 Leelanau County Travel Time and Mileage Worksheet 3-6 Table 3-2 Projected Traffic Counts 3-9 Table 3-3 Major Traff ic Accident Locations 3-10 Table 3-4 Roads with the Lowest Existing Level of Service 3-11 Table 4-1 Public School Facilities 4-1 Table 4-2 Private School Facilities 4-2 Table 6-1 Private Solid Waste Haulers Serving Leelanau County 6-2 Table 6-2 Additional Leelanau County Waste Haulers for Waste Generated in Leelanau County 6-10 Table 6-3 1987 Leelanau County Residential, Commercial and Industrial Waste Stream 6-12 Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services DRAFT LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 Recreation Facilities 1-10 Figure 1-2 Library and Cemetery Facilities 1-11 Figure 1-3 Elmwood Township Sewer System 1-12 Figure 1-4 Suttons Bay Sewer System 1-13 Figure 1-5 Leland Township Sewer System 1-14 Figure 1-6 Elmwood Township Water System 1-15 Figure 1-7 Empire Water System 1-16 Figure 1-8 Northport Water System 1-17 Figure 1-9 Suttons Bay Water System 1-18 Figure 1-10 Empire Stormwater System 1-19 Figure 1 -11 Northport Stormwater System 1-20 Figure 1-12 Suttons Bay Stormwater System 1-21 Figure 1-13 Fire & Emergency Stations and Service Areas 1-22 Figure 1-14 Peninsula-Wide Municipal Facilities 1-23 Figure 2-1 County Facilities 2-5 Figure 2-2 Municipal Populations and Distances to the County Seat 2-6 Figure 2-3 Growth Rates of Municipalities and Distances to County Seat 2-7 Figure 3-1 Legal Road Network 3-12 Figure 3-2 Road Surface Type 3-13 Figure 3-3 All Weather Roads 3-14 Figure 3-4 SeasonalRoads 3-15 Figure 3-5 Road Functional Classification (Nfcs) 3-16 Figure 3-6 Road Functional Classification (County) 3-17 Figure 3-7 Road Base Factor 3-18 Figure 3-8 Road Surface Deterioration Factor 3-19 Figure 3-9 Year of Last Road Resurfacing 3-20 Figure 3-10 Existing Average Daily Traff ic Volumes 3-21 Figure 3-11 Existing Road Right-Of-Way Width 3-22 Figure 3-12 Average Travel Times And Distances 3-23 Figure 3-13 Projected Traffic Vol u m es 3-24 Figure 3-14 Traff ic AccidentLocations 3-25 Figure 3-15 Level of Service 3-26 Figure 3-16 Transit Service Facilities 3-27 Figure 3-17 Airplane Facilities 3-28 Figure 3-18 Railroad Facilities 3-29 Figure 3-19 Bicycle Facilities 3-30 Figure 3-20 Pedestrian Facilities 3-31 Figure 3-20a Pedestrian Facilities Leland 3-32 Figure 3-20b Pedestrian Facilities Northport 3-33 Figure 3-20c Pedestrian Facilities Suttons Bay 3-34 Figure 3-20d Pedestrian Facilities Empire 3-35 Figure 3-21 Road Ends at Water Bodies 3-36 Figure 4-1 School Districts and Facilities 4-3 Figure 4-2 Private School Facilities 4-4 Figure 5-1 Nonmunicipal Public Services 5-5 Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services A - DRAFT Figure 6-1 Cedar Disposal Service Area 6-3 Figure 6-2 Harland Disposal Service Area 6-4 Figure 6-3 Walt Kalchik Disposal Service Area 6-5 Figure 6-4 Ken's Pick-up Service Disposal Service Area 6-6 Figure 6-5 Ron Send Disposal Service Area 6-7 Figure 6-6 West Michigan Disposal Service Area 6-8 Figure 6-7 Solid Waste Management Facilities in Leelanau County 6-16 Figure 6-8 Primary and Contingency Users of Leelanau County Solid Waste Management Facilities 6-22 Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services DRAFT PREFACE This working paper is the eighth in a se- facilities and physical services provided by ries providing background information for the individual municipalities in the Peninsula in- preparation of the Leelanau General Plan: cluding public sewer and water systems, rec- Policy Guidelines for Managing Growth reation services, administrative offices, and on the Leelanau Peninsula. The first four other locally administered services and facili- working papers were generated to document ties. public input from county-wide growth man- Chapter 2 - Public Facilities and Physi- agement forums, the results of citizen and lo- cal Services provided by Leelanau cal officials surveys, and the activities of the County. This chapter discusses the public Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC). This facilities and physical services provided by committee studied the need for a new County Leelanau County governmental agencies. plan and various approaches that could be Chapter 3 - County Transportation. This taken in the preparation of such a plan. They chapter discusses the County's roadway concluded that while a new plan was needed, network. It examines existing and projected it should not be simply another "County conditions and service levels. Also discussed Comprehensive Plan" prepared by the are transit facilities and non-vehicular County Planning Commission. Instead, what facilities including bike paths and pedestrian is needed is a growth management plan for circulation systems. the Peninsula that involves the direct input Chapter 4 - Schools. Public and private and participation of all the local units of gov- school facilities are reviewed including cur- ernment in the County. This led to the initia- rent enrollment and maximum capacities. tion of the Leelanau General Plan. Chapter 5 - Nonmunicipal Public Serv- The fifth working paper presented a report ices. This chapter reviews the many com- on the "Trend Future" facing Leelanau munity services provided to the public by County. Working paper #6 presents goals nonmunicipal bodies including utility provid- and objectives for the General Plan. The ers, communications services, and medical seventh working paper presents information facilities and services. and analysis on the economy of the Penin- Chapter 6 - Solid Waste Management sula. Facilities. This chapter reviews the solid This working paper addresses the public waste management services and facilities in facilities and physical services in the Leela- the Peninsula. nau Peninsula through the following chap- Chapter 7 - State and Federal Lands. ters: Over 28 square miles of lands within the Chapter 1 - Public Facilities and Physi- Leelanau Peninsula are owned and adminis- cal Services provided by Local Munici- tered by state and federal agencies. These palities. This chapter discusses the public public lands are the focus of this chapter. Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page i DRAFT k EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this working paper is to standards, congestion, and public safety provide an inforrhation base that becomes a hazards. point of reference for discussing transporta- There are numerous facilities and serv- tion, public facilities, and physical services is- ices provided to Peninsula residents and sues in Leelanau County. Data and analysis visitors by nonmunicipal entities including are furnished to help local officials make communications, electricity and gas utilities, better decisions when planning and allocat- and health facilities. ing resources for the improvement and ex- pansion of the facilities and services. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION Public facilities and services offered by Following are items for further discussion local municipalities on the Peninsula princi- related to each of the public facility/physical pally include recreation, libraries, cemeteries, services addressed in this report. public sanitary sewer and water, storm sewer, fire protection, and government ad- PUBLIC FACILITIES & PHYSICAL SERV- ministration. However, the vast majority of ICES PROVIDED BY the local municipalities do not provide all of LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES these services nor the majority of them. Only The location of future growth and de- a few of the municipalities provide public velopment should be based upon an sanitary sewer, water, and stormwater sys- intent to minimize increased public tems. service costs due to excessively dis- The levels of service provided by munici- persed populations and limited avail- palities reasonably meet generally accepted able facilities. standards for the delivery of such services. The location of future growth and de- The greatest challenge to nearly all of the lo- velopment should be based upon an cal municipalities is the dispersed population intent to maximize the utility of and in- and settlement pattern, and the topographic vestment in existing public services, and lake features of the Peninsula. These particularly in Villages. social and natural conditions impede cost- The intensity and density of future devel- effective services and quick response times opment should be linked to the necessity in emergency situations, and their impact can for, and availability of, public services to be expected to worsen as growth and devel- protect public health and safety, including, opment continue. where necessary, sanitary sewer, water, Public facilities and services provided by and fire protection. the Leelanau'County government are limited Areas should not be planned or zoned for to government administration, police protec- high intensity or density of development if tion, and recreation. These services can be the infrastructure and support services considered to be 'at acceptable levels al- are not currently present or specifically though future growth and development may programmed for these areas, and unless well strain any effectiveness of existing fa- such new service areas are considered to cilties and allocated resources. The Leelanau be in the best interest of the Peninsula as County Road Commission maintains nearly a whole. all of the road mileage in the County. Though The timing and location of future growth the majority of the road segments operate at and development should be directly acceptable levels, key segments are charac- linked to the assurance of adequate terized by less than adequate construction Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page - ii DRAFT services to accommodate this growth locations of future planned land uses and development. and the delivery of County services. �The planned expansion and growth of The County should establish a long existing urban areas and/or the estab- range plan for County administration lishment of new future population cen- facilities and develop an implementation ters should be accompanied by the ac- program. The long range plan should quisition and preservation of certain recognize that future County services lands for public use to assure the nec- may extend beyond the current scope essary land resources to provide local of services provided. public facilities and services. A County-wide recreation program �A local recreation program should be should be developed in conjunction with developed to assure the provision of local units of government to identify cur- park and recreation opportunities in rent Peninsula-wide recreation needs, association with existing and future lo- identify what the County's role should cal residential development. be in addressing these needs, and es- �Local strategies for the delivery of pub- tablish specific strategies to fulfill its role lic services and provision of public fa- and provide the necessary facilities. cilities in association with the existing Future police protection should be and future development should recog- linked to satellite stations in principal nize the natural features of the Penin- population areas to better assure quick sula which impact the efficient delivery response times, visibility in, and com- of services, including topography and munication with, local municipalities and water bodies. affected citizens. �Communities should develop local level Future locations of police protection of service standards to guide future de- facilities should be linked to principal cisions on expansion or improvement of transportation corridors and strategi- public facilities and to gauge the impact cally positioned to avoid impassable of new development proposals. barriers, including Lake Leelanau. �Communities should develop local capital improvement programs consis- TRANSPORTATION tent with both local comprehensive land The location of future growth and de- use plans and the Leelanau General velopment should be directly linked to Plan to guide future capital facility in- roadway corridors designed to ac- vestment decisions. commodate the anticipated increase in demand, or linked to capital improve- PUBLIC FACILITIES & PHYSICAL SERV- ments intended to upgrade those road ICES PROVIDED BY segments not capable of adequately LEELANAU COUNTY accommodating the increased de- �Future land use and growth and the mands. administration of County activities and - Right of way preservation measures services should be strongly linked to should be implemented to better enable better assure efficiency of operations, future roadway expansions at a lower proximity to critical service areas, im- public cost. proved accessibility, visibility and com- - Future land use and development pat- munication with the general public. terns should critically link road function � Consideration should be given to the characteristics to safe access. most appropriate location for the o Improvements to the roadway network, County seat based upon the geographic in the form of new road segments, Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page -N DRAFT should be considered to provide more a portion of the demand currently efficient movement throughout the placed upon M-22. Peninsula. Some new roads will be necessary to � Access along principal thoroughfares provide more direct alternative routes in should be more effectively regulated to certain areas such as completion of a minimize opportunities for congestion proposed segment between Bugai and safety hazards. Road and Mann Road in Elmwood � All future new County or State operated Township. roads should be designed and constructed to accommodate safe and SCHOOLS functional bicycle transportation. Future planned growth and develop- � Improvements to the roadway network, ment patterns must be linked to the in the form of reconstructed and/or re- need, ability, and schedule of area aligned intersections, should be consid- school districts to implement facility ered to provide more efficient move- renovations, expansions, and new facil- ment throughout the Peninsula. ity construction to avoid excess enroll- � Improvements to the existing roadway ment demand and decreases in educa- network through general maintenance tion quality, or alternatively higher taxes and reconstruction, should be consid- to fund new school facilities. ered to provide more efficient move- The siting of future new school facilities ment throughout the Peninsula. Future should recognize the benefits of close- expenditures and capital improvement to-home facilities, including: 1) de- planning should recognize the long term creased bussing, traffic generation, and need to improve the roadway base energy consumption; 2) increased conditions of M-22 and M-72. sense of community; and 3) increased Improvements to the roadway network, accessibility to school related commu- in the form of new road segments, nity services, including recreation facili- should be considered to accommodate ties. WorWng Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page -iv DRAFT Chapter 1 PUBLIC FACILITIES and PHYSICAL SERVICES provided by LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES INTRODUCTION generates demand for more public services This chapter reviews the public facilities than its tax revenues pay for, then the and physical services provided by each of existing community has to make up the the 14 local municipalities in the Peninsula in difference. One of the most important rea- the areas of recreation, cemeteries, libraries, sons for managing growth relates to the fiscal sanitary sewer, potable water, storm sewer, implications of development. Additionally, fire protection, and other local facilities and new public facilities can encourage new de- services. It opens with a description of the velopment. If the growth inducing aspects of characteristics of available facilities and public facilities are not adequately consid- services. An analysis follows which highlights ered, then the environment and taxpayer's those issues of special concern in regard to pocketbooks can both be negatively im- the development of alternative futures for the pacted. Peninsula. The provision of public facilities and serv- Leelanau County is a peninsula com- ices by local municipalities within the Penin- posed of many small communities linked to sula is not extensive. Public sanitary sewer, one another. The individual communities water, and storm sewer are provided in only have common needs for basic community a few of the Peninsula's municipalities and services and facilities. Some of these serv- even then, do not necessarily serve all areas ices and facilities are critical to the funda- of these communities. Less costly facilities mental welfare of local residents, such as fire and services, including recreation areas, li- protection. Other facilities and services, such braries, and cemeteries, are more prevalent. as libraries and parks, are not as fundamen- The most common facilities and services, in tally critical but significantly heighten the descending order of occurrence are: recrea- quality of life experienced within the munici- tion facilities, local government offices, ceme- pality. Maintenance and/or expansion of ex- teries, libraries, potable water, sanitary isting local services is directly related to sewer, and storm sewer. Approximately half available financial resources. Once ex- of the municipalities provide only two of the panded, the funds must be sufficient to main- above physical services. An overview of lo- tain the facility and the service. New devel- cally available facilities and services is pre- opment can provide new revenues to help sented in Table 1-1. pay for new facilities. But if new development Working Paper #8- Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 1-1 DRAFT Table 1-1* Municipal Public Facilities and Services Empire Glen Kasson Loelanau 1-alam Soloin S-7-7, suttons Bingham Centerville Cleveland Elmwood Empire Arbor TwP Twp Twp Nortiport Twp Bay Twp Twp Twp Twp Village Two I I F VMaqe RECREATION YES YES YES YES NO YES YES NO YES YES YES YES NO YES SERVICES I # of Facilities 21 1 1 2 2 3 5 9 2 1 5 Acreage Range less 1 2 3-15 4-8 1 or 1/2-72 1-100 2-3 20 5-30 than I less Total Acreage less 1 2 18 12 1 124 Ill 5 20 68 than 1 General Cordtions G G G G G G G G G G Sports Fielft x x x x x x Tennis C<Kft x x x x x Basketba1I C-oum x x x x Playgrounds X x x x x x x x X Tot LIZ x x x Ix x Picnicidng x x x x x x x x x TrakA-sking x x x BeadVSwknn*V x x x x x x Boat Ramp x x x x x Mwh&* sops Buoys 1 47 118 135 Slwidkokating x x x LIBRARY NO NO NO NO NO YES NO NO YES YES NO NO NO YES SERVICES # of Facirdies 2 1 1 1 Year ConstrucW ? 1968 1976 1984 # Volumes 16000 25600 24000 112331 # Coxhoklers 2432 2100 2000 2699 # 1990 circulation 9040, 123535 38000, 22995 CEMETERY YES NO YES NO YES NO NO YES YES YES NO YES YES NO SERVICES # of Facilities 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 1 SANITARY NO NO NO YES NO NO NO NO NO UC NO NO NO YES SEWER Year instwW 1976 1 1 1 1934 POTABLE WATER NO NO NO YES NO YES NO NO NO NO YES NO NO YES Year insww ? 1895 1930's. 1908 STORM SEWER NO NO NO YES NO YES NO NO NO NO YES NO NO P Year Installed (or to ? 1953 1930- 1993 be krstalled) I I I I 40's FIRE PROTECTION YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Fir &`Emergency x x x x x x x x x Station OTHER SERVICES NO NO YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES NO NO YES mmicipai Offices x x x x x x x x x center wintenance/Garage x x .FaaW jAirport x *G=Good P=Proposed W=UnderConstruction Working Paper #8- Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 1-2 DRAFT PUBLIC FACILITIES AND the Townships of Leelanau and Leland. All of PHYSICAL SERVICES the library facilities maintained at least 12,000 volumes in 1990. Leelanau Township Recreation maintains the largest number of volumes at Of the 14 villages and townships in the 25,000 and the highest circulation rate at ap- Peninsula, three provide no significant rec- proximately 23,500. While the Village of reation facilities; Empire Township, Kasson Empire's library facility was constructed in the Township, and Suttons Bay Township. The early 1900's, all other facilities were con- balance of the municipalities operate one or structed since 1968. The approximate size of more recreation facilities, although only three each library facility is as follows: of the municipalities operate more than two 0 Glen Lake Community Library in Em- such facilities. Glen Arbor Township operates pire Village; 1,900 square feet three recreation facilities, all of which are one 0 Leelanau Township Library; 4,850 acre or less in size. Leelanau Township and square feet the Village of Suttons Bay each operate five 0 Leland Library; 3,200 square feet facilities for a total recreation acreage of 124 0 Suftons Bay Village; 3,300 square and 68 respectively, the largest acreages of feet. the municipalities on the Peninsula. The five The Glen Lake Community Library is most common facilities offered by area jointly operated by the Village of Empire and municipalities within at least one of their park Glen Arbor Township. In addition to their facilities include, in descending order of main library facility, these two communities frequency, picnicking, playgrounds, sports also maintain a separate storage facility fields, and beach/ swimming facilities. Nearly which houses an additional 4,000 of its all of the facilities are considered to be in 16,000 total volumes (see Figure 1-2). good condition, the largest of which, Woolsey Memorial Airport, is located in Leelanau Cemeteries Township and covers 72 acres. Eight of the 14 local municipalities in the In addition to the locally operated recrea- Peninsula operate one or more cemetery tion facilities, and those of the County (to be facilities. Three of these communities operate discussed in Chapter 2), two major state and two cemetery facilities and Empire Township is federal recreation facilities exist within the the only municipality that operates three such Peninsula. The federal government operates facilities (see Figure 1-2). In addition to the the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lake- publicly operated cemeteries in the Peninsula, shore, a resource-based sand dune recrea- there are numerous cemeteries owned and op- tion area in excess of 25 square miles in erated by religious and Indian groups. area. The state operates the 1250 acre Leelanau State Park in the north region of Sanitary Sewer the Peninsula and similarly provides re- Two municipalities within the Peninsula source-based recreation opportunities in- currently operate public sanitary sewer sys- cluding camping, hiking, hunting, nature tems: Elmwood Township and the Village of trails, fishing, swimming, and more. Suftons Bay. The Township of Leland is in Figure 1-1 illustrates the location of rec- the process of constructing a public sewer reation facilities within the Peninsula. system at the time of this writing. It is ex- pected to be operational in 1993. The over- Libraries whelming majority of homes and businesses Four of the 14 municipalities on the Pen- in the County rely on private septic systems. insula operate library facilities; these include Elmwood Township: In 1976, Elmwood the Villages of Empire and Suttons Bay, and Township constructed a public sanitary Working Paper #8- Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 1-3 4 DRAFT sewer system. The system is linked to the by the end of 1992. The system is designed regional sewage treatment plant in Traverse to accommodate approximately 35 million City which provides both primary and sec- gpd. Initial services will be provided to ap- ondary treatment and discharges into proximately 600 households in Leland and Boardman Lake. The Township's system has Lake Leelanau, allowing for an additional 5 a daily maximum capacity of 8 million gpd million gpd of flow for future expansion. Fig- and is currently operating at approximately 5 ure 1-5 illustrates the Leland Township sani- million gallons per day (gpd). Current peak tary sewer network. demand is unknown. There are approxi- mately 1000 hook-ups along the system, 850 Water Systems of which are for residences, 90 for commer- Four public water systems provide service cial establishments, and 60 for industrial in limited areas of the Peninsula. All derive facilities. Though no improvements are cur- their water from wells like all other potable rently planned, the system is currently un- water users. None of the public systems treat dergoing reassessment studies. Figure 1-3 the water prior to distribution. illustrates Elmwood Township's sewer sys- Elmwood Township: Elmwood Town- tem. ship operates a small public water system in Village of Suttons Bay: The Village of the west central area of the Township where Suffons Bay public sanitary sewer system several subdivisions have evolved (see Fig- was initially constructed in 1934. The system ure 1-6). The system was originally part of, uses secondary level treatment technology and operated by, a subdivision development and discharges the treated sewage into Sut- but was taken over by the Township in 1989 tons Bay. The daily maximum capacity of the at which time it received improvements. The system is 38 million gpd and is currently op- system receives its water from two under- erating at a peak demand of 19 million gpd. ground wells and receives no treatment prior Since the system's construction, the Village to distribution. The daily maximum capacity has established eight lagoon cells; the three of the system is 40,000 gpd (average daily most recent become operational in 1988. The demand and current peak demand is un- Village has been expanding the system's known). A 4,000 gallon pressurized tank is service area and intends to continue doing so used for storage purposes. Except for one during 1992 and 1993 at a total cost of ap- commercial hook-up, all of the 100 hook-ups proximately $275,000. The Village considers are for resi-dences. No improvements are cur- the system to be in excellent condition. The rently planned. system services approximately 200 resi- Village of Empire: The Village of Empire dences, 50 commercial establishments, and initially constructed a public water system in 5 industrial facilities. Figure 1-4 illustrates the 1895. Today, the system is fed by groundwa- Village of Suttons Bay sanitary sewer ter from glacial deposits through three under- network. ground wells to provide a maximum capacity Leland Township: Leland Township of 396,000 gpd. The system is currently began construction on a municipal sanitary characterized by a peak demand of 150,000 sewer system in the winter of 1991. Con- gpd and average daily demand of 70,000 struction of the principal infrastructure. sys- gpd. A 100,000 gallon underground concrete tem, including the lagoon facility, is expected tank provides water storage. Of the 261 to be completed by August 1. The next task hook-ups, 235 are for residences and 25 are will be making the individual hook-ups as- for commercial establishments. The system sociated with residential and nonresidential serves approximately 354 persons and ex- structures to be serviced by the system. periences a per capita demand of approxi- These hook-ups are expected to be in place mately 127 gpd. The system underwent ma- Working Paper #8- Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 1-4 DRAFT jor renovations in 1981 and is considered to Storm Water Systems be in excellent condition. The Village has no Public storm systems are intended to further improvements planned at this time. collect runoff to limit the frequency of flood Figure 1-7 illustrates the public water system conditions, and filter out the runoff's impuri- of Empire Village including well sites. ties prior to discharge into a water body. Two Village of Northport: The Village of municipalities in the Peninsula operate public Northport operates a village-wide public water storm sewer systems: the villages of Empire system that was initially constructed in the and Northport. The Village of Suffons Bay is 1930's (see Figure 1-8). The system receives anticipating the installation of storm sewer in- its water from two glacial deposit underground frastructure by the end of 1993. wells including a 100,000 gallon ground level Village of Empire: A limited area of the storage tank. The average dMi y demand is Village of Empire is serviced by a public approximately 77,160 gpd and the peak storm sewer system (see Figure 1-10). The demand is approximately 81,300 gpd (daily system was constructed in 1953 and collects maximum capacity is unknown). Approximately runoff primarily along Front Street via under- 610 persons are served by this system and it ground storm sewer and the runoff is dis- operates at a per capita rate of approximately charged into a small stream which feeds into 208 gpd. The system is considered to be in South Bar Lake. The Village does not employ very good condition. Increasing the number of retention or sedimentation basins. The sys- valves along the system is planned during the tem is considered to be in average condition summer of 1992 and a new elevated storage and there are no major improvements cur- tank is being considered. rently planned. It is unknown what intensity of Village of Suttons Bay: The Village of rainfall the Village's system is capable of Suttons Bay public water system was initially adequately accommodating. constructed in 1908 and relies on two arte- Village of Northport: The Village of sian wells, emanating from glacial drift, for its Northport operates a public stormwater sys- water source. The well water does not re- tem in the downtown area of the Village. The ceive any treatment prior to entering the dis- system was constructed during the 1930's tribution network. The Village operates a and 1940's. The system consists principally 180,000 gallon ground storage reservoir and of several small independent storm pipes the system provides for a maximum peak which discharge into nearby streams or di- demand of 150,000 gpd. The current aver- rectly into Northport Bay (see Figure 1 -11). age demand is approximately 130,000 gpd. The Village does not employ retention or Approximately 510 persons are served by the sedimentation basins. The storm sewer sys- system and the system receives 138 gpd on tem is considered to be in fair condition and a per capita basis. The Village has been ex- there are no current plans for expansions or tending the system's service area annually improvements. It is unknown what intensity of since 1989 and, except for a small extension rainfall the Village's system is capable of planned for 1993 at a cost of approximately adequately accommodating. $22,000, the Village has no other current Village of Suttons Bay: Though the Vil- plans for significant future improvements or lage of Suftons Bay does not currently.oper- extensions. Of the total 242 hook-ups to the ate a public stormwater system (MDOT op- system, 190 are residential, 50 are commer- erates a storm drain along M-22), the Village cial, and 2 are industrial. Figure 1-9 illus- has plans to install a limited amount of trates the Village of Suttons Bay public water stormwater infrastructure by the end of 1993 system, including the location of its wells. (see Figure 1-12). The system will discharge into a sedimentation basin adjacent to Sut- tons Bay. The system is expected to be de- Wofking Paper #8- Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 1-5 DRAFT signed to accommodate the runoff from a Memorial Hospital. The service is jointly funded rainfall intensity occurring at a frequency of by the Township and Hospital. The rescue once every ten years. service is operated independently of the North- port Fire Department. Fire & Emergency Medical Services Six of the eight departments operate a Eight local volunteer fire departments single facility. The Northport Fire Department operate throughout the Peninsula (see Figure operates facilities in both the Village of North- 1-13 for location of fire stations and service port and the community of Omena. The Sut- boundaries). These volunteer departments tons Bay-Bingham Fire and Rescue Depart- provide all of the fire protection services in ment operates stations in both the Village and the Peninsula except for periodic assistance the southern limits of Bingham Township. Each the departments may secure from the of the departments' stations provide for the Traverse City Fire Department in time of storage of equipment and vehicles. Each of the need. There are an equal number of facilities has a training/meeting room and a departments administered by individual mu- kitchen. None of the facilities have sleeping nicipalities as there are departments adminis- quarters. The principal equipment and vehicles tered through joint agreements between two available throughout the Peninsula include: or more local municipalities. The eight de- 11 pumpers, 500 to 1250 gallon capacity partments, and their respective geographic 5 mini-pumpers, 250 to 300 gallon ca- service areas, include: pacity (predominantly) 1) Cedar Fire Department (Cedar, Cen- 12 tankers terville, and Kasson Township) 6 equipment tanks 2) Elmwood Fire and Rescue Department 7 brush trucks (Elmwood Township) 7 ambulances 3) Empire Fire and Rescue Department 5 rescue vans (Empire Township and Village of Em- 1 cascade system pire) 5 jaws-of-life 4) Glen Arbor Fire and Rescue Depart- 4 portable hydrants ment (Glen Arbor Township) 4 stabilizer air bags. 5) Leland Township Fire and Rescue De- Cumulatively, the fire departments have partment (Leland Township) approximately 25,000 feet of hose ranging 6) Northport Fire Department (Village of from 1 1/2 to 5 inches in diameter. Two or Northport and Leelanau Township) more fire departments are immediately dis- 7) Northport Rescue (Village of Northport patched in response to a fire alarm. In all, and Leelanau Township) 1,048 emergency calls were received in the 8) Suffons Bay-Bingham Fire and Rescue Peninsula by the fire departments during Department (Village of Sultons Bay and 1990, 392 of which were for fire emergency the Townships of Suttons Bay and service and 656 were for ambulatory service. Bingham). The Insurance Service Organization rates Grand Traverse Emergency Medical municipal areas according to the available Services operates as the primary transport- level of fire protection, for use by insurance ing ambulance service in Elmwood Town- companies. Fire ratings range from 1 to 10. ship. This arrangement is part of a contrac- While there are numerous criteria employed tual agreement between EMS and the Town- to establish a fire rating, a rating of 10 is the ship. Elmwood Township's rescue unit is a lowest rating and generally applies to areas nontransporting unit. which do not have an organized fire depart- Northport Rescue provides ambulance ment. A rating of 9 is applied to those areas services only, and is stationed at the Leelanau which are serviced by a fire department but Working Paper #8- Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 1-6 DRAFT are not within five road miles of a fire station. Peninsula are generally limited. Though the All villages in the Peninsula have been given scope of these services are limited, the a rating of 7, except the Village of Empire, service levels currently provided reasonably which has an 8 rating. Except for the Town- meet generally accepted standards for the ships of Suttons Bay, Leland, and Elmwood, delivery of such services. which have ratings of 8, nearly all other The generally accepted standard for local Township areas have a 9 rating. There are park acreage of 10 acres per 1,000 popula- some limited areas which have been given a tion is met by the vast majority of municipali- rating of 10. ties and is clearly met on a Peninsula-wide There are four levels of training by which basis. Similarly, the American Library Asso- state certified emergency medical services ciation's standard of 2.5 volumes per capita personnel are classified according to the level for populations ranging in size from 10,000 to of training they have successfully completed: 35,000 persons is exceeded on a Peninsula ambulance attendant, Emergency Medical wide basis. None of the municipalities are in Technician (EMT), EMT-specialist, and Para- need of additional public lands for cemetery medic. Most volunteers in Leelanau County are purposes. The sanitary sewer and water sys- ambulance attendants and EMT's, with a few tems in place within the more urbanized EMT-specialists. In the most severe emer- communities within the Peninsula are cur- gencies, paramedics from Traverse City are rently meeting the daily and peak demands routinely called to assist, irrespective of the placed upon them and most of the infrastruc- emergency location within the County. In ture is in good condition. addition, the North Flight medical team is While the services provided by the local available from Traverse City (helicopter trans- municipalities may generally meet these port). These services are frequently called standards, it is important to note that the dis- upon in Leelanau County. persed population pattern within the Penin- A detailed listing of fire equipment, by sula raises questions regarding the effective department, is provided in the Appendix. accessibility of some of these services to the general public. Access to park and library Other Facilities and Services facilities requires access to a vehicle and Of the 14 local municipalities in the Pen- often involves a comparatively large driving insula, eight operate municipal offices which time. This circumstance is exacerbated by are open to the public at regularly scheduled the many months of winter weather in the hours, three operate maintenance/garage Peninsula and the additional hardship it cre- facilities, and one-Leelanau Township-oper- ates in accessing these facilities. ates a small airport. Four of the municipalities Fire protection is perhaps the most diffi- do not maintain municipal offices in the cult service to provide by local municipalities formal sense as local officials carry out their within the Peninsula. The population is very duties from their residences. These munici- dispersed and the circuitous road network palities do maintain a facility for the purposes hinders quick response times. There are of holding meetings. Administrative activities numerous areas within the Peninsula which are carried out within the residences of the do not fall within the American Insurance As- local officials. Figure 1-14 shows the location sociation's fire department standard-an op- of all Village and Township halls, as well as timum service radius of four miles where other municipal facilities. buildings are 100 feet or more apart. While the majority of residents living within the EMERGING ISSUES more urban areas of the Peninsula fall within Public facilities and physical services such a radius, a substantial number of resi- provided by the local municipalities within the dents do not, nor would it be feasible to do so Working Paper #8- Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 1-7 DRAFT with the dispersed population pattern across land use, new and/or expanded stormwater most of the Peninsula. management systems may become a While the levels of service associated with necessity, despite the relatively high porosity the current public facilities and physical of may local soils. services provided by local municipalities are Anticipated future growth rates may well reasonable, these levels of service will be ex- dictate more formal municipal off ices, and ceeded in the future. Though local park acre- staffing of the offices on a more regular age on a Peninsula-wide basis exceeds the (perhaps daily) basis, for many of the munici- standard of 10 acres per 1,000 population by palities in the Peninsula. Increased growth and more than 100% (16,527 population and ap- development will inevitably result in more in- proximately 360 acres of local park land tensive schedules for local legislative bodies, yields approximately 22 acres of local park planning commissions, zoning and municipal land per 1,000 population), accessibility to administrators, and municipal staff. Municipal these facilities will become a greater issue as off ices. properly manned and equipped to ac- population densities increase in the more commodate administrative record, keeping, outlying areas of the Peninsula where fewer questions and requests by the public, and park facilities are located. similar day-to-day activities of growing commu- The worsening condition of accessibility nities will become an increasing need. will similarly face fire protection and library services as well. The safety of the public will ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION become increasingly jeopardized as current The limited extent of existing and planned fire stations may find themselves increasingly local public facilities within the Peninsula, distant from a rising number of new house- when compared to the sustained effect of holds. Library accessibility is further exacer- current rates of growth, suggest the follow- bated by the fact that accepted volume stan- ing: dards will be threatened in fifteen years if the 1) The location of future growth and de- County continues to grow as it has since velopment should be based upon an 1980, and the current library facilities are intent to minimize increased public small with little excess capacity. service costs due to excessively dis- . Existing public sewer and water systems persed populations and limited avail- in the Peninsula are generally considered to able facilities. be in good condition and with available ex- 2) The location of future growth and de- cess supplies within the system. The rela- velopment should be based upon an tively limited growth experienced by those intent to maximize the utility of and villages with such systems (excluding Elm- investment in existing service areas, wood Township) may support the viability of particularly in Villages. these systems well into the future if such lim- 3) The intensity and density of future de- ited growth rates continue. Of particular con- velopment should be linked to the ne- cern, however, is the rapid growth in some of cessity for, and availability of, public the municipalities within the Peninsula that do services to protect public health and not operate public sewer or water systems. If safety, including, where necessary, san- these locally high growth rates continue and itary sewer, water, and fire protection. the growth not appropriately guided and 4) Areas should not be planned or zoned managed, there may well be several mu- for high intensity or density of develop- nicipalities forced to construct such systems. ment if the infrastructure and support Depending upon the future growth rates services are not currently present or within the individual municipalities and the specifically programmed for these ar- associated pattern of land development and eas, and unless such new service areas Woridng Paper #8- Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 1-8 DRAFT are considered to be in the best interest 8) Local strategies for the delivery of of the Peninsula as a whole. public services and provision of public 5) The timing and location of future facilities in association with the exist- growth and development should be di- ing and future development should rectly linked to the aisurance of ade- recognize the natural features of the quate services to accommodate this Peninsula which impact the efficient growth and development. delivery of services, including topog- 6) The planned expansion and growth of raphy and water bodies. existing urban areas and/or the estab- 9) Communities should develop local lishment of new future population cen- level of service standards to guide fu- ters should be accompanied by the ture decisions on expansion or im- acquisition and preservation of certain provement of public facilities and to lands for public use to assure the nec- gauge the impact of new development essary land resources to. provide local proposals. public facilities and services. 10)Communities should develop local 7) Local recreation programs should be capital improvement programs consis- developed to assure the provision of tent with both local comprehensive park and recreation opportunities in land use plans and the Leelanau association with existing and future General Plan to guide future capital local residential development. facility investment decisions. Working Pap #8- Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 1-9 DRAFT Figure 1-1 RECREATION FACILITIES National Park State Park County Park A Township Park VillopPork This mmp was coopiled fran aerial photo SOIM VATERIAL: graphs usinq standard noml interpret- Block and white aerial photography, ation techniques. This data has not April, 1990. Aerial scale 1:7920 been field cheded. This mop Is -4atended for general planning purposes. Site-specific evaluation should be verified by field inspection. Mop scole - 1:264000 (Om inch - 4.2 W I as) This mop was generated fran the I" I am I nf omet I on Systan by. the N Loolamou County Planning Depoeftment. April 1. 1992 (N A b Working Paper #8- Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 1-10 DRAFT Figure 1-2 LIBRARY AND CEMETERY FACILITIES Library Creteries Facilities This mip was copi led frain aerial photo SMW MATERIAL: gra* wing standard inamal interpret- Block arul white aerial photography, at ion techniques. This date has not April. 1990. Aerial scof@ a 1:7M bass field docked. This mop is Intended for general planning purposes. Site Vocific miuation should be Recroational facility and cratery data veriflod by field Impaction. prov Ided by Yownship and Vi I I age officialii. Map scale - 1:25= (One Inch - 4.2 W lei) This mip was gwrotod I ran the Loslanou Infornation Systan by the N Leslomiii County Plonning D"ortrient. April 1, 1992 b Working Paper #8- Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 1-11 DRAFT Figure 1-3 ELMWOOD TOWNSHIP SEWER SYSTEM 8" Main Lines 12" Main Lines Duyp Stations This map was campi led frcm aerial photo graphs using standard manual interpret- ation techniques. This data has not been field checked. This map is intended for general planning purposes. SOURCE MATERIAL: Black and white aerial photography, April, 1990. Aerial scale = 1:7920 Sanitary sewer system data provided by Elnwood Township. This map was generated frcm the Leelanou Information System by the Leelonou County Planning Department. April 1, 1990 Map Scale = 1:42240 (1" app. 2/3 mile) N Working Paper #8- Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 1-12 DRAFT Figure 1-4 SUTTONS BAY SEWER SYSTEM -------------------- Road Sewer Line This map is caTi led from aerial photo-- graphs using standard manual interpret- ation techniques. This map has not been field checked. This map is intended for general planning purposes. Map scale 1:15840 (One inch 1/4 mile) SOURCE MATERIAL: Black and white aerial photography, April, 1990. Aerial scale = 1:7920 Sanitary sewer system data provided by the Village of Suttons Bay. This map was generated from the Leelanau Inforarntion System by the Leelonau County Planning Department. - - - - - - - April 1, 1992 N 1 T Suttons ?ag sewage lagoons @4 4 acres, 6 cells) Working Paper #8- Transportation, Public Facilifies, and Physical Services Page 1- 13 DRAFT Figure 1-5a LELAND TOWNSHIP SEWER SYSTEM (LELAND PART) Lift Station 4of Line Road Line 2" Line 8" L i ne 10" Line This map was compi led from aerial photo- graphs using standard manual interpret- ation techniques. This data has not been field checked. This map is intended for general planning purposes. f N SOURCE MATERIAL: Black and white aerial photography, April, 1990. Aerial scale = 1:7920 Sewer system data provided by Leland Township. Map scale = 1:15840 (One inch = 1/4 mile) Th i s map was generated from the -A Leelanau Information System by the Leelanou County Planning Department. April 1, -1992 a sewage lagoon on Popp Road Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 1- 14 DRAFT Figure 1-5b LELAND TOWNSHIP SEWER SYSTEM (LAKE LEELANAU PART) Road 6' L i ne 2' Line 8' Line e L i ne Lift Station This map was cmVi led fran aerial photo graphs Using standard manual interpret- ation techniques. This map has not been field checked. This map is intended for general planning purpoSe3. SM VATMIAL: To sewage lagoon Black and white aerial photography. Von Popp Road April, 1990. Aerial scale - 1:7920 Sanitary sever data provided by Leland Township. 14 scale = 1:15840 (One inch - 1/4 fffle) This map was generated fran the Leelanou Infonngtion Systan by the Leelonou County Planning Departnent. April 1, 1992 Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 1-15 DRAFT Figure 1-6 ELMWOOD TOWNSHIP WATER SYSTEM 8" Water Ma.in Well Area This map was caTpiled from aerial photographs using standard manual interpretation techniques. This data has not been field checked. This map is intended for general planning purposes. SOURCE MATERIAL: Black and white aerial photo- graphy, April, 1990. Aerial scale = 1:7920 This map was generated frarn the Leelanau Information System by the Leelanau County Planning Department. Map scale = 1:15840 (One inch = 1/4 mile) N April 1, 1990 Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 1- 16 DRAFT Figure 1-7 EMPIRE WATER SYSTEM Rood 6' water rnain 10' water rmin 4" water rmain 8" water nicin 2" water rmin Water tank pum house This map was carpiled fro aerial photo SM MATERIAL: graphs using standard manual interpret- Block and white aerial photography ation techniques. This data has not (April, 1990). Aerial scale - 1:7920 been field chocked. This map is Water syston date provided by the Intended for general planning purposes. Village of rhipirs. This map was generated fro the Map sca I a - 15M Lotion Infonnotion Systo by the (One inch m 1/4 rni I e) Leelonau County Planning Deportrot. April 1, 1992 N --------------------- ----------------- T Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 1- 17 DRAFT Figure 1-8 NORTHPORT WATER SYSTEM Road 4" Water Main 8" Water Main Wel 1 6" Water Main Storage Tank A Fire Hydrant Th i s map was cmpiled frcm aerial photo A graphs using siandordmanuol interpret- ation techniques. This data has not been f i e I d checked. Thi s map i s intended for general planning purposes. SOURCE MATERIAL: Black and white aerial photography, April, 1990. Aerial scale = 1:7920 Water system data provided by the Village of Northport. This map was generated frcm the Leelanou Information System by the Leelanou County Planning Department. April 1, 1992 Map scale = 1:21120 N - - - - - - - - (One inch = app. 1/3 mile) -V71 Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 1- 18 DRAFT Figure 1-9 SUTTONS BAY WATER SYSTEM ROW r Voter Mein 6" Water Main - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4' Water likin Storage Reservoir Wei I A Fire lilydropi I This m3p is copi led fron wrial photo.- graphs usirl standard manual Interpret- allop techniques. This mip has not been field chocked. This map Is intended for general planning purposes. Map Ica I I - 1:15540 (Ona Inch - 1/4 W I I) SMM VATERIAL: Bled and white aerial photography. I April. 1990. Aerial wait - 1:7920 1 ter systan data provided by the 1 11 age of Set tons Bay. This we ,f,=roted fron Ih I" ion Systa by the Leelwm County planning Departmomt. April 1. 1992 Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 1-13 DRAFT Figure 1-10 EMPIRE STORMWATER WATER SYSTEM ROW Slorm Sewer Line A Discharge Point intake Point This map was empi led fron aerial photo SMM 107ERIAL: graphs using stwAord monual interpret- Black and white aerial photography dion techniques. This data has not (April. 1990). Aerial sale - 1:7920 been field cheded. This map is Introstructure data provided by the t Intended for general planning purposes. Village of ftire. This mop was generated from the mop scale - 15M Loelmm Intomation Systen by the Leelonou County Planning Departnent. (One i mh - 1/4 rdi I a) April 1, 1992 --------------------- ----------------- Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 1-20 DRAFT Figure 1 -11 NORTHPORT STORMWATER SYSTEM Road 18" Line 12" Line 4" Line Th i s map was ccmp i I ed f rcm aer i a I photo graphs using standard manual interpret- ation techniques. This data has not been field checked. This map is intended for general planning purposes. SOURCE MATERIAL: Black and white aerial photography, April, 1990. Aerial scale = 1:7920 Storm water system data Provided by the Village of Northport. This map was generated frcm the Leelanau Information System by the Leelonau County Planning Department. April 1, 1992 Map Scale = 1:21120 N - - - - - - - (One inch = app. 1/3 mile) Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 1-21 DRAFT Figure 1-12 SUTTONS BAY STORMWATER SYSTEM ------------------ ROW Storm Sewer This nw is cop;lod fror as- c p%to- graphs using standard manual interpret- ation techniques. This map has not hean field check*d. This " is intended for Vneral planning purposes. Vap wale - 1:15840 (ON Inch - 1/4 ml I a) 901= VATRIAL: Block and white aerial photoorophy, April, 1990. Aerial wale - 1:7920 1 Stan soar data provided by the Village of Suttonk Day. This mip was gwroled from the Loolonou Inforention @ystrm by the Leelom County Plasaing Deportnent. Apri 1 1. 1992 Working Paper #8 - Transportation. Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 1-22 DRAFT Figure 1-13a CEDAR FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE AREA AND FACILITIES Cedar Mire Dept Service Area This map was conpiled frorn aerial photo SOURCE MATERIAL: graphs using standard -nanual interpret- Black and white aerial photography, 0tion techniques. This data has not April. 1990. Aerial scale - 1:7920 been field chocked. This map is intended for general planning purposes. Site-specific evaluation should be Fire service area data courtesy of verified by field Inspection. Leelanou County Deparbrent of finergency Services. Map scale - 1:264000 (One inch - 4.2 miles) This map was generated from the Leelanou Information System by the N Leelonou County Planning Department. April 1. 1992 Cedar Fire ion Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 1-23 DRAFT Figure 1-13b ELMWOOD TOWNSHIP FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE AREA AND FACILITIES Eimmod rownship Fire Dept. Service Area This map was carpi led frcm aerial photo SOURCE VATERIAL: graphs using standard mnual Interpret- Black and white aerial photography. ation techniques. This data has not April. 1990 Aerial scale - 1:7920 been field chocked. This map Is intended for general planning purposes. Site-specific evaluation should be Fife serv;ce area data courtesy of verified by field inspection. Leelanou County Department of Dnergency Services. Map scale - 1:264000 (One Inch - 4.2 miles) This mmp was generated frcm the Leelanou Information System by the Leelonou County Planning Department. April 1. 1992 ElmwoW Township C", Fire Station Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 1-24 DRAFT Figure 1-13c EMPIRE FIRE DEPARTMENT 'SERVICE AREA AND FACILITIES 1hpire Fire Dept. q Service Area This map was carpi led fran aerial photo SOURCE MATERIAL: graphs using standard nunual Interpret- Block and white aerial photography, ation techniques. This data has not April, 1990. Aerial scale - 1:7920 been field checked. This mmp is intended for general planning purposes. Site-sp*cific evaluation should be Fire service area data courtesy of verified by field inspection. Leslanou County Deportnent of G=rgency Services. Map scale - 1:264000 (One Inch - 4.2 miles) This map was generated fran the Leelanou Information System by the N Leelonau County Planning Departnent. April 1. 1992 u-1 BMi re Fire Station b Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 1-25 DRAFT Figure 1-13d GLEN ARBOR FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE AREA AND FACILITIES Glen Arbor Fire Dept. Service Area This map was compiled frcrn aerial photo SOME MATERIAL: graphs using standard fmnual interpret- Block and white aerial photography. ation techniques. This data has not April, 1990. Aerial scale - 1:7920 been field chocked. This mp Is intended for general planning purposes. Fire service area data courtesy of Sit"peolflC evaluation should be verified by field inspection. Lealanou County Depoftmnt Of Gmrgency Services. Map scale - 1:2640M (One inch - 4.2 miles) This map was generated fran the Leelanou lpfornation Systan by the Leelonau County Planning Deportnent. April 1. IM Glen Arbor Fire Stati Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 1-26 DRAFT Figure 1-13e LELAND TOWNSHIP FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE AREA AND FACILITIES Leland Township Fire Dept. 14 Service Area This map was copi led frcm aerial photo SOLKE MATERIAL: graphs using standard manual Interpret- Black and white aerial photography, ation techniques. This data has not April, 1990. Aerial scale - 1:7920 been field chocked. Thismap is Intended for general planning purposes Sit " pecific evaluation should be Fire serv:ce area data courtesy of verified by field Inspection. Leelonou County Department of Brergency Services. Map scale - 1:264000 (One inch - 4.2 miles) Leland This map Was generated fram the Fire Station Leelanou Information System by the N Leelanau County Planning Department. April 1. 1992 Lake Leelonou Fire Station b Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 1-2 7 DRAFT Figure 1-1 3f NORTHPORT FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE AREA AND FACILITIES Am Northport Fire Dept. Service Area Northport Fire Station This -nap #as cmv; ad [ran aeria. photo SOURCE MATERIAL: graphs -ising stanoard mnual interpret- Block and white aerial photography. ation techniques. This data has not April. 1990. Aerial scale - 1:7920 been field checked. This map is intended for general planning purposes. Site-specific evaluation should be Fire service area data courtesy of verified by field Inspection. Leelonau County Department of Oneno Fire Map scale - 1:264000 fimergency Services Station (One Inch - 4.2 miles) This mop was generated frcm the Leelonou Infornation System by the N Leelanou County Planning Deportment. April 1. 1992 b Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 1-28 DRAFT Figure 1-13g SUTTONS BAY - BINGHAM FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE AREA AND FACILITIES Sutions Boy - Binghcrn Fire Dept. Service Area This map was carpilod from aerial photo SOI= VATERIAL: graphs using standard manual Interpret- Black and white aerial photography, ation techniques. This data has not April. 1990. Aerial scale - 1:7920 boon field chocked. This m3p Is intended for general planning purposes. Site--spocific evaluation should be Fire service area data courtesy of verified by field inspection. Le*lcnaL County Deparinant of Brorgency Services. Map scale - 1:264000 (One Inch - 4.2 miles) This map was generated fram the Leelonau Infomation System by the I-selanau County Planning Departnent. N April 1, IM Sutton$ say Fire Station L Binghan Fire Station b Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 1-29 DRAFT Figure 1-14 PENINSULA-WIDE MUNICIPAL FACILITIES Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 1-30 DRAFT Chapter 2 PUBLIC FACILITIES and PHYSICAL SERVICES provided by LEELANAU COUNTY INTRODUCTION 9 Probate This chapter reviews the principal public 0 Small Court Room physical facilities and physical services pro- * Large Court Room vided by Leelanau County. County operated 0 Law Library facilities and services include recreation, po- 0 District Court lice protection, a law library, facilities main- 0 County Board of Commissioners tenance, and administration. The County Room road network, largely maintained by the 0 Register of Deeds Leelanau County Road Commission is dis- 9 Vault cussed in detail in Chapter 3. 0 Accounting Comparatively speaking, Leelanau * Youth County does not provide extensive physical The Courthouse was constructed in 1964 public facilities and services. The County and occupies a 1.3-acre site, includes ap- road network can be considered the most proximately 6,500 square feet of floor space. visible facility and service operated at the County Planning and Equalization offices are County level, followed by police protection housed in a 1200 square foot temporary (Sheriff's Department) and general county structure east of the Courthouse. In addition government administration. Recreation and to the County Courthouse, the County rents library services and facilities are quite limited. two "satellite" facilities in the communities of All of the County's facilities and services Lake Leelanau and Suttons Bay. The are situated in the communities of Leland, Provemant Building in Lake Leelanau in- Lake Leelanau, Suttons Bay, and Maple City. cludes approximately 2,500 square feet of Leland, in Leland Township, is the County's floor space and is used by the County's In- principal administrative center. spections Department and Cooperative Ex- tension Service. The Millside Building, situ- PUBLIC FACILITIES and PHYSICAL ated in the business. district of Suttons Bay, SERVICES was constructed in 1978 and is used by the Figure 2-1 identifies the location of all county Michigan Department of Social Services for property and facilities. various administrative functions as well as housing the County Inspections Department Administration and the Cooperative Extension Service. The The County Courthouse in Leland is the facility includes approximately 4,900 square home of most of the County's administrative feet of floor space. activities. The County Courthouse includes Two facilities are also maintained for ad- the following principal administrative offices ministrative functions particular to the Leela- and facilities including: nau County Road Commission. The Road � Prosecutor Commission's headquarters are situated in � Treasurer the Village of Suttons Bay and cover ap- � Clerk proximately 1,765 square feet of floor area Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 2-1 DRAFT within a structure initially constructed in 1952 10 Correction and Dispatch Personnel. and expanded in 1989. The vast portion of The Leelanau County jail was constructed the structure, or 23,060 square feet of floor in 1959 and sits across from the Court area, is utilized by the Road Commission for House. The jail underwent major renovations vehicle storage and maintenance purposes. in 1982 when the resident sheriff moved out The Road Commission operates a similar and his quarters and garage became admin- storage and maintenance facility in Maple istrative offices and an inmate library. The City though considerably smaller in size, at facility is in fair to good condition and has a approximately 7,455 square feet of floor capacity of 19 inmates. The facility has been area. experiencing increasing demand and has ex- ceeded capacity annually since 1982. While Police Protection the demand has subsided somewhat in 1992, The Leelanau County Sheriff's Depart- particularly in March and April when very low ment provides the principal police protection demand levels were witnessed, January and services in the Peninsula. There are no local February inmate levels approached or municipal police departments or private se- slightly exceeded capacity levels for several curity services associated with individual weeks. large scale residential developments. How- ever, several villages hire seasonal police of- Recreation ficers and the State Police periodically con- Leelanau County operates two park facili- duct patrols in the County. ties; Old Settlers Picnic Grounds and Myles The Grand Traverse Band Police De- Kimmerly Recreation Area (see Figure 2-1). partment, composed of members from the The most significant of these facilities in Ottawa and Chippewa reservation, provides regard to size and facilities is the Myles Kim- security services within the reservation. merly Recreation Area which covers ap- There exists a mutual aid agreement be- proximately 100 acres and is situated two tween the Police Department and Sheriffs miles west of Maple City. Recreation oppor- Department. tunities at this facility include baseball, soft- In addition to the police protection serv- ball, picnicking, nature trails, sledding, skat- ices provided by the Leelanau County Sher- ing, and snowmobiling, hunting, baseball, iff's Department, the Department is also re- tennis, basketball, and playgrounds. The sponsible for the provision of: facility is considered to be in good condition. � jail administration The Old Settlers Picnic Grounds covers � court officers approximately six acres and is located two � services of process for the courts and a half miles further west from Myles marine patrol Kimmerly Recreation Area on the shores of animal control Glen Lake. Recreation opportunities at this fire and rescue dispatch. facility include picnicking, swimming, fishing, All of the above services are provided to boat launch, tennis, and playgrounds. all municipalities in the Peninsula by the Sheriff's Department. The current staff com- Law Library prising the Sheriff's Department includes: The County does not operate a library in * 1 Sheriff the traditional sense but does maintain a * 1 Undersherrif small law library, approximately 265 square * 1 Secretary feet in floor area, within the County Court * 2 Sergeants House facility. * 2 Cooks * 9 Road Deputies Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 2-2 DRAFT EMERGING ISSUES sula is fortunate is have the state and federal Compared to similarly sized counties, recreation facilities available to its residents, Leelanau County is currently providing a these facilities are not programmed to spe- fairly broad scope of services to the residents cifically address the unique needs of the of the Peninsula. However, new service de- Peninsula residents and program flexibility is mand and as in most counties, costs are ris- limited. As the Peninsula's population contin- ing faster than revenues and it is increasingly ues to grow, the County can be expected to difficult to provide the services currently pro- hear increased demands for County operated vided. This condition can be expected to recreation facilities which specifically address worsen as new growth and development the needs of area residents. These needs place more demands on existing facilities. may be met by local facilities or on an inter- jurisdictional basis, but should be examined Recreation on a Peninsula-wide basis. It has traditionally been the responsibility of a county to provide regional recreation Police Protection facilities while local municipal governments Though a single police station and asso- have addressed smaller and usually user- ciated patrol cars may adequately meet the based recreation needs (versus resource- current needs of the Peninsula, future growth based). This is particularly true in rural envi- and development will place more and more ronments where local municipalities are typi- strain upon police protection services. In- cally unprepared to acquire the large acreage creased crime and emergency situations will associated with regional facilities and appro- accompany this growth and development. priately staff and maintain such facilities on a More calls will be received from the more long term basis. While the two County rec- outlying areas of the Peninsula and response reation facilities certainly address important time will become a greater concern among recreation needs of area residents, two is- residents. Visibility of police protection serv- sues facing the County are clear. First, both ices throughout the Peninsula will become of these facilities are in close proximity to one increasingly important as a crime deterrent another on the east side of Glen Lake. While mechanism. these facilities may be easily accessible by some, they are not necessarily easily acces- General Government Facilities sible by many nor situated in the more At present, Leelanau County is struggling populated areas where their use can be to house its numerous offices and depart- maximized. The location of future growth and ments. County administration offices are not development may further bring this issue to centrally located and as a result, many feel the surface. the County government is not operating as Secondly, however, the most important efficiently as it could be and tax dollars are issue facing the County in regard to recrea- not being maximized. Similarly, county-wide tion is the uncertainty of what sorts of county planning and administration efforts are ham- recreation facilities (if any more) Peninsula pered by the lack of easy accessibility be- residents would like. The County does not tween departments and personnel due to the have an area-wide recreation plan, nor has a lack of centralized facilities. The County is program been developed to solicit input re- also running out of available space to house garding the recreation needs of the residents. its operations, as witnessed by the fact that While such plans have been undertaken in temporary modular structures have been some of the local municipalities, county- established at the Courthouse facility as long based recreation needs often differ and must as 12 years ago. These "temporaryn facilities be addressed accordingly. While the Penin- do not lend themselves to maximizing the Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 2-3 DRAFT efficiency of government operations nor facili- proved accessibility, visibility and com- tate necessary and effective day-to-day munication with the general public. communications between departments and 2) Consideration should be given to the personnel. They are also less architecturally most appropriate location for the appealing than a single facility and do not County seat based upon the geographic enhance the visual quality of the area. locations of future planned land uses As the population of the Peninsula contin- and the delivery of County services. ues to grow and development throughout the Figure 2-2 illustrates the relationship Peninsula increases, the County will come between current municipal populations under increasing pressure to maintain current and their respective distances to the levels of operation and to possibly expand its current County seat in Leland. Figure 2- current scope of administrative activities. 3 illustrates the relationship between Leelanau County officials are very cognizant past growth rates of municipalities and of this. A peninsula-wide review of all County their distances to the County seat. facilities has just been initiated to- identify pre- 3) The County should establish a long ferred options for future space and the loca- range plan for County administrative tion of new facilities. facilities and develop an implementation program. The long range plan should County Drains recognize that future County services Presently, while there has recently been may extend beyond the current scope created the Office of Drain Commissioner of services provided. there are no County drains. An inventory of 4)A County-wide recreation program the quality of the natural drainage system to should be developed in conjunction with handle stormwater runoff is currently under- local units of government to identify cur- way. Until completed, it is not possible to in- rent Peninsula-wide recreation needs, dicate the extent to which, if any, public identify what the County's role should drainage improvements may be necessary. be in addressing these needs, and es- tablish specific strategies to fulfill its role ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION and provide the necessary facilities. The limited extent of existing County pub- 5) Future police protection should be lic facilities when compared to the sustained linked to satellite stations in principal effect of current rates of growth and the exist- population areas to better assure quick ing fragmentation of County facility locations response times, visibility in, and com- suggest the following: munication with, local municipalities and 1) Future land use and growth and the affected citizens. administration of county activities and 6) Future locations of police protection services should be strongly linked to facilities should be linked to principal better assure efficiency of operations, transportation corridors and strategi- proximity to critical service areas, im- cally positioned to avoid impassable barriers, including Lake Leelanau. Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 2-4 0 DRAFT Figure 2-1 County Facilities Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 2-5 DRAFT 0 Figure 2-2 Municipal Populations and Distances to the County Seat Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 2-6 A A DRAFT Figure 2-3 Growth Rates of Municipalities and Distances to County Seat Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 2-7 DRAFT Chapter 3 TRANSPORTATION INTRODUCTION STATE ROAD NETWORK We live in a society of movement. People The foundation of the Peninsula's road- often live in one community, work in another way network is state highway M-22 which community, send children to school in a third generally travels along the Peninsula's east- community, and do shopping in still a fourth ern and western shorelines as far north as community. The travel patterns of the Leela- the Village of Northport. M-72 intersects with nau Peninsula reflect this phenomenon as the eastern and western arms of M-22 in the well and highlight the need for an adequate southern periphery of the Peninsula to com- transportation network, both in regard to the plete this critical loop. M-204 traverses the efficient movement of traffic, safety, and pro- Peninsula across Lake Leelanau providing a vision of emergency services. As the intensity critical linkage of east to west. Linking and of land development increases, so does a feeding this -109 mile system of state community's need for a roadway network highways is a 634 mile system of county able to accommodate the increased traffic roads. This is supplemented by 19 miles of demand. Commercial land uses attract retail Village roads in Empire, Suttons Bay and and service trade and new residential devel- Northport and an unknown number of miles opments house more individuals and families of private roads (see Figure 3-1). with daily needs, all of which results in in- creased demand for better road services. COUNTY ROADWAY NETWORK This chapter reviews transportation facili- ties and services in the Peninsula. The ma- Existing Network jority of the chapter focuses specifically upon Pattern and Classification the County operated road network. The The roadway network within the interior of chapter also discusses public transit trans- Leelanau Peninsula does not reflect the grid- portation facilities as well as non-vehicular like pattern typically associated with county transportation facilities in the Peninsula in- and township networks. This is due in large cluding bike paths and pedestrian circulation part to the large. lakes in the Peninsula and systems. the many steep hills and valleys. The vast The chapter begins with a review of the majority of roadway miles in the Peninsula principal characteristics of the roadway net- are paved. The g@eatest concentration of work within the Peninsula. The review exam- those roads that are not paved is in the ines the existing network according to a Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore number of parameters including roadway and nearby private lands (see Figure 3-2). type, location, right-of-way, classification, ca- The majority of non-paved roadway pacities, service levels, condition, driving segments outside of this vicinity are fairly times, accidents, relationship to area land short in length and/or terminate as a dead- use patterns, and traffic counts. Also pre- end. sented are currently needed improvements All weather roads in the Peninsula are and currently programmed improvements. primarily limited to sections of M-22, M-72, Finally, projected roadway conditions are re- and M-204 (see Figure 3-3). Except for the viewed including traffic volumes, driving limited number of gravel or dirt roads in the times, and necessary new facilities. Peninsula which are considered seasonal, all Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 3-1 DRAFT I I other roads are considered year-round roads lent base. Similarly, only a small portion of (see Figure 3-4). the road mileage in the Peninsula is charac- Figure 3-5 identifies the classification of terized by poor or very poor base conditions. the Peninsula's roadway network according The vast majority of the roadway network is to the National Functional Classification considered to have fair or good base condi- Systems employed by the Michigan Depart- tions. ment of Transportation. Figure 3-6 identifies Of particular importance within the Penin- the Peninsula's roadway network according sula however, is the road base conditions of to a classification system established by the the more critical road segments. While the Leelanau County Planning Department for Peninsula may be characterized by limited local planning purposes. The two classifica- road segments with poor or very poor base tion schemes for the Peninsula are substan- conditions, many of those segments that tively very similar. Both document the impor- have been designated as such are particu- tance of the M-22/M-72 loop around the lady important components of the network. Peninsula although Figure 3-6 also identifies The entire M-72 corridor, and nearly the en- M-204, from Suttons Bay to M-22 just south tire M-22 corridor from Leland south to Em- of Leland, as a corridor of equal importance. pire, is characterized by poor or very poor The principal difference between these Fig- base conditions. Further, no segment of M- ures is MDOT's use of the "rural major collec- 22 throughout the entire Peninsula has base tor' designation for road segments which the conditions that could be considered better County Planning Department has chosen to than fair, except the first 7 miles north of classify in more detail through the designa- Traverse City. tions of "local arterial" and "collector". Aside As illustrated in Figure 3-8, the majority of from the M-22/M-72 loop, MDOT has classi- roads considered to have poor or very poor fied the vast majority of road miles as "rural surface conditions are concentrated along major collectors". Both classification systems the Peninsula's southern periphery and in the identify the lack of principal corridors provid- far northern limits of the Peninsula. The sur- ing direct travel throughout the Peninsula and face conditions of some of the more critical a considerably disproportionate relationship segments of the network exceed those of between principal north-south corridors and their bases including sections of M-22 and M- the relatively limited opportunities for direct 72. east-west travel within the Peninsula. The vast majority of road surfaces con- sidered to be in excellent condition were re- Roadway Conditions and Service Levels surfaced in the past 12 years, as illustrated in The adequacy of the levels of service Figure 3-9. Though a considerable number of provided by the Leelanau Peninsula roadway road segments have been resurfaced since network are the result of several factors in- 1980, the Peninsula is predominantly charac- cluding road construction characteristics and terized by roads which were last resurfaced associated deterioration characteristics, de- between 1960 and 1969. While the useful life sign capacities, and traffic counts. of a road surface varies depending on many Road base conditions are of paramount factors (road base, traffic, weather, surface importance to the maintenance of roadway material, etc.) an asphalt surface (plant mix) surface conditions. An inadequate road base on a good base has a life of 15 or more years can lead to regular and persistent road sur- with proper maintenance and low traffic. face deterioration and increase both traffic As Figure 3-10 illustrates, the vast major- hazards and maintenance costs. As Figure 3- ity of road segments in the Peninsula under 7 illustrates, few road. segments within the the jurisdiction of the County experience av- Peninsula are considered to have an excel- erage daily traffic counts of less than 1,000. Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 3-2 DRAFT Those road segments experiencing higher RAILROAD FACILITIES counts are generally limited to the M-22, M- Figure 3-18 72, and M-204 corridors and several other segments in the Peninsula's southern half. BICYCLE FACILITIES The highest counts in the Peninsula are evi- Figure 3-19 dent along sections of M-22 and M-72 just north and west of Traverse City and along PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES county route 629 near Northport Point. Traffic Figure 3-20 a, b, c, d, along M-22 in this area exceeds 20,000 ve- hicles per day. The first traffic light was in- ROAD ENDS stalled in the County in 1991 to help regulate Figure 3-21 flow along this busy stretch. As Figure 3-11 illustrates, nearly the en- tire County roadway network is comprised of right of way between 50 to 74 feet in width. The principal exceptions are M-22 from EMERGING ISSUES Traverse City to Suttons Bay and M-204 from Suttons Bay to Lake Leelanau, which fall Current and Projected Conditions within the right of way width range of 100 to A number of issues face the Peninsula 150 feet. which currently hinder, and can be expected Figure 3-12 and Table 3-1 identify the av- to further hinder, the efficient and safe erage traveling times during the off-peak movement of traffic throughout the Penin- season and distances along road segments sula. Most critical of these challenges is the in the Peninsula. level of service provided by the County op- Projected traffic counts are identified in erated roadway network. Figure 3-13 and Table 3-2. Those segments While the levels of service along the expected to experience the greatest increase vast majority of roadway segment in traffic flow are could be described as fair or better, Figure 3-14 and Table 3-3 provide acci- those segments which are the back- dent data. Those areas of the Peninsula bone of the Peninsula's network are in which have experienced the greatest number places, providing the lowest levels of of accidents are . Specific road service. This is particularly true on M- segments and intersections characterized by 22, along the eastern shoreline of the high accident counts include Peninsula, and M-72. Future growth Level of service data refers to the relative and development will further nega- degree that a road segment is fulfilling its tively impact existing levels of service function of moving traffic in an efficient man- and may place road segments in a ner and according to its design characteris- critical public hazard condition. On the tics. Figure 3-15 and Table 3-4 identify the other hand, improvements will likely levels of service associated with the Penin- stimulate new demand and more de- sula's road segments. Particularly low levels velopment. of service are evident along Traffic counts are increasing at an overall higher rate among less used TRANSIT SERVICES road segments than existing high de- Figure 3-16 mand segments. While this may be a result of locational development pat-. AIRPLANE FACILITIES terns or in response to the congestion Figure 3-17 (include T.C.) associated with the high demand Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 3-3 DRAFr segments, the impact is the same; in- driving times and increased accident creased demands are being placed rates. upon road segments not necessarily The Peninsula's topography and in- designed or intended to accommodate land water bodies place unique con- significant increases in use. straints upon the efficient movement � Key components of the roadway net- of traffic throughout the Peninsula. work, including M-22 and M-72, are constructed upon poor base condi- ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION tions and will continue to require con- The poor condition of significant stretches stant maintenance, traffic flow inter- of state and county roads in the Peninsula ruptions, and the diversion of dollars suggest the following: from other needed projects, unless re- 1) The location of future growth and de- construction programs are imple- velopment should be directly linked to mented. Future increased use of these roadway corridors designed to ac- corridors will invariably result in higher commodate the anticipated increase in frequencies of maintenance needs. demand, or linked to capital improve- � Very few road segments carrying ments intended to upgrade those road 1,500 or more vehicles per day meet segments not currently capable of the generally accepted road surface adequately accommodating the width standard of 24 feet. Road sur- increased demands. face widths are often as low as 20 2) Right of way preservation measures feet, including vast sections of M-22, should be implemented to better en- M-72, M-204 and other principal corri- able future roadway expansions at a dors. The limited widths significantly lower public cost. limit operational conditions of the cor- 3) Future land use and development ridors and their respective safety lev- patterns should critically link road els. As additional vehicles are placed function characteristics to safe access. upon the road network in light of future 4) Improvements to the roadway net- growth and development, operational work, in the form of new road seg- conditions become that much more ments, should be considered to pro- critical. vide more efficient movement � Many of the principal corridors throughout the Peninsula. throughout the Peninsula are charac- 5) Access along principal thoroughfares terized by right of way widths of 66 should be more effectively regulated feet, thereby increasing the acquisition to minimize opportunities for conges- costs for future widening, realignment, tion and safety hazards. and the addition of lanes. The need for 6) All future new County or State oper- additional right of way will increase as ated roads should be designed and growth and development places constructed to accommodate safe and increased demands on the road functional bicycle transportation. network. 7) Improvements to the roadway net- � The increasing rate of lot splits along work, in the form of reconstructed arterial and collector roads, and asso- and/or realigned intersections, should ciated curb cuts, are interfering with be considered to provide more effi- the function and safety of these corri- cient movement throughout the Penin- dors. As growth and development sula. continue, this condition could be fur- 8) Improvements to the existing roadway ther exacerbated resulting in extended network through general maintenance Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 3-4 DRAFT and reconstruction, should be consid- ments, should be considered to ac- ered to provide more efficient move- commodate a portion of the demand ment throughout the Peninsula. Future currently placed upon M-22. expenditures and capital improvement 10)Some new roads will be necessary to planning should recognize the long provide more direct alternative routes term need to improve the roadway in certain areas such as completion of base conditions of M-22 and M-72. a proposed segment between Bugai 9) Improvements to the roadway net- Road and Mann Road in Elmwood work, in the form of new road seg- Township. Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 3-5 DRAFT Table 3-1 LEELANAU COUNTY TRAVEL TIME AND MILEAGE WORKSHEET Total Miles March 1992 July 1992 Road From TO (Nearest Tenth) Total Time Total Time (Nearest Minute) (Nearest Minute) (sample) CR-696 M-1 0 CR-654 5.6 12:15 M-22 M-72 Cherry Bend Rd. 1.3 2:00 M-22 Cherry Bend Bingham Rd. 6.3 7:00 Rd. M-22 Binaham Rd. Broadway (SB) 7.2 8:00 M-22 Broadway (SB) M-204 (SB) 0.5 1:00 M-22 M-204 (SB) CR-633 1.7 3:00 M-22 CR-633 Peshawbestown 1.7 2:00 M-22 Peshawbestown CR-626 2.9 4:00 M-22 CR-626 CR-631 3.0 4:00 M-22 CR-631 M-201 2.2 2:00 M-22 M-201 CR-633 1.9 4:00 M-22 CR-633 CR-637 2.8 4:00 M-22 CR-637 CR-626 2.0 3:00 M-22 CR-626 CR-641 1.2 2:00 M-22 CR-641 River St. 3.2 4:00 M-22 River St. M-204 2.1 3:00 M-22 M-204 CR-651 4.0 5:00 M-22 CR-651 CR-667 3.5 4:00 M-22 CR-667 CR-669 1.1 1:30 M-22 CR-669 CR-675 6.8 8:00 M-22 CR-675 M-1 09 2.8 4:00 M-22 M-109 CR-61 6/677 2.9 5:00 M-22 CR-616/677 CR-61 0.7 2:00 M-22 CR-616 M-1 09 2.1 4:00 M-22 M-1 09 M-72 2.1 3:00 M-22 M-72 Manning Rd. 2.7 4:00 M-72 M-22 CR-616 2.7 4:00 M-72 CR-616 CR-651 4.1 5:00 M-72 CR-651 CR-667 4.2 6:00 M-72 CR-667 CR-669 2.1 3:00 M-72@ CR-669(S) CR-669(N) 1.1 2:00 M-72 CR-669 CR-675 3.1 3:00 M-72 CR-675 CR-677 2.1 2:00 M-72 CR-677 M-22 3.4 5:00 M-1 09 M-22 M-209 2.0 2:00 M-1 09 M-209 CR-616 2.8 3:00 M-1 09 CR-616 M-22 2.0 3:00 M-201 M-22 DeLong Rd. 2.1 4:00 M-204 M-22 CR-645 2.1 2:00 M-204 CR-645 CR-643 1.0 2:00 M-204 CR-643 CR-641 0.3 1:00 M-204 CR-641 CR-637 2.0 2:00 M-204 CR-637 M-22 1.9 2:00 Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 3-6 DRAFT Table 3-1 (continued) LEELANAU COUNTY TRAVEL TIME AND MILEAGE WORKSHEET Total Miles March 1992 July 1992 Road From TO (Nearest Tenth) Total Time Total Time (Near st Minute) (Nearest Minute) M-209 M-1 09 Sleeping Bear 0.4 1:00 Dr. CR-614 CR-633 CR-641 1.0 2:00 CR-614 CR-641 CR-616 5.2 7:00 CR-616 M-72 CR-614 5.2 8:00 CR-616 CR-614 CR-651 1.4 4:00 CR-616 CR-651 CR-667 3.1 4:00 CR-616 CR-667 CR-669(E) 1.7 2:00 CR-616 CR-669(E) CR-669(W) 0.3 0:30 CR-616 CR-669(w) CR-675(E) 2.5 3:00 CR-6161675 CR-675(E) CR-675(W) 2.4 5:00 CR-616 CR-675( M-22/CR-677 1.8 2:00 CR-616 M-22 M-1 09 1.4 3:00 CR-61 8 M-22 CR-633 1.6 3:00 CR-618 CR-633 CR-641 0.9 1:00 CR-620 CR-643 CR-64 1.2 2:00 CR-620 CR-645 CR-651 2.0 2:00 CR-622 CR-633 E. Pine View Rd. 0.4 0:30 CR-626 M-22 CR-637 1.2 2:00 CR-626 CR-637 CR-633 1.4 2:00 CR-626 CR-633 CR-631 1.9 3:00 CR-626 CR-631 M-22 1.1 2:00 CR-629 CR-640 CR-640 1.8 3:00 CR-629 CR-640 Lighthouse Point 3.8 5:00 CR-631 CR-626 M-22 2.5 3:00 CR-633 M-22 CR-614 3.1 4:00 CR-633 CR-614 CR-618 3.8 5:00 CR-633 CR-618 CR-622 6.6 8:00 CR-633 CR-622 M-22(SB) 0.7 3:00 CR-633 M-22 CR-626(S) 3.6 5:00 CR-6331626 CR-626(S) CR-626(N) 0.2 0:30 CR-633 CR-626( M-22 3.9 5:00 CR-637 M-204 CR-626(S) 4.3 5:00 CR-637/626 CR-626(S) CR-626(N) 0.7 1:00 CR-637 CR-626(N) M-22 1.6 2:00 CR-640 Del-ong Rd. CR-629 0.9 1:00 CR-640 CR-629 CR-629 2.2 4:00 CR-641 M-22 M-204 5.8 9:00 CR-641 M-204 CR-618 8.4 10:00 CR-641 CR-618 CR-614 3.6 5:00 CR-643 CR-645 CR-620 7.0 8:00 CR-643 CR-620 M-204 4.2 5:00 CR-645 CR-651 CR-643 0.5 1:00 CR-645 CR-643 Gatske Rd. 1.7 2:00 CR-645 Gatske Rd. CR-620 3.7 5:00 CR-645 CR-620 M-204 4.6 6:00 Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 3-7 DRAFT Table 3-1 (continued) LEELANAU COUNTY TRAVEL TIME AND MILEAGE WORKSHEET Total Miles March 1992 July 1992 Road From TO (Nearest Tenth) Total Time Total Time (Nearest Minute) (Nearest Minute) CR-651 M-72 CR-616(S) 2.6 3:00 CR-651/616 CR-616(S) CR-616(N) 2.7 4:00 CR-651 CR-616(N) CR-645 0.4 1:00 CR-640 CR-629 CR-629 2.2 4:00 CR-641 M-22 M-204 5.8 9:00 CR-641 M-204 CR-618 8.4 10:00 CR-641 CR-618 CR-614 3.6 5:00 CR-643 CR-645 CR-620 7.0 8:00 CR-643 CR-620 M-204 4.2 5:00 CR-645 CR-651 CR-"q 0.5 1:00 CR-645 CR-643 Gatske Rd. 1.7 2:00 CR-645 Gatske Rd. CR-620 3.7 5:00 CR-645 CR-620 M-204 4.6 6:00 CR-651 M-72 CR-616(S) 2.6 3:00 CR-651/616 CR-616(S) CR-616(N) 2.7 4:00 CR-651 CR-616(N) CR-645 0.4 1:00 Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 3-8 I . - DRAFT Table 3-2 PROJECTED TRAFFIC COUNTS Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services, Page 3-9 DRAFT i Table 3-3 MAJOR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT LOCATIONS Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 3- 10 4 DRAFT Table 3-4 ROADS WITH THE LOWEST EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE Wotking Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Se ' S Page 3-11 DRAFT Figure 3-1 LEGAL ROAD NETWORK Rimy County hod State Irmakline ------ Local Cousity Rood This mp was empi led fran serial photo SMM VATERIAL: graphs usial standard noinual interpret- Block and white aerial phologrophy. ation techniques. This data has Not April. 1990. Aerial scale a 1:7M been field clutched. This mip is Avorop dolly traffic volm data fran intended for gonarel plamir4 purposes. michilem 1104111 kws Inventory, im Sit specific evaluation should be traff cowls, and Loolomm County "rifled by field inspection. Rood Commission traffic cowls. Sam traffic cowls are hosi CINW8110" M scale a 1:26M set knotes. OP (On i och - 4.2 W [as) This map was possrated fren the Loolonau Infoamation System by the Loolsom County Plamirq Deportnent. N April 1, IM %V is i Js -4-4 ---- W-, ------ ------ ------- I - - b I I - Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 3-12 DRAFT Figure 3-2 ROAD SURFACE TYPE Pw*d had ------ I.Inpowed had This MW was copi led f ran soriel photo SM VATERIAL: grow Voill standard I interpret- Block and vhite wrial photography, ation todmiques. This dots has pot April, IM. Aerial scale - 1:7M ban f laid checked. This map is Average dolly traffic volume dote I ran Intended for general plamaing purposes. Michigan Road Needs Inventory, M Sit@ specific evolostion should be trof f I c counts, and Lee I am County verified by field inspection. bod Cowssion traffic counts. SM traffic covals are Road CoWnion 181botes. Map scales 1:26M (On# I nch a 4.2 6 Is*) This n" was generated from the Loolow Information System by the N Loolemau County Plonniq Department. Apr I 1 1, 1992 -4--- 4 ly b ------- Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 3-13 DRAFT Figure 3-3 ALL WEATHER ROADS -4 Class A At I Weather ------ Class 8 Rood This nM s" copi led f ran wrial photo Ma VAIIERIAL* qrsphs usirl standard mul isterprot- Block wA white 40riol pholography, ation twMiques. This data boa not Apr 11, 1990. Aerial wale - 1:7920 boa field chocked. This mip is Averap daily traffic volm data fron intended for pooral planning purPms. ichigon Rood Neds Iftirentory, MDOT Site-Vocif it evaluation should be traffic counts, oM L"Imm County "rified by field inspection. NOW QOWSSIGn traffic counts. Swm traffic counts are Road CMIIi ssiOn Map scale - 1:26M estknotes. (Om i ach - 4.2 rni I as) This mW vas generated f ram the ....... Logjam infamotion Syst4m by the N Loolom County planning DIPIrtmt- April 1, 1992 'A- 4- % ....... . b Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 3-14 DRAFT Figure 3-4 SEASONAL ROADS Seasonal Rood Year-round Rood This M was compi I ed fran aerial photo SUM VAYUHAL: graphs using standard mmuol interpret- Block ond white aerial photography, ation techniques. This data has not April. 1990. Aerial scale , 1:7920 been field chocked. This up is Average doily traffic vol m data fran intended for generol pl wing purposes. Michigan Road Needs Inventory, MD07 tralf ic counts, and Leelorm Coumiy Svistr'f"i,odcbiyfiefi@ovlodluinotpis*nctishonould be Rood Cominission traffic counts. Sam traffic coots are Rood Coomission Map scale a 1:2640M estintes. (One inch a 4.2 rniles) This " was generated fran the Leelonou Infoonation Systen by the N Leslarm County planning Deportment. April 1. IM Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 3-15 h DRAFT Figure 3-5 ROAD FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION (NFCS) Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 3-16 DRAFT Figure 3-6 ROAD FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION (COUNTY) j Regional Arterial Cal lector Local Arterial ------ Residential Th i 3 01011 was cop I I ad f ran so( I I I photo SIXIRCE MATERIAL: graphs usinj Standard owtual interpret- Block and white aerial pholiqropity, otion techniques. This data has not April. 1M. Aerial scale - 1:7920 boon field checked. This in* is Av@ra9e daily traffic volum dais fran intended for Vneral planning purposes. Michigan Road Needs Inventory. W Site-s"cific evaluation should be traffic coots, and Loolom County veri tied by field inspection. Road Coninission traffic counts. Sam traffic counts are Road Cminission Map scale a 1:26M estwes. 'h (On i ft - 4A 2 iiii Its) --- ---- 7his in* was Vmrotod tran The Ltelem Infonnotion Systan by the Loolom County Planning DepariRmat. N April 1, 1992 L ev L--- J-- ------------ --- -------- Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 3-17 DRAFT Figure 3-7 ROAD BASE FACTOR Eyce I I at reir Good ------ Poor and Very Poor This mip was compiled frcm aerial photo SMM M41ERIAL: graphs using standard a I interpret- Block *W vhit# aerial photography. otion techniques. This data has not April. 1990. Aerial wale - 1:7M been field chocked. This m* is Average daily traffic volume dots fron intended for general plamiall purposes. Uichi had WWI Inventory. MVI Site-specif it ovoluatiod should be trofflemc:ts, and Lteiwm County verified by field inspection. Raw Cowssion traffic counts. Sam trof fie cools are Read Cammission MV scale a 1:264000 estinmtes. (One inch - 4.2 railes) This mop was generated Iran the Leelom Intomell ion Sysian by the N Ualem County planning Department. April 1, 1992 - ---- ------- A, ---- --- b Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 3- 18 DRAFT Figure 3-8 ROAD SURFACE DETERIORATION FACTOR Excel lent Fair Good ------ poor and very Poor This M was copi led f ran aerial photo SMIRCE MATER I AL: graphs usinq standard monvol interpret- Block and whit* aerial photography, ation techniques. This data has not April. 1W. Aerial scale - 1:7920 ban field checked. This mop is Average doily traffic volos data fran intended for general planning purposes. Michigan Rood keds InVentory, W Sit*--specific evaluation should be traffic coots, and Leelonou County verified by field inspection. Rood Cusission traffic counts. Sam traffic counts are Rood C=nission Map scale - i:26M Olt imotes. (One inch - 4.2 miles) This in* was generated fran the Lotionou Infownflon Syst4m by the Loolarm County Plowing Deportmt. Apr i 1 1. 1992 ---- -------- - b Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 3-19 DRAFT Figure 3-9 YEAR OF LAST ROAD RESURFACING -4 Before 1950 1960 - 1969 ------ 1950 - 195A 1980 and Later This in* was cmqi I ed f ran aria I photo SOIM WER I AL: grophstus standard momal interpret- Block &W vohits aerial photography. ation Iques. This dote hot not April. 1990. Aerial wait a 1:7920 been field chocked. This in* is Average doily traffic volum data frcm intended for general pi wing purposes. Oichigm Rood Needs Inventory. MDDT Site-specific evaluation should be traffic counts, and Leslamou County verified by field inspection. Row Cminission traffic counts. San traffic counts are Road Comminission MOP 3COIS - 1:264000 estiniates. (One inch - 4.2 ini I es) This mep was generated frain the Leelom Infornmr! ion Systen by the N Letlam County Plowing Deportimt. Apr I 1 1, 1992 - ---- ------- ------- ---- Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 3-20 DRAFT Figure 3-10 EXISTING AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ------ Lou than 5W 10W - 4999 500 - "9 50M - 10000 More than lowo This map was compiled frcrn aerial photo SOtIRCE ARTERIAL: graph$ uoirl standard - -, I interpret- Block and white aerial photography, OtiOn t1chnOulo. This dots Me not APr 11. 1990. Aerial scale - 1:7920 been field checked. This in* is Average daily traffic volum dote fra intended for general plomiall purposes. Michigan Rood Needs inventory, W Sit*-Vlcific evaluation should be traffic counts, and Leelom County Road Canmission traffic counts. sm verified by field inspection. traffic counts are Rood Cowdssion 14 scale a 1:26M estirnotes. (ON inch - 4.2 W I es) This m* was generated fm the Leelopou Infometion System by the N Leelonou County Planning Department. %% April 1. 1992 -4 .......... % -------------- b Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 3-21 DRAFT Figure 3-11 EXISTING ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH ------ Less than 50 ft. 75 ft. - 150 ft. 50 ft. - 74 ft. Greater than 150 ft. This mop was calpi led fran aerial photo SMM IMTERIAL: grophs,u I stm*rd mwAl interpret- Block and white aerial photography, ation ScL ques. This data has not April. IM. Aerial scale a 1:7920 been field chocked. This map is Average daily traffic volum data fro intended for general planning purposes. Michigan ROW Ifteds Inventory. MxT Sits SP if ic evaluation should be traffic counts, and Leelam County verified by field inspection. ood CmWaian traffic counts. Sam traffic counts are Rood Cmission Map scale a 1:264000 estinstes. (One inch a 4.2 niles) This map was generated Iran the Leelom Infometion Sy3Iwm by the N Leelom County Planning Deporknent. April 1, IM b Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 3-22 DRAFT Figure 3-12 AVERAGE TRAVEL TIMES AND DISTANCES Travel Distance Av=ravel Time 3:00 (iftmiles) 3:00 (i 13) 1 00 This map *a caspilod fraft aerial photo SM IRTERIAL: 4:00 graphs using starAord im -1 interpret- Black and white aerial photography, OtiOn techniques. This data has been April, IM. Aerial 3CO10 W 1:7920 Northport field checked. This map is intended V for general planning purposes. Site- MiltOgs and tint data cniled by the specific evaluation should be verified Leelonou County Planning Deparlment by field inspection. during March, IM. S 9.2 11% jr Map scale - 1:264000 This mop was generated fran the /0 9* 1.2 Pq (0" inch - 4.2 miles) Leelonou Infometion System by the 2: 1 1. 1 Leelonou County Planning Departnent. 1. 0.7 3. :00 no 2:00 :oo April 1, 1992 % \j INV Leland IV Lake eshowbostown Loolonou 0 N 0 3.00 1:013utto a Boy 0:30 % 8: 00 Glen 8.41 0.4 Arbor 2:00 2:00 10:00 1. 1V :01 :00 IV % In h /* 4 INV 3:00 O.J 1 0.7 0:30 0.4 .00 rp urdickvill Mop 0 4b* 2.5 Cit 1:01 2.4 3:00 ?..Oo Cedar 5:00 LP 4:00 0 5 5,1 Fouch .49.to 1.0 Empire N -W 7:00 2:00 2:W 3:00 2:00 Solan 0: 3:00 6: ilickvi:le 5:00 4:00 Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 3-23 DRAFT Figure 3-13 PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES a Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 3-24 - DRAFT Figure 3-14 TRAFFIC ACCIDENT LOCATIONS Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 3-25 DRAFT Figure 3-15 LEVEL OF SERVICE Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 3-26 I DRAFT Figure 3-16 TRANSIT SERVICE FACILITIES Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 3-27 DRAFT Figure 3-17 AIRPLANE FACILITIES te"2110nageField This map was cippi I ad f ran aerial photo SMU kIATERIAL: graphs usinj standard manual interpret- Black and white aerial photography. ation techniques. This dato has not Apri I. 19M. Aerial scale 1:7920 beem field checked. This MOP is intended for general planning purposes. Site-spiscific evaluation should be verified by field inspection. MV scale - 1:2MM (One inch = 4.2 mi I as) This MOP was generated fran the Leelam Infamiation System by the Latium County planning Deportrent. N April 1, 1992 4b Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 3-28 DRAFT Figure 3-18 RAILROAD FACILITIES Leelwm Transit +++ Cori" Rai I road This mip was campi led fro serial photo SMU MATUHAL: graphs usir a aerial photography. I standard mmol interpret- Block and whit atio" toftiqws. This dots has not Apr i 1, 1990. Aerial wale 1:7920 be" field checked. Ibis mop is int"ded for general plammimill purposes. Sit spe Ific evolvatiom should tw "rifled by field inspectiao. Mw scale - 1:264000 (On Imb - 4.2 W les) Ibis mep was generated fro the Leeloom lnfanmtlon System by the Letiomm Cowty Plamming Departmit. N April 1, 1992 b Working Paper #6 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 3-29 I DRAFT Figure 3-19 BICYCLE FACILITIES I Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 3-30 I DRAFT Figure 3-20 PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facifides, and Physical Services Page 3-31 DRAFT Figure 3-20a PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES LELAND Road Sidewalk This imp was campi led frcm aerial photo graphs using standard mnual interpret- ation techniques. This data has not been field checked. Th's nup is intended for general planning purposes. N SM MATERIAL: Black and white aerial photography. April, 1990. Aerial scale 1:7920 Map scale 1:15840 (One inch I/# atile) .This rmp was generated frcm the Leela nau Infomm* im Systan by t1a. Leelanou County Planning Departmot April 1, 1992 Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 3-32 DRAFT Figure 3-20b PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES NORTHPORT -------------- Poad Sidewalk Th i s map was cemp i I ed f ran aer i a I photo graphs using standard manual interpret- ation techniques. This data has not been f i e I d checked, 1h i s map i s intended for general planning purposes. SOURCE MATERIAL: Black and white aerial photography, April, 1990. Aerial scale = 1:7920 10-1 This mop was generated frarn the Leelanou Information System by the Leelanou County Planning Department April 1, 1992 Map scale = 1:1760 N - - - - - - - - (One inch - app 1/3 mile) Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 3-33 DRAFT Figure 3-20c PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES SUTTONS BAY ------------------- Sidessilt This mw is mwed frm serm pwis- graphs wisll siwodard mammal interpret- dia" teemiques. This raw has ml bm f iel4 do". Ibis m1p Is Intem6d for general planning purposes. mw Kole - 1:15M (Orw isch - 1/4 rmi I o) SM 070HAL: Bled aw white wrial phatorwhy. April. 1290. Aerial wale - 1:711211 This map see generated f rm tlw Leslam Informilan Slitien by tM Leelam Camity Plamino amparb-t- April 1, 111112 ------- --- -------- Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 3-34 DRAFT Figure 3-20d PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES EMPIRE Road Sidewalk rhis mup was copi led fran aerial photo Iraphs using standard mamol interpret- ation techniques. This data has not ken field checked. This nvp is intended for general planning purposes. UM VATRIAL: 'lack and white aerial photography :April, 1990). Aerial scale - 1:7M 4ap scale - 158Q ,)no inch - 1/4 rnii I a) %is mop was generated from the selam Infornotion Systen by the .selonau County Plowing D"ortrant. pril 1. 1992 - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilides, and Physical Services Page 3-35 DRAFT Figure 3-20e PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES LELAND Road Sidewalk This map was conpiled fram aerial photo graphs using standard manual interpret- ation techniques. This data has not been field checked. Th's map is intended for general planning purposes. N SOURCE MATERIAL: Black and white aerial photography, April, 1990. Aerial scale 1:7920 Map scale 11:15840 (One inch 1/4 mile) This map was generated f ran the Leel-anau Informa* ion System by tI.L Leelonou County Planning Department Apr i 1- 1, 1992. Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 3-36 DRAFT Figure 3-20f PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES LAKE LEELANAU Road Sidewalk This mV was c"i led fran aerial photo graphs Using standard manual interpret- ation techniques. This map has not been field checked. This map is intended for general planning purposes. WJRCE MATERIAL Black and white aerial photography, April, 1990. Aerial scale - 1:7920 Map scale - 115540 (One inch = 1/4 mile) This map was generated frcm the N Leelonou InfCnMtiOn Sy3tan by the Leelanou County Planning Deportnent. April 1. 1992 Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 3-37 DRAFT Figure 3-20g PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES CEDAR Road Sidewalk This mip was compiled fran aerial photo graphs using standard mnual interpret- ation techniques. This map has not been field chocked. This mop is intended for general planning purposes. SM YATERIAL: Block and white aerial photography April, 1990. Aerial 3COlt - 1:7920 ll@p scale - 1: MO (One inch - 660 feet) This map was generated frcm the Leelanou Infomation Systan by the Leelonou County Planning Departnent. April 1, 1992 Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 3-38 DRAFT Figure 3-20h PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES MAPLE CITY Road Sidewalk This map was compi led frcrn aerial photo graphs Using standard mnual interpret- OtiOn techniques. This mop has not been field checked. This MOP is intended for general planning purposes. SOM MATERIAL: Black and white aerial photography April, 1990. Aerial scale - 1:7920 Mop scale - 1:7920 (One inch - 660 feet) This mop was generated from the Leelanou InfO"ffltiOn Sy3tan by the Leelanou County Planning Deportnent. April 1, 1992 N k Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 3-39 DRAFT Figure 3-21 ROAD ENDS AT WATER BODIES KM LAKr PUBUC ROAD-END AfORIWW WATER ACCESS POINT SAY LAKE m1afirmw ow IVIRM 34Y L M r 18A"S"* SLEVIAG LAKC MY W.Sr ARW QW 7RAWZE 84Y WAGM W LAW Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 3-40 DRAFT Chapter 4 SCHOOLS The residents of Leelanau Peninsula are Table 4-1 identifies the number of school provided public education services through facilities and enrollments for each of the five five independent school districts (see Figure school districts that maintain facilities within 4-1). These districts are: the Peninsula. � Glen Lake Community Schools The school districts of Suttons Bay and � Leland Public Schools Glen Lake are significantly larger in enroll- � Northport Public Schools ment of the four districts and each maintains � Suttons Bay Public Schools two distinctly different facilities for their re- � Traverse City Public Schools spective grade spans. Both of the school All districts maintain facilities within the districts of Leland and Northport operate Peninsula. Traverse City Area Public Schools single facilities which jointly serve the needs provide public education services to residents of their three grade spans. The Glen Lake of Elmwood and Solon Townships and operate Public Schools District covers an area nearly the Norris Elementary School in Elmwood as large or larger than the other three dis- Township. tricts combined. Table 4-1 PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES IN LEELANAU COUNTY SUTTONS TRAVERSE GLEN LAKE LELAND NORTHPORT BAY CITY COMMUNITY PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC AREA SCHOOLS SCHOOLS SCHOOLS SCHOOLS PUBLIC SCHOOLS NUMBER of SCHOOL FACILITIES 2 1 1 2 ic GRADESPANS -Elementary X X X X X Middle 0 X X 0 X Senior X X X X X SCHOOL ENROLLMENT 740 359 279a 875 664a ENROLLMENT CAPACITY 720 485V-- 357 950 1 4000 a - projected 1993 c - junior and senior high school facilities are located in Traverse City b - approximate d- of the 4664 enrolled, 747 are from Leelanau Co. There are six private school facilities in able excess enrollment capacity, the school the Peninsula. Table 4-2 lists these facilities districts of Suttons Bay and Glen Lake find and associated enrollment/capacity data. themselves in a different situation. Even after Figure 4-2 identifies the location of all private the recent expansion of the Suttons Bay school facilities in the county. School District facility, current enrollment is within 10% of the district's total capacity. Fu- EMERGING ISSUES ture growth and development will surely Though the school districts of Northport place additional strains upon these school Schools and Leland Schools have consider- districts. The Glen Lake School District is cur- Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Sewices Page 4-1 DRAFT 14 rently operating within an excess demand to implement facility renovations, expan- condition. Future growth and development sions, and new facility construction to could place enormous pressures upon both avoid excess enrollment demand and of these districts and negatively impact the decreases in education quality, or alter- quality of education. Though the Leland and natively higher taxes to fund new school Northport school districts have additional ca- facilities. pacity to accommodate short term future 2) The siting of new future school facilities growth, long term implications are not nearly should recognize the benefits of close- so clear in light of past growth trends in the to-home facilities, including: 1) de- County. All of these four school districts may creased bussing, traffic generation, and find themselves facing questions regarding energy consumption; 2) increased future expansions and new facilities. sense of community; and 3) increased accessibility to school related commu- ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION nity services, including recreation facili- 1) Future planned growth and development ties. patterns must be linked to the need, abil- ity, and schedule of area school districts Table 4-2 PRIVATE SCHOOL FACILITIES School Enrollment Capacity Holy Rosary, Cedar 31 100-120 Leelanau Schools 100 100-125 Glen Arbor Montessori Children's House, Suffons Bay Q* 37 Montessori Elementary School, Suttons Bay, 21 30 Pathfinder, Elmwood Township 144 150-160 St. Marys, Lake Leelanau 157 250 staggered time enrollments Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 4-2 DRAFT Figure 4-1 a GLEN LAKE COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT AND FACILITIES Glen Lake School District Boundary This m* was copi led fran aerial photo SOM VATERIAL: graphs using standard Manuel Interpret- illack and while aerial phologroPhl, otion ischniques. This dole has not April, 1990. Aerial scale - 1-7920 been field chocked. 'his MOP is intended for general planning PurpOsss- School district boundary infonnation Slie-specific evaiuation should be I ran Gi on Lake Cnnun I ty Schoo I and verified by field Inspection. the Traverse Say Intemodlate School District. Mop scale - 1:264000 (One Inch a 4.2 miles) This mop was generated fran the Loolonsa Information System by the N Leslanu County Planning Department. April 1. 1992 Glen Lake casinuni ty school Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 4-3 DRAFT Figure 4-1 b LELAND PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT AND FACILITIES Leland School District Boundary This map was carpi led from aer lal photo SOURCE VATERIAL: graphs using standard rmnual Inlerpret- Black and white aerial photography, ctiOn techniques. This data has not April. 1990. Aerial scale a 1:7920 been f I * I d chocked. Th I a rnap I a Intended for general planning purposes. School di tr ct boundary inforrnation Sit*--W@Cific evaluation should be fram Lela:d Public School and verified by field inspection. the Traverse Say Int6flMadlote School MOP Scale - 1:264000 District. (One Inch - 4.2 W Its) Leland Public school 7 is mop was generated fram the Latlanou Inforniation System by the N Leelonau County Planning Deparbiont. April 1. 11192 Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physicaf Services Page 4-4 DRAFT Figure 4-1 c NORTHPORT PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT AND FACILITIES Northport School District Boundary Wart loblic This map was ewpil*d frcm aerial photo SOURCE VATERIAL: graphs using standard manual Interpret- Black and white aerial photography. ation techniques. Ibis date has not April. IM. Aerial scale - 1:7920 been field chocked. This msp Is Intended for general planning purposes. School district boundary Informetion SIte-specific evaluation should be from Northport Public School and verified by field Inspection. the Traverse Bay Intermediate School District. Mop scale - 1:264000 (One Inch - 4.2 miles) This map was generated Iran the Loslonau Information System by the N Leelonou County Planning Deparlmant. April 1. 1992 Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 4-5 DRAFT Figure 4-1 d SUTTONS BAY PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT AND FACILITIES Sutton$ Boy School District Boundary This imp was compi led fran serial photo SMOICE MATERIAL: graph@ using standard monual interpret- Block and white aerial photography. ation techniques. This data has not Apr 11. 1990. Aerial scale - 1:79211 been field chocked. This map is Intended for general planning purposes. School district boundary information Slto-spsclfle evaluation should be fran Suttons Bay Public Schools and verified by field Inspection. the Traverse Bay Intermediate School District. Map scal* - 1:26M (One Inch - 4.2 miles) This map was generated fran the Lesicaeu Information Systen by the Suttons Bay N Loslanou County Planning Depariment. Public Schools April 1. 1992 Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 4-6 DRAFT Figure 4-le TRAVERSE CITY AREA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT AND FACILITIES OM Travers@ City School 0 District Boundary This m* was compi led fran oer lal photo S0= MATERIAL: graphs using standard monual interpret- Black and white "rial photography. ation techniques, This data has not April. IM. Aerial scale - 1:7920 been field chocked. This nup is intended for general planning purposes. School district boundary Informotloo Site-specific evaluation should be from Travers* City Area Public Schools verified by field Inspection. and the 'Froverse Day Intermediate School District. Mop scale - 1:264000 (One Inch - 4.2 miles) This map was generated fran the Leelarvau Information System by the N Leelanou County Planning Department. April 1. 1992 Morris Elarentary School Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 4-7 DRAFT Figure 4-2 PRIVATE SCHOOLS AND FACILITIES Private School This mp was c"I led Iran ar Is[ photo SM= MATERIAL: ' graphs using standard mumi Interpret- Black and white aerial photography. ation techniques. This date has not April. 1290. Aerial scale - 1:7920 been field chocked. This mp Is Intended for general planning purposes. Slto-qwclfjc evaluation should be verified by field Inspection. ft scale - 1:264OW (Orm I nch - 4. 2 wi Its) This n" was generated fron the St. Mary's Les I ansu I nfonmt I an Systs" by the school N Loslam C*Wty Planning D4Wftmt. montessorl Childrem April 1. Im House aw Elemotery Schools the Losissou school Holy Rosary Pathfinder school I Uhae Ilk Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 4-8 DRAFT Chapter 5 NONMUNICIPAL PUBLIC SERVICES INTRODUCTION alignment from Hatches Crossing to the Essential services are not provided by the Village of Northport, ranging from within public sector exclusively. Electrical service, approximately three and a half miles (in telephone service, and medical services are Leelanau Township) to less than a quarter examples of important community services mile (in Village of Suttons Bay) of the Grand for which the private sector is usually the Traverse Bay shoreline. A substation is provider. This chapter reviews some of the located in the Village of Suttons Bay and the community services provided by the public Village of Northport. The second primary sector within the Leelanau Peninsula includ- transmission line follows a general alignment ing electricity and gas, communications, and from Solon to Glen Arbor, where another medical services. substation is located. From this line extends Figure 5-1 identifies the location of all a short one and a half mile 46 KV line to gas, electric, telephone and related support Maple City, where the fifth of five substations facilities. in the Peninsula is located. Consumer's Power Company does not ELECTRICITY maintain any administrative offices within the Electricity is provided to the Peninsula by Peninsula, the closest being in Traverse City. two utility companies: Consumer's Power The Company's principal administrative of- Company and Cherryland Rural Electrical fices are based in Jackson, Michigan. Cooperative Association. Consumer's Power Company . is responsible for transmitting Cherryland Rural Electric electricity to the numerous substations lo- Cooperative, Inc. cated in the Peninsula. Cherryland Rural Cherryland Rural Electric Cooperative, Electrical Cooperative, Inc. then distributes Inc. is one of seven members of the Wolver- the electrical service from the substations to ine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc., a non- individual residences and establishments. profit electric generation and transmission cooperative based in Cadillac, Michigan. Consumer's Power Company Cherryland Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. is Consumer's Power Company provides based in Grawn, Michigan. The cooperative electrical service to all local municipalities in does not maintain any administrative offices the Peninsula. The electricity provided to the within the Peninsula, and its infrastructure is Peninsula by Consumer's Power Company is limited to the individual service lines provid- produced in Ludington and Charlevoix and ing electrical service from area substations to transmitted throughout the Peninsula via two residences and other establishments within overhead transmission lines (see Figure 5-1). all but three (Cleveland Township, Glen Ar- Each of the transmission lines carries 46,000 bor Township, and Empire Village) of the 14 volts and follow a parallel alignment from municipalities in the Peninsula. Traverse City to Section 29 of Elmwood Township, where a substation is situated. From this point, the transmission lines extend into the interior areas of the Peninsula. The longer of the two lines follows a general Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 5-1 DRAFT NATURAL GAS themselves. The company operates both aboveground and underground transmission Michigan Consolidated Gas Company lines. All natural gas service in the Peninsula is provided by Michigan Consolidated Gas Michigan Bell Telephone Company Company. This service is limited to four of Michigan Bell Telephone Company pro- the 14 Peninsula municipalities including the vides telephone service to the communities townships of Bingham, Elmwood, and Sut- of Lake Leelanau, Leland, Northport, and tons Bay, and the Village of Suttons Bay. It is Grielickville. through these four communities that Michi- gan Consolidated Gas Company's single gas Century Cellunet, Incorporated pipeline extends. The six-inch main origi- Century Cellunet, Incorporated provides nates in Grand Traverse County and extends cellular phone service within a geographical into the Leelanau Peninsula along M-22 as area generally covering the eastern half of far north as Suttons Bay. Properties along M- the Peninsula south of Suttons Bay. Though 22 south of Suttons Bay feed directly off this its services may be available in other por- six-inch main. The main terminates at a tions of the Peninsula where the topography regulator vault in Suttons Bay, where smaller and elevations are favorable, it is far less re- branch lines and service lines originate and liable. A subsidiary of Century Telephone carry the gas to the customers. Enterprises in Louisiana with a branch off ice The source of the gas varies upon re- in Traverse City, the company does not op- gional conditions and includes both Michigan, erate or maintain any physical facilities in the out-of-state (U.S.), and Canadian produced Peninsula. The nearest transmitting tower is gas. Much of the gas distributed to the situated just west of Traverse City. Peninsula is initially stored by Michigan Consolidated Gas Company at a facility in Cellular One Osceola County. Cellular One Phone Company, with its Michigan Consolidated Gas Company main off ices in Traverse City, does not does not maintain any administrative offices maintain any facilities, including towers, in within the Peninsula, though it does operate the Peninsula. Its closest tower to the Penin- a customer business and service center in sula is in Traverse City, but provides only lim- Traverse City. The Company's principal ad- ited and random service to the Peninsula it- .ministrative offices are based in Detroit, self due to the tower's transmitting pattern. Michigan. The company is considering expanding service in the Peninsula through the estab- COMMUNICATIONS lishment of several tdwers in the near future. Century Telephone Company Grand Traverse Broadcasting Company Century Telephone Company provides Grand Traverse Broadcasting Company, telephone service to the entire Peninsula ex- based in Leland, operates the VVTRV FM radio cept for the communities of Lake Leelanau, station by way of a 82-foot high transmitting Leland, Northport, and Grielickville. Century tower atop Sugarloaf Mountain in Cedar. The Telephone Company is a subsidiary of Century signal is broadcast at a frequency of 94.3, and Telephone Enterprises based in Monroe, Lou- the signal is transmitted over an approximately isiana. Divisional headquarters are situated in 35-mile radius. VffRV simulcasts the radio sig- Maple City, Michigan, and these off ices are the nal of WAIR which is located in Johannesburg, only facilities operated by the company within Michigan, east of Gaylord. the Peninsula, except for the telephone lines Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 5-2 DRAFT Rentals Communication corporated is a subsidiary of C-Tech Corpora- Rentals Communication, based in Che- tion and maintains administrative offices in boygan, operates the WGFM radio station Traverse City. and utilizes a 250-foot tower located just Westmark Cable Company and Village outside of Glen Arbor. The signal is Cable Company also operate on the Peninsula, broadcast at a frequency of 98.1 FM, and the the latter principally serving the Northport signal is transmitted over an approximately Village Area. 75-mile radius. HEALTH FACILITIES AND SERVICES Good News Media Incorporated Good News Media Incorporated, based in Leelanau Memorial Hospital Traverse City, operates the WUN radio sta- Leelanau Memorial Hospital is the single tion by way of a 300-foot tower along M-72 primary health facility in the Peninsula and is atop Morgan Hill in Elmwood Township. The affiliated with Munson Medical Center in signal is broadcast at a frequency of 89.9 Traverse City. The hospital is located in the FM/1400 AM, and the signal is transmitted Village of Northport and was constructed in over an approximately 60-mile radius. 1953. The hospital provides a full range of medical care facilities including in-patient and Federal Broadcasting Company out-patient services, specialized senior Federal Broadcasting Company, based in citizens care, emergency room facilities, Detroit, operates the WPBN television station laboratory and X-ray facilities, and obstetrics by way of a 465-foot tower located along M- and operating room facilities. The hospital 72 in Elmwood Township. The signal is consists of four primary building facilities: broadcast on channels 4 and 7, and is 1) Acute Care Unit, consisting of ap- transmitted over an approximately 75-mile proximately 19,400 square feet within radius. The station is an affiliate of NBC. a one story (with partial basement) brick structure constructed in 1957. CMU Public Television 2) Storage Building and Garage, consist- Central Michigan University, based in Mt. ing of approximately 2,400 square feet Pleasant, operates the CMU Public Televi- within a one story structure con- sion station by way of a 90-foot tower. The structed in 1959. signal is broadcast on channel 46, and the 3) Medical Office Building, consisting of signal is transmitted over an approximately approximately 4,900 square feet within 150-mile radius. The station is an affiliate of a two story structure constructed in PBS. 1969. 4) Long Term Care Unit, consisting of TV CABLE approximately 32,100 square feet Cable TV service is provided to the Penin- within a two story structure con- sula by three cable companies. C-Tech Cable structed in 1971. Systems of Michigan, Incorporated provides The Acute Care Unit includes 33 beds of cable service to 2,890 subscribers throughout which all are rarely in use. The Long Term the Peninsula, and maintains central transmit- Care Unit includes 61 beds, is generally al- ting facilities in section 21 of Empire Township ways full, and used principally for senior citi- and along County Route 633 just south of Sut- zens. The hospital is licensed by the Michi- tons Bay. These facilities receive the cable gan Department of Public Health and the signal and then transmit the signal to individual Department of Social Services. subscribers via aboveground and belowground lines. C-Tech Cable System of Michigan, In- Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 5-3 DRAFT OTHER MEDICAL FACILITIES AND Without more all-weather roads, however (see SERVICES Chapter 3), this may not be attractive to indus- Other medical facilities and services in the trial development activities. Peninsula include: Improved communication systems may 0 4 private dental offices, located princi- open up even more opportunities for computer- pally in Suttons Bay and Leland. based home occupations. This would facilitate 0 7 private clinics and doctors, located more high tech Nwhite collarm employment in the throughout the Peninsula, practicing in County without the road impacts of more the areas of psychiatry, optometry, commuters. and general medicine. 0 Maple Valley Nursing Home, situated ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION in Maple City. 1) Leelanau Hospital is a comparatively The Grand Traverse/Leelanau Commu- small medical facility and, yet, is the nity Mental Health Services facility is situated primary health facility on the Peninsula. in Suttons Bay. The facility's small size makes it that much more vulnerable to the rising costs EMERGING ISSUES of services. It is unclear as to how the The aging Peninsula population and future economic conditions within which limited hospital facilities in the County may the hospital operates will impact medical bring more demand for more convenient care on the Peninsula. The availability of health care facilities. However, the trend is to convenient hospital services may be- fewer, larger and more affiliated health care come increasingly limited as certain facilities, rather than new hospital facilities in medical services are cut back, dropped, new unserved areas. Traverse City is likely to and/or priced beyond the reach of remain the center for hospital based health many. care facilities. 2) To what extent, if any, should efforts be I Improved natural gas, electric and tele- made to further encourage improved phone communication facilities will make the natural gas, electric and telephone Peninsula more attractive for a broader range services given to the growth inducing of and more intensive land developments. aspects of such services? WbrWng Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 5-4 4 1 DRAFT Figure 5-1 NONMUNICIPAL PUBLIC SERVICES Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 5-5 DRAFT Chapter 6 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 0 agricultural wastes being composted. INTRODUCTION This chapter reviews the solid waste 0 some burning of wastes by individuals. management services . and facilities in existence in Leelanau County. In accordance 0 some backyard disposal by individuals. with the Leelanau County Solid Waste Management Plan, there are four basic With a total of 294 acres of land services available in the County: the presently undeveloped, the landfill has a collection and disposal of solid wastes by considerable life expectancy. An assessment landfilling; the collection of recyclables for of the site's capacity performed in 1988 processing; the periodic collection of indicated that the facility has a remaining life household hazardous wastes for disposal at of fifty years. A reassessment of the site's an appropriately licensed facility; and capacity will be included in each update of ongoing public information and education the Leelanau County Solid Waste programs associated with solid waste Management Plan. management. This chapter also reviews the solid waste strearn and other programs Solid Waste Haulers suggested in the Solid Waste Management Leelanau County is presently serviced by Plan. six (6) solid waste haulers, three of whom are based in Leelanau County. No municipalities within the County provide solid FACILITIES AND PHYSICAL SERVICES waste collection service to their residents. Table 6-1 lists the haulers that operate in the Landfill County. Figures 6-1 through 6-6 show the Until September, 1983 almost all of the approximate areas served by each hauler. solid waste collected in Leelanau County was ultimately disposed of at the Leelanau In addition to the commercial haulers, there County Landfill. That landfill was closed on are additional haulers that collect solid September 30, 1983. After that date, the wastes and dispose of them at Glen's haulers serving Leelanau County began Sanitary Landfill. Most of these haulers are disposing of collected waste at Glen's contractors who haul construction wastes. Sanitary Landfill. Glen's is located in These haulers are listed in Table 6-2. southern Kasson Township on Traverse Hwy. (M-72) (see Figure 6-7). Major wastes not Recycling Drop-off Sites being disposed of at the landfill include: Introduced in 1987, the Leelanau County recycling program began with one drop-off recyclable materials removed from the site in Suttons Bay. Sites in Cedar, Empire, waste stream by source separation. Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 6-1 TABLE 6-1 Private Solid Waste Haulers Serving Leelanau County Bass of Type of Approximate No. Disposal Hauler Operation Equipment Service Area Pickup of Customers Site Cedar Disposal Cedar (1) 20 cu yd Packer Cleveland Township Residential 1200 (summer) Glen's Sanitary (1) 17 cu yd Packer Empire Township 600 (rest of year) Landfill (1) 16 cu yd Packer Kasson Township Glen Arbor Township Commercial 140 (summer) Kasson Township 90 (rest of year) Centerville Twp. Solon Township Empire Harland's Disposal Manistee 12) 25 cu yd Packer Bingham Township Residential Unknown Glen's Sanitary (6) 20 cu yd Packer Elmwood Township Landfill (1) Load Lugger Solon Township Commercial Unknown (2) Roll-off Trucks Ken's Pick-up Service Traverse City (2) 25 cu yd Packer Elmwood Township Residential ISO Glen's Sanitary (1) 20 cu yd Packer Solon Township Landfill (4) 17 cu yd Packer Commercial 35 (2) Roll-off Trucks (1) 20 cu yd Non-compacting Truck Ron Send Disposal Suttons Bay (2) 18 cu yd Packer Bingham Township Residential 1700 (summer) Glen's Sanitary (2) 17 cu yd Packer Centerville Township 1300 (rest of year) Landfill Cleveland Township Elmwood Township Commercial 100 Leland Township Suttons Bay Township Suttons Bay Wait Kalchik Disposal Northport (1) 18 cu yd Packer Leelanau Township Residential 950 (summer) Glen's Sanitary (1) 17 cu yd Packer Suttons Bay Township 480 (rest of year) Landfill Northport Commercial 40 (summer) 35 (rest of year) West Michigan Disposal Traverse City (3) 25 cu yd Packer All of Lee(anau County Residential 850 Glen's Sanitary (1) 20 cu yd Packer Landfill (2) 17 cu yd Packer Commercial 100 SOURCE. Leelanau County Solid Waste Management Plan (1989) Harland's Disposal data taken from the Manistee County Solid Waste Management Plan (1988) DRAFT FIGURE 6-1 Cedar Disposal Service Area Cedar Disposal U9 Service Area This mop no corpi led fron aerial photo SOM MATERIAL: graph* using standard manual Interpret- Block and white aerial photography, ation techniques. This data has not April. 1990. Aerial scale - 1:7 M been field chocked. This map Is Intended for general planning purposes. Service area data was taken Iran the Site-specific evaluation should be Leelartou County Solid Waste Monogwant verified by field Inspection. Plan (1989). Mop scale - 1:264000 (One Inch - 4.2 miles) This map was generated frcrn the Loolonou Infornotion System by the N Lationou County Planning Deparlment. April 1, 1902 Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 6-3 DRAFT FIGURE 6-2 Harland Disposal Service Area Harland's Disposal service Area This map was carpi led fran wrial photo SOURCE MATERIAL: graphs using standard nanuel Interpret- 91ack and white aerial photography. ation techniques. This data has not April, 1990. Aerial scale . 1:7920 been field checked. This map is intended for general planning purposes. Service area data was token fran the Sit " pecific evaluation should be Lesiondu County Solid Waste Monog4mnt verified by field Inspection. Plan (1989). Map scale - 1:26M (One inch - 4.2 miles) This nap was generated fran the Lee lanou Inforrmt ion System by the N Leelonou County Planning Deparhmnt- April 1, 1992 Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 6-4 DRAFT FIGURE 6-3 Walt Kalchik Disposal Service Area Volt Kolchlk Disposal Ug service Area this mW was coNplied fron wiot photo SOURCE VATERIAL: graphs using standard Revival Interpret- Bieck and volts aerial photography. ation techniques. This date me not April. 1990. Aerial scale - 1:7M been field chocked. This mip Is Intended for general planning purposes. Service area data woo token fran the Site-specific evaluation should be Loolam County Sol ld West@ Monogaim It verified by field Inspection. Plan (1980). Mop seals - 1:26M (One Inch - 4.2 niles) This MW was generated fro" the Loolosev Infoaration System by the N Loviomm County Planning Department. April 1, IM b Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 6-5 DRAFT FIGURE 6-4 Ken's Pick-up Service Disposal Service Area Ken's Pick - Up Service Area This misp was ewpiled fran aerial photo SMM VATER I AL: Ir he using standard rnonuoi interpret- Block and white aerial photography. Itron techniques. This data has not April, IM. Aerial scale - 1:7920 b an field chocked. This map is Mended for general planning purposes. Service area data was taken fran the Sit*--8PecIfIc evaluation should be Leelanou County Solid Waste Monagampt verified by field Inspection. Plan (1989). Iiop scale - 1:264000 (One Inch - 4.2 miles) This map was generated fran the Leelonau Infonnotion Systqrn by the N Leelonou County Planning Deportnient. April 1. 1992 b Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 6-6 DRAFT FIGURE 6-5 Ron Send Disposal Service Area Ran Send Disposal service Area This mop was copi led f ran aer lei photo SOURCE VATERIAL: graphs using standard monual Interpret- Stock and white aerial photography, alion techniques. This dole has not April. IM. Aerial scale - 1:7 M been field chocked. This m* Is Intended for general planning purposes. Service area data was taken frorn the Sit*--s"ciflc evaluation should be Leelonou County Solid Waste Monagwant verified by field inspection. Pion (1989). Mop scale - 1:26M (One inch - 4.2 n4los) This mop was generated fron the Leelommu Infornation Systen by the N Leelonou County Planning Departntnt. April 1. 1"2 b Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 6-7 DRAFT FIGURE 6-6 West Michigan Disposal Service Area EM West Michigan Disposal R22 Service Area This map was COVI led from aerial photo SMAIM MODUAL: graphs going standard manual Interpret- Block and white aerial photography, ation techniques. This data has not April. 1M. Aerial scale a 1:7 M been field chocked. This mop Is Intended for general planning purposes. Ssrvice area date was taken frcm the Site-specific evaluation should be Loolanou County Sol Id Waste Monagerent verified by field Inspection. Plan (1989). Map sea I a - 1:2UM (One Inch - 4.2 miles) This map was generated fran the Loslonou Infonnellon System by the N Loslonou Cwjnty Planning Departmint. April 1. IM Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 6-8 DRAFT Glen Arbor, Greilickville, Lake Leelanau, and realistic than, say, a 25% volume reduction. Northport have since been added to the system offering citizens in those areas a The total volume of recyclable material convenient alternative to landfilling recyclable collected at these drop-off sites is significant. materials. In 1991, approximately 34% of the available newsprint was collected, as was about 7% The company involved in setting up the of the available tin, around 20% of the drop-off sites is Grand Traverse Project (GTP) available glass (not including returnable soft Industries, Inc. GTP's involvement in drink containers), and roughly 5% of the recycling began in early 1984 with initial available office paper. These items represent research and planning with solid waste the "big four" recyclable materials collected management officials. After conducting at the drop-off sites. Large volumes of market studies, GTP developed a corrugated material (cardboard) are also comprehensive plan which addressed cost being collected for recycling in Leelanau estimates, a management system, County. However, since much of this operational budgets and marketing plans. material is being handled by private haulers After the market study, equipment was on a weekly basis, accurate figures are purchased, building space acquired, and the difficult to determine. facility was staffed. GTP began operating in 1985. With the addition of four drop-off sites in the past two years, the overall volume of Over the years GTP has grown material collected in Leelanau County is considerably and now collects newspaper, expected to markedly increase. County office paper, cardboard, tin, glass, aluminum, citizens are obviously conscious of solid plastic and ferrous metals from sixteen (16) waste stream issues as indicated by the drop-off sites similar to those in Leelanau volume of material being collected. In a County. The organization presently employs 1990 scientific, random sample survey of 18 -20 people and is currently removing over County citizens, 88% of those responding 2600 tons of recyclable materials and indicated operation of a county-wide 12,000 gallons of used motor oil from the recycling system was an action the County regional waste stream. should undertake. This further indicates the seriousness with which the citizenry The Leelanau County Solid Waste considers the solid waste matters it faces. Management Plan, adopted in 1989, calls for the establishment of at least six recycling drop-off sites in the County. Unlike most THE CURRENT WASTE STREAM county plans, the Leelanau Plan does not An accurate assessment of the quantity target a specific collection volume. Noting and composition of the solid waste stream is most citizens are willing to travel no more important in solid waste planning. All known than five miles to utilize a drop-off site, the solid waste collected in Leelanau and Grand Plan calls for strategically locating drop-off Traverse Counties and a portion of Benzie facilities in order to allow County citizens County is disposed of at Glen's Sanitary maximum opportunity to recycle (see Figure Landfill. The quantity of waste collected in 6-7). This goal is thought to be more Leelanau County can be determined from the Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 6-9 DRAFT landfill records for the waste haulers serving findings of the 1988 waste stream analysis. Leelanau County. The waste stream assessment findings Four of the waste haulers serve Leelanau have been used to determine the composition County only, while five others serve Leelanau of the residential and commercial waste plus other counties. For the haulers serving stream only. The industrial waste quantity multiple counties, their volume from Leelanau and composition has been estimated by an County can be estimated by the proportion of independent study. From a Land Use Study their customers located in Leelanau County. performed in 1977 by the Leelanau County Using the landfill records for a 12-month Planning Department, 56 industries were period from May 1987 through April 1988, identified in the county. During the the estimated volume collected in Leelanau preparation of the original Solid Waste Plan in County by these nine haulers is 36,000 cubic 1982, each of these industries were sent a yards. The landfill records indicate that questionnaire along with a cover letter approximately 90% of the landfill tipping fees requesting information regarding the amount are collected from commercial haulers. and type of waste produced by each. A total Assuming that the nine haulers bring 90% of of 44 interviews took place and from these the county's waste volume to the landfill, the interviews it was determined that 7 total estimated annual solid waste volume for industries produced a significant amount of Leelanau County is 40,000 cubic yards per solid waste. In 1988, all seven of these year. This is a daily average of industries were contacted again to determine approximately 33 tons per day or 2.2 pounds if the data from the 1982 industrial waste per capita per day based on a seasonally survey was still accurate. Additional adjusted population of 30,000. The waste industries that were suspected of possibly volume has increased significantly over the producing a significant amount of waste 20.6 tons per day measured in 1982. were also contacted. The new survey identified only four industries that produced The best method to determine the industrial waste. .composition of the waste stream is to perform a waste stream assessment. This Industries producing less than one loose would consist of taking representative waste cubic yard or 200 pounds of solid waste per samples at the landfill, sorting them into day were considered insignificant industrial various material categories and weighing waste producers and were not included in them. Waste stream analyses have been the estimate of the industrial waste stream. performed at a few locations in the state. In The industries identified and considered in 1988, a waste stream assessment was estimating the industrial waste stream were performed at Glen's Sanitary Landfill. It Prutsman/Tuckmar of Suttons Bay, Cherry consisted of one week of sampling -during Bend Tool and Dye of Cedar, ISG Extrusion each season of winter, spring, summer, and Toolings, Inc. of Suttons Bay, and Leelanau fall. Samples were randomly selected from Fruit Company of Suttons Bay. Of the loads brought to the landfill with the samples original seven industrial waste producers being sorted into various categories to be identified in 1982, one was no longer in weighed. The waste. composition business while two others were using percentages shown in Table 6-3 reflect the Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 6- 10 TABLE 6-2 Additional Leelanau County Waste Haulers for Wastes Generated in Leelanau County Base of Type of Disposal Hauler Operation Equipment Service Area Waste Load Frequency Site Biggs Construction Leland (1) 14 cu yd Dump Truck Leland Area Building One load every Glen's Sanitary Service, Inc. Materials two weeks Landfill Chess Construction Elmwood Twp. (1) 5 cu yd Stake Truck The Homestead Drywall Scraps Variable Glen's Sanitary Grand Traverse County Landfill Drywall Dynamics Elmwood Twp. 11) 8 cu yd Flatbed Leelanau County Construction 2 - 3 loads Glen's Sanitary Truck Grand Traverse County Waste per week Landfill Easling Construction, Inc. Leland Unknown Leelanau County Building Two loads per week Glen's Sanitary 10 cu yd Vehicle Products Landfill Paul Maurer General Elmwood Twp. Unknown Leelanau County Construction Variable Glen's Sanitary 10 cu yd Vehicle Waste 0- 150 cu yd/month Landfill Moquin Construction, Inc. Elmwood Twp. (1) 8 cu yd Dump Truck Leelanau County Building Two loads per week Glen's Sanitary Grand Traverse County Products Landfill Benzie County Shugart Builders, Inc. Elmwood Twp. (1) 12 cu yd Dump Truck Leelanau County Construction Two loads per week Glen's Sanitary Grand Traverse County Waste IS months) Landfill One food per week (7 months) SOURCE. Leelanau County Solid Waste Managemant Plan (1989) DRAFT alternate methods of waste disposal. It was type of solid waste generated in Leelanau also noted that not all of the solid waste County. produced by the industries enters the waste stream as some alternate methods of solid 1. Select an ecologically sound, waste disposal we're being used. economically feasible twenty-year plan for solid waste management in Leelanau County. PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS 2. Ensure that the solid waste management plan does no harm to Leelanau County's The Leelanau County Solid Waste environmental quality and quality of life. Management Plan Michigan's Solid Waste Management Act, 3. Select a solid waste management system Act 641, PA 1978, was enacted by the that safeguards the health and well-being Michigan Legislature as an act to protect the of Leelanau County citizens in perpetuity. public health and the environment, to provide for the regulation and management of solid 4. Develop sustainable methods of solid wastes, to prescribe the powers and duties waste handling such as recycling, of certain state and . local agencies and composting, and others. Provide for officials, to prescribe penalties, to make an timely implementation of such measures. appropriation, and to repeal certain existing acts. 5. Insure a viable solid waste collection system to serve Leelanau County citizens. It is a requirement of Act 641 that each county prepare, or have prepared for them, a 6. Clarify the responsibilities of the private Solid Waste Management Plan. The purpose sector and the County Government or of this planning effort and the Leelanau public authority for solid waste collection County Solid Waste Management Plan is to and management. fulfill the requirements of Act 641 for Leelanau County and to provide a planning 7. Provide the means and encouragement framework for the solid waste management for public involvement in solid waste needs of the County. Leelanau County was management decisions. one of only three Michigan counties to complete its solid waste plan by the State- 8. Mandate the responsibility of the County mandated deadline of January 6, 1989*. The Government or public authority in ongoing plan received unanimous support of all solid waste management decision making townships and villages of the County and has and planning. served as the County's policy' guideline in implementing solid waste management Several alternative solid waste programs. management systems were evaluated in the planning process. Each alternative was The plan was formulated to meet the evaluated and ranked in terms of the following goals and objectives, based on following criteria: current research defining the volumes and Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 6-12 DRAFT � Technical Feasibility the location of all seven recycling drop-off � Economic Feasibility sites in Leelanau County. � Site Availability � Transportation Network Composting � Energy Conservation During the five-year Plan period, Leelanau Environmental and Public Health County will encourage composting in the Public Acceptance. following ways: (1) Support legislation that encourages Solid Waste Collection composting, such as the banning of Over the 5-year period of the short-term yard wastes from landfills. plan, traditional solid waste collection will be handled by the private sector. Pick up and (2) Provide promotional and educational transportation services for solid waste and materials concerning composting to recyclables will be furnished by private the public. Such materials would companies providing this service. The include recommendations for individual county government will encourage the backyard composting of organics. private sector to continue to provide this service. The SWaMB will also develop a Composting Plan for the County. Such a Plan will be necessary in order to allow the Recycling County municipalities and citizenry to comply Leelanau County's recycling system for with recent State legislation banning yard the five-year period will consist of drop-off wastes from landfills (Act 264, P.A. 1990). sites for the collection of recyclable items. This legislation prohibits the disposal in Participation will be on a voluntary basis. A landfills or incinerators of yard clippings collection system may be implemented within generated or collected from land owned by the time span. county, local or state agencies beginning in 1993. Beginning in 1995, disposal of yard At a minimum, each drop-off site will clippings from any source into landfills or consist of a trailer containing separate incinerators will be prohibited. containers for the following items: Disposal Newsprint Glass All waste materials that are not removed Cardboard Ferrous Metals from the waste stream by source reduction, Office Paper Aluminum recycling, or composting, will be disposed of Brown Paper Waste Oil by landfilling. Glen's Sanitary Landfill will be the primary disposal site for Leelanau County Approximately 40% (13 tons per day) of for the five-year planning period. the existing waste stream consists of these materials (see Table 6-3). . Additional Household Hazardous Waste Collection materials may be collected in the future as Household hazardous waste collection in technology for recycling improves and Leelanau County will consist of at least one markets are developed. Figure 6-7 shows collection day per year in the short term. Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 6-13 TABLE 6-3 1987 Leelanau County Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Waste Stream INDUSTRIAL WASTE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL WASTE TOTAL Total Percent Unit Rate Total Unit Rate Total Unit Rate Produced of Total (lb./capita Produced Percent fib./capita Produced Percent of (lb./capita Constituent fib./day) Industrial per day) fib./day) Commercial per day) (lb./day) Total per day) ORGANICS Newsprint 1 0.0% 0.00 4,339 6.9% 0.14 4,340 6.6% 0.14 office Paper 50 1.7% 0.00 1,300 2.1% 0.04 1,350 2.0% 0.04 Corrugated 250 8.4% 0.01 12,338 19.6% 0.41 12,588 19.1% 0.42 Yard Waste 0 0.0% 0.00 1,450 2.3% 0.05 1,450 2.2% 0.05 Textiles 0 0.0% 0.00 1,138 1.8% 0.04 1.138 1.7% 0.04 Plastic 0 0.0% 0.00 6,308 10.0% 0.21 6,308 9.6% 0.21 Magazines 0 0.0% 0.00 3,220 5.1% 0.11 3,220 4.9% 0.11 Food Waste 440 14.8% 0.01 7,102 11.3% 0.24 7,542 11.4% 0.25 Wood 75 2.5% 0.00 3,843 6.1% 0.13 3,918 5.9% 0.13 Fines 0 0.0% 0.00 2,248 3.6% 0.07 2,248 3.4% 0.07 Other Organics 40 1.3% 0.00 12,860 20.4% 0.43 12,900 19.5% 0.43 INORGANICS Glass is 0.5% 0.00 2,450 4.0% 0.08 2,555 3.9% 0.09 Ferrous 2100 70.7% 0.07 3,113 4.9% 0.10 5,213 7.9% 0.17 Non-ferrous 0 0.0% 0.00 616 1.0% 0.02 616 0.9% 0.02 Other Inorganics 0 0.0% 0.00 600 1.0% 0.02 600 0.9% 0.02 TOTALS 2971 100% 0.10 63,029 100% 2.10 66,000 100% 2.20 1.5 Tons per Day 31.5 Tons per Day 33.0 Tons per Day NOTES: 1. Industrial waste quantities based on 1980 and 1988 Industrial Waste Surveys by Gosling-Czubak Associates. 2. Total waste stream quantity based on waste volumes received at Glen's Sanitary Landfill between May, 1987 and April, 1988 from haulers serving Leelanau County. 3. Constituent percentages based on 1988 waste stream assessment at Glen's Sanitary Landfill. 4. Unit waste generation rates based on seasonally adjusted population of 30,000. SOURCE. Leelanau County Solid Waste Management Plan (1989) DRAFT FIGURE 6-7 Solid Waste Management Facilities in Leelanau County Recycling Glen's crop-off Station Sanitary Landfill This mop was; carpi led from aerial photo SOJICE MATERIAL: graphs using standard n=YAI interpret- Block and while aerial photogrophy, ation techniques. This data has not April, 1990. Aerial scale 1:7920 been field chocked. This map Is intended for general planning purposes. Site-specific evaluation shiould be verified by field inspection. Map scale - 1:264000 (One Inch w 4.2 miles) This map was generated from the Loolonau Information System by the N Lostam County planning Doportviont. April 1. IM b Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical services Page 6-15 DRAFT Additional collection days may be added County does not intend to establish such depending on demand and funding. a site. The collection days will be promoted as d. The County SWaMB will be charged with "waste exchange days" in which the public the responsibility for continued funding of will be allowed to claim paints and other an on-going public information and materials that others wish to dispose of. education campaign designed to keep the This will decrease the volume of hazardous local residents and taxpayers informed as waste needing disposal while providing to the status of solid waste efforts. individuals with free materials. e. Participate in establishing a Regional Solid Other hazardous wastes consisting of Waste Commission with other counties in agricultural chemicals and other wastes Northwestern Lower Michigan. This stored in large quantities will be handled Commission would be responsible for separately from the household hazardous regional solutions to solid waste wastes. The Plan calls on the Solid Waste problems. Management Board to develop a program and locate a funding source for the collection and f. Address details of expanded recycling proper disposal of these wastes. The efforts such as organized collection and Cooperative Extension Service has o r d i n a n c e s rn a n d a t i n g successfully pursued grant funds to finance participation. the program in the past, and will be encouraged to continue this activity in the Administrative Functions future. The management responsibilities associated with the County's solid waste Further Solid Waste Management Activity management program are divided among The SWaMB will work in conjunction with various agencies. the Soil Conservation Service, the Cooperative Extension Service, and any other Department of Natural Resources agencies having responsibility in the solid Various sections of the Department of waste management arena to carry-out the Natural Resources (DNR) are charged by law following tasks: with the regulation, enforcement and review of the conduct of solid waste management a. Encourage the development by private systems in Leelanau County and all other enterprise of one or more Type Ill landfills Michigan counties. The County will be in Leelanau County. dependent upon the appropriate offices of the DNR to be informed of changes in the b. Favor development of transfer stations to requirements for solid waste management effectively handle solid waste, if needed. from both the federal and state levels. This information from the DNR will include new c. Any hazardous wastes produced in solid waste legislation, regulatory rulings, Leelanau County will be sent to a licensed changes in the handling or disposal of all hazardous waste disposal site. The types of solid waste, national or state public Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 6-16 DRAFT information programs, financial aid programs Solid Waste Management Board (SWaMB) from the national or state level available to The County Board has created a Solid the county, and technical assistance from Waste Management Board that is responsible DNR staff. for implementation of the Solid Waste Management Plan. The SWaMB consists of Leelanau County Board of Commissioners five members appointed to three-year terms The County Board is responsible for the by the Board of Commissioners. The overall supervision of the solid waste purpose and functions of the SWaMB are: management system for the County. This responsibility includes the implementation of 1. To assist in the implementation of the the Leelanau County Solid Waste Leelanau County Solid Waste Management Plan. It also includes financing, Management Plan. administration and operations of the county solid waste management system, as well as 2. To provide advice and consultation to the accountability to the public. The County Leelanau County Planning Department, Board has created a Solid Waste the Leelanau County Planning Management Board (SWaMB) responsible for Commission, and the Leelanau County implementing the Solid Waste Management Board of Commissioners and their staffs. Plan. The County Board will be responsible for funding a portion of the recycling and 3. Review and comment on the County's household hazardous waste collection work program for solid waste activities programs. specified in Act 641. 4. Identify local priorities for solid waste Solid Waste Management Planning Advisory management. Committee (SWaMPAC) The Leelanau County Solid Waste 5. Insure that coordinated public Management Planning Advisory Committee is participation is a part of the solid waste responsible for the preparation and management process. submission of the state-mandated solid waste management plan. The SWaMPAC is 6. Provide a public forum for discussion of also responsible for assisting in the plan issues relevant to the solid waste approval process. Every five years, the management prbcess; to act as a SWaMPAC will update the solid waste communications linkage to municipalities management plan for the County. The and the public in Leelanau County; and SWaMPAC will begin work on the 5-year to provide information to public interest updates at least two years prior to the state- groups. set deadline for submission of the revised plan. The 14-member committee, appointed 7. Act in conjunction with similar planning by the Board of Commissioners, is staffed by efforts in neighboring counties and to the Planning Department. provide coordination with other county solid waste management programs. Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 6-17 DRAFT County Planning Department PROGRAM FUNDING The County Planning Department is responsible for the continued planning effort A non-profit, volunteer organization in the solid waste management field for the known as Recycle Leelanau did an excellent County. This planning is done in job of making sure recycling in Leelanau coordination with the Northwest Michigan County became a reality. Unfortunately, the Council of Governments, the Leelanau supply of volunteers to staff the drop-off County Solid Waste Management Planning sites on a continual basis was limited and, as Advisory Committee, the Solid Waste additional drop-off sites were added, the Management Board, and other units of volunteer resource was stretched beyond its government which are actively involved in limit. For that reason, the Leelanau County solid waste management planning and Solid Waste Management Board (SWaMB) implementation of plans. The County has began considering paid staffing options. Planning Department is the "central clearing house" of all solid waste management In 1988, the Michigan Legislature planning information as it relates to Leelanau examined the issue of funding for local County. The Planning Department acts as resource recovery, recycling, composting, staff to the Solid Waste Management Board household hazardous waste collection and and state-mandated Solid Waste education programs. The result of this Management Planning Advisory Committee. legislative effort was Act 138, P.A. 1989, which allows counties to impose an annual household surcharge of up to $25 to fund Township and Village Governments local solid waste management efforts. The The local units of government in the surcharge is subject to inter-local agreements County advise the Solid Waste Management between the County and its municipalities. Board as to the effectiveness of the County The SWaMB, in need of a funding source to Solid Waste Management Plan and will assure the continuity of the County solid inform the Board of solid waste issues, waste management program, settled on the problems, and opportunities. The Board is provisions of Act, 138 as being the most able to keep the local units of government practical. The recommended program budget informed as to solid waste management equates to an annual surcharge of activities so that the townships and villages approximately $8.00 per County household. -may keep citizens totally informed of solid All municipalities agreed to the surcharge Waste management programs. Townships concept in 1991, resulting in the current and villages are periodically asked to enter solid waste management program. into intergovernmental agreements for solid waste management activities. An example This minimal surcharge will also assure an of this is the Interlocal Agreements that exist ongoing household hazardous waste between the County and all townships and collection program. As many citizens have villages for financial administration of the learned of late, disposal of such items as solid waste management programs. paint, thinners, drain cleaners, and other petroleum and chemical based products has become quite difficult. Some agricultural Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 6-18 DRAFT products have also fallen into the so that no'improper wastes are disposed of "hazardous" category, causing the necessary in the landfill. The educational program must stockpiling of dangerous compounds. also inform the public as to the importance Hopefully, by making use of the provisions of of recycling and how the public can Act 138, proper disposal of these items will participate. be made easier for the general public. (2) Recycling Program INTER-COUNTY TRANSPORTATION OF The County's recycling program must include SOLID WASTE a sufficient number of drop-off sites to One of the most controversial provide the public with an opportunity to components of Act 641 deals with inter- participate in the program. county transportation of solid waste. Because Leelanau County is a "waste (3) Composting Program receiving" county, issues involving disposal of incoming material can be acute. Act 641 The County must establish or participate in a administrative rules require that a solid waste composting program to prevent yard wastes disposal site located in one county and and other organic wastes from being serving another must be identified in the solid disposed of in the landfill. waste plans of both counties. The interpretation of this rule is that if a county (4) Household Hazardous Waste Collection wants to use an existing disposal site or locate a new one in another county, it must The County must conduct or participate in at request its inclusion in that county's solid least one household hazardous waste waste plan. If the county in which the site is collection day per year. The collected located refuses to accept the other county's wastes shall be disposed of at a facility wastes, the other county must find another licensed to receive that type of waste. site. Counties using a site in Leelanau County Any county that lists Glen's Sanitary as a primary disposal facility must implement Landfill or any other site in Leelanau County a waste diversion program as described in its Solid Waste Management Plan as a above. All counties designating primary or primary or contingency site must have a contingency sites in Leelanau County must program for diverting a portion of the wastes have a reciprocal agreement with Leelanau from the landfill. The waste diversion County. program must be acceptable to Leelanau County and shall contain, as a minimum, the Glen's Sanitary Landfill is presently the following items: primary disposal site for solid waste generated in Leelanau, Grand Traverse and (1) Public education program. Benzie Counties. The landfill serves as a contingency disposal site for Emmet, This program must inform the public as to Charlevoix, Antrim, Kalkaska, Manistee and proper disposal methods for various.wastes Missaukee Counties. Figure 6-8 shows the Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 6-19 DRAFT counties listing Glen's Sanitary Landfill in 641, each of these Counties independently their plans. maintains a solid waste management plan. As a result, each County also independently ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION maintains a solid waste management Landfills have gradually diminished in program. Without considering a regional numbers in recent years. New landfills are approach to solid waste management issues, very difficult to site due primarily to their it has been argued that the best program will perceived impact on property values, local be doomed to failure. The loss of waste flow water quality, and general unsightliness. It is from any one of these Counties would surely also recognized that Glen's Sanitary Landfill have a devastating impact on the economic in Leelanau County will, someday, cease viability of Glen's Sanitary Landfill. In the operation. This fact became all too clear in case of Leelanau County, closure of Glen's early 1992 when DNR officials indicated the would mean at least a doubling of monthly landfill may not be relicensed unless certain trash pick-up costs due mostly to the clean-up measures were initiated by the increased hauling distance to either Manistee landfill's owner. Officials were left or Charlevoix Co,unty. Equally important, a wondering if a back-up plan would need to single County's recycling program will have be activated. Fortunately, the Landfill only minimal impact on the waste stream if owners and the DNR were able to settle their the other Counties continue to rely on differences and the flow of solid waste was landf illing as their only means of solid waste not interrupted. However, all landfill licenses disposal. are valid for only two years. Leelanau County could face a similar situation at that As landfill alternatives such as recycling, time - and every two years thereafter. composting and household hazardous waste collection programs become commonplace, The economics of landfilling in ste ady funding sources will have to be found. northwestern lower Michigan dictate regional Many feel mandatory recycling programs will usership in order to sustain financial stability be implemented in the future. Composting from a business standpoint. Currently will become more prevalent after 1995 when Leelanau, Benzie, and Grand Traverse all yard wastes will be banned from landfills Counties are the primary users of Glen's in Michigan. County, township and Sanitary Landfill. In compliance with Act municipal governments will again be called upon to fund these programs. Working Paper #8 - rransportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 6-20 DRAFT FIGURE 6-8 Primary and Contingency Users of Leelanau County Solid Waste Management Facilities Ir Counties identifying Glen's a prknary disposal facility IZ7'q Counties identifying Emmet, Glen's as bock-* disposal site Leelonou County Charlevoix Solid Waste monag"At Plan N Leelanau ntrim Otsego Kallcas a Benzie Crawford Grand Traverse Manistee Missaukee Working Paper #8 - Transportation, Public Facilities, and Physical Services Page 6-21 APPENDIX A 0 cd t Wp EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR MUTUAL ASSISTANCE FIRE DEPARTMENT: Elmwood TwP Fire Der)t. TX NUMBER C616) 941-1647 COUNTY: T.f-plnnau CHIEF Lee Johnson ENGINES:MANUFACTURER YEAR PUMP CAPACITY TANK H 0 CAPACITY 1: Ford C800 84 750 GPM 500 gali; 2: Ford C;9W- '@_')U UFM -100 gal s 3: 4: Ford F259.-4x4 250 GPM 200 gals WATER TENDERS:MANUFACTURER YEAR TANF H20 CAPACITY DROP TANK CAP I:Louisvill L900 78 -Discharge 1@ minute 2,000 2: 3: 4: .HOSE:NUMBER OF LiN-G-THS-THREAD V 12 LIST ANY OTHER HOSE BELOW 1 1/2" 24 200' 5" stortz hose 2" 2 1/2-1 -44 310 HEAVY STREAM APPLIANCES: DELUGE SETSP TURRENT PIPE# MONITORS LIST:, I- Deluxe gun -portable FOAM EQUIPMENT: TYPE AMOUNT EDUCTORS: CAPACITY NUMBER AFF foam 40 gal 2 -High expansion 15 gal Light water 25 gal SCBA'S: TYPE NUMBER TANK CAPACITY EXTRA gANKS, Scott's 10 30 minute Cascade Trailer er 16 e-filled Able to M_lanot.6 -T6-pr PORTABLE PUMPS: MANUFACTURER TYPE NUMBER CAPACITY - Kubota 500 GPM Midland 350 GPM GROUND LADDERS: .,k@NGTH TYPE NUMBER extension I 121 root - 2 90, -____g@ens7on - SPECIAL EQUIPMENT: SUCH AS K12'Sq GENERATORS9 PORTA POWERS* SAWS* SMOKE EJECTORS.9 PROXIMITY SUITSt LIGHTING E FURVEAT9 RES; saw, I- K-12, 3- portable generators, I-set porta power, - I- smoke ejector, I- set Jaws with power ram, 6- portable quartz 1100dllgnts, 1-. complete set of air bags, and 2- resusciators. COOPERATIVE MUTUAL AID AGREEMENTS: LIST DEPARTMENTS9 AGENCIES. Batallion 11 Garfield Twp, Grand Traverse County, Batallion 10, Long Lake Twp, Grand Traverse County, Suttons Bay-Bing-ham, Leelanau County, Cedar, Leelanau CountT. (Most frequently called upon departments) r W r.11 464.40jj roAue"06 &-;N4rA(b4fA0C_4y "4nwe'04 ra EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR MUTUAL ASSISTANCE FIRE DEPARTMENT:Empire TX NUMBER 326 5249 COUNTY: LEE IANAN CHIEF PGIL DEERING ENGINES: MANUFACTURER YEAR PUMP CAPACITY TANK H2O CAPACITY 1.GMC 85 1000 1000 2. 3. 4.CHCU 4x4 80 500 500 WATER TEBDERS: MANUFACTURER YEAR H2O CAPACITY DROP TANK CAP 1.CHCU 80 1500 1500-2000 2. 3. 4. HOSE:NUMBER OF LENGTHS THREAD LIST OF ANY OTHER HOSE BELOW 1" 300 1 1/2" 1500 2" 2 1/2" 2500 3" HEAVY STREAM APPLIANCES: DELUGE SETS, TURRENT PIPE, MONITORS LIST: FOAM EQUIPMENT : TYPE AMOUNT EDUCTERS: CAPACITY NUMBER A FFF 25 150 6pm 1 SCBA'S TYPE NUMBER TANK CAPACITY EXTRA TANKS SCOTT 10 10 PORTABLE PUMPS: MANUFACTURER TYPE NUMBER CAPACITY BRIGGS VOL 1 300 HOMILITE VOL 1 300 GROUND LADDERS: LENGTH TYPE NUMBER 35 EXT 1 24 EXT 1 14 ATTIC 1 SPECIAL EQUIPTMENT: SUCH AS K12'S, GENERATORS, PORTA POWERS, SAWS, SMOKE EJECTORS, PROXIMITY SUITS, LIGHTNING EQUIPTMENT, ETC. 2 SMOKE 2 GARMENTS 1 SAW COOPERATIVE MUTUAL AID AGREEMENTS: LIST DEPARTMENTS, AGENCIES. ALL LEEIANAU COUNTY MUTUAL AID BONZIE COUNTY MUTUAL AID N.P.S. MUTUAL AID. Station 3 Glen Arbor Fire/Rescue Dept EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR MUTUAL ASSISTANCE FIRE DEPARTMENT: Glen Arbor TX NUMBER 334-4111 COUNTY: Leelanger CHIEF Leo R Buckled ENGINES: MANAUFACTURER YEAR PUMP CAPACITY TANK H2O CAPACITY 1: FML - 88 -1250-1000 2: PIERCE-78-450-250 3: CHEV TANKER-26-250-1500 4: WATER TENDERS: MANUFACTURER YEAR TANK H2O CAPACITY DROP TANK CAP 1: CHEV-86-1500-1000 2: FORD-76-1600-1000 3: 4: HOSE:NUMBER OF LENGHTS THREAD 1" 12 - NST LIST ANY OTHER HOSE BELOW 1 1/2" 20 - NST 2" 2 1/2" 28 - NST 3" HEAVY STREAM APPLICANCES: DELUGE SETS, TURRENT PIPE, MONITORS LIST: 2 AKRIN MONSTORS, 1 ATTIC NOZZLE FOAM EQUIPMENT: TYPE AMOUNT EDUCATORS: CAPACITY NUMBER 3% NFFT 15 GALS 100GRAM - 1 SCBA'S: TYPE NUMBER TANK CAPACITY EXTRA TANKS SCOTT - 7 - 30 MAT - 10 PORTABLE PUMPS: MANUFACTURER TYPE NUMBER CAPACITY PORTABEL HYDRANT-PORT- 1 - 750 GPM B + S - PORT- 1- 400 GPM B + S - PORT- 1- 250 GPM GROUND LADDERS: LENGTH TYPE NUMBER 35' - ALUMN - 1 24' - ALUMN - 1 14' - ALUMN - 1 SPECIAL EQUIPMENT: SUCH AS K12'S, GENERATORS, PORTA POWERS, SAWS, SMOKE EJECTORS, PROXIMITY SUITS, LIGHTING EQUIPMENT, ETC. Chisel, 3 Light Generators, 6 1500 w Lights 2 Saws 2 Smoke Electors, 1-4 Ton DORTA POWER, 8 pump cars Snowmobile and sled COOPERATIVE MUTUAL AID AGREEMENTS: LIST DEPARTMENTS, AGENCIES. Leelawoth County F. Dept. National Park Sevices 1 Ambulance - 1988 STATION 4 EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR MUTUAL ASSISTANCE FIRE DEPARTMENT: Leland TWP Lake Leelanau TX NUMBER 25609611 COUNTY: Leelanau CHIEF James Flohe ENGINES: MANUFACTURER YEAR PUMP CAPACITY TANK H2O CAPACITY 1. BORTON AMERICAN - 1952 - 500 - 800 GAL 2. 4 GUYS TANKER - 1986 - 450 PTO - 2100 GAL 3. GMC - 1953 - - 800 GAL 4. BRUSH 29 - 1951 - PORTABLE PUMP - 275 GAL WATER TENDERS: MANUFACTURER YEAR TANK H20 CAPACITY DROP TANK CAP 1.___________________-__________-_______________________-15 GAL DROP TANK 2.___________________-__________-_______________________-25 GAL " " 3.___________________-__________-_______________________-________________ 4.___________________-__________-_______________________-________________ HOSE: NUMBER OF LENGTHS THREAD 1" 300' - NFT. LIST ANY OTHER HOSE BELOW 1 1/2" 450' - " 50'5" 2" _____________________- " _________________________ 2 1/2" 1250' - " _________________________ 3" _____________________- ________ _________________________ HEAVY STREAM APPLIANCES: DELUGE SETS, TURRENT PIPE, MONITORS LIST:________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ FOAM EQUIPMENT: TYPE AMOUNT EDUCATORS: CAPACITY NUMBER A-FEE 15 GAL 1256 PM - 1 _____ ______ _______ - ______ _____ ______ _______ - ______ SCBA'S: TYPE NUMBER TANK CAPACITY EXTRA TANKS STOTT AIR PACS - 6 - 2267 - 5 ______________ - ______ - _____________ - ___________ ______________ - ______ - _____________ - ___________ GROUND LADDERS: LENGTH TYPE NUMBER 35' - WOOD - 1 24 - ALUMINUM - 1 _____ - ________ - ______ SPECIAL EQUIPMENT: SUCH AS K12'S, GENERATORS, PORTA POWERS, SAWS, SMOKE EJECTORS, PROXIMITY SUITS, LIGHTING EQUIPMENT, ETC. HOMELITE K-12 14" 1 SMOKE EJECTOR ECHO CHAINSAW CS400 5 500 QUARTS LITES ONAN LIGHT PLANT ARMY SURPLUS LIGHT PLANT COOPERATIVE MUTUAL AID AGREEMENTS: LIST DEPARTMENTS, AGENCIES. NORTHPORT ELMWOOD LELAND GLEN ARBOR SOTTONE BAY EMPIER CEDAR LAKE LEELANNE EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR MUTUAL ASSISTANCE FIRE DEPARTMENT: LELAND VOL. FIRE DEPT TX NUMBER 256-9311 COUNTY: LEELANAU CHIEF: CHARLES STANDER ENGINES: MANUFACTURER YEAR PUMP CAPACITY TANK H20 CAPACITY 1: AMERICAN 76 750 650 2: 3: 4: WATER TENDERS: MANUFACTURER YEAR TANK H2O CAPACITY DROP TANK CAP 1: 4 GUYS 87 2100 2500 2. 3: 4: HOSE:NUMBER OF LENGTHS THREAD 1" 400 LIST ANY OTHER HOSE BELOW 1 1/2" 700 100' 5" 2" 2 1/2" 1200 3" 500 HEAVY STREAM APPLIANCES: DELUGE SETS, TURRENT PIPE, MONITORS LIST: FOAM EQUIPMENT: TYPE AMOUNT EDUCTORS: CAPACITY NUMBER 62 15 GAL 1 SCBA'S: TYPE NUMBER TANK CAPACITY EXTRA TANKS SCOTTE 6 30 8 PORTABLE PUMPS: MANUFACTURER TYPE NUMBER CAPACITY PONTE HYDRANT 1 750 2 250 GROUND LADDERS: LENGTH TYPE NUMBER 35' EXT. 1 24' EXT. 1 14' EXT 1 SPECIAL EQUIPMENT: SUCH AS K12'S GENERATORS, PORTA POWERS, SAWS, SMOKE EJECTORS, PROXIMITY SUITS, LIGHTING EQUIPMENT, ETC. 1 GENE-PONTA POWER-JAWS-SMOKE EJECTOR- COOPERATIVE MUTUAL AID AGREEMENTS: LIST DEPARTMENTS AGENCIES. ALL LEELANAU CO. DEPTS. STATION 6 NORTHPORT FIRE DEPT. NORTHPORT AMBULANCE EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR MUTUAL ASSISTANCE FIRE DEPARTMENT: LEELANAU TWP TX NUMBER 256-9121 386-5343 COUNTY: lEELANAU CHIEF RALPH EARL ENGINES MANUFACTURER YEAR PUMP CAPACITY TANK H20 CAPACITY 1: GMC 73 650 750 2: GMC 50 500 500 3: FORD 76 150 250 4: WATER TENDERS: MANUFACTURER YEAR TANK H2O CAPACITY DROP TANK CAP 1: FORD 85 1800 1-1200 2-1500 2: 3: 4: HOSE: NUMBER OF LENGTHS THREAD 1" LIST ANY OTHER HOSE BELOW 1 1/2" 600FT. 2" 2 1/2" 1500FT. 3" HEAVY STREAM APPLIANCES: DELUGE SETS, TURRENT PIPE, MONITORS LIST: DELUGE GUN FOAM EQUIPMENT: TYPE AMOUNT EDUCTORS: CAPACITY NUMBER 3/6 LIGHT H20 20 GALS 2 SCBA'S TYPE NUMBER TANK CAPACITY EXTRA TANKS SCOTT 9 5 PORTABLE PUMPS: MANUFACTURER TYPE NUMBER CAPACITY HOMELITE 150 HOMELITE 150 HOMELITE 150 GROUND LADDERS: LENGTH TYPE NUMBER 28" 2 14" ROOF 1 40" 1 SPECIAL EQUIPMENT: SUCH AS K12'S, GENERATORS, PORTA POWERS, SAWS, SMOKE EJECTORS, PROXIMITY SUITS, LIGHTING EQUIPMENT, ETC. 2-SMOKE EJECTORS 1-GENERATOR 1-K20 SAW 1-SET OF 3 AIR BAGS 3-PORTABLE LIGHTS COOPERATIVE MUTUAL AID AGREEMENTS: LIST DEPARTMENTS, AGENCIES. LEELANAU COUNTY GRAND TRAVESE METRO 1-FORD AMBULANCE 1984 DEC 1991 DC EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR MUTUAL ASSISTANCE FIRE DEPARTMENT: CEDER FIRE DEPT TX NUMBR 228-5989 COUNTY: LEELANAU CHIEF ALBIN J. ROSINSKI ENGINES: MANUFACTURER YEAR PUMP CAPACITY TANK H2O CAPACITY FORD 1: AMERICAN 69 500 750 GMC 2: E-ONE 78 400 300 3: 4: WATER TENDERS: MANUFACTURER YEAR TANK H20 CAPACITY DROP TANK CAP 1: FORD 79 1400 2000 4-WD 2: CHEV 69 1000 1000 AMB 3: DODGE 85 300 4: FORD 83 HOSE:NUMBER OF LENGTHS THREAD 1" LIST ANY OTHER HOSE BELOW 1 1/2" 1500 FT NST 2" 2 1/2 8000FT NST 3" HEAVY STREAM APPLIANCES: DELUGE SETS, TURRENT PIPE, MONITORS LIST: 750 GPM DELUGE FOAM EQUIPMENT: TYPE AMOUNT EDUCTORS: CAPACITY NUMBER HIGH EXP 10 GAL 1 3% 25 GAL 95GPM 1 SCBA'S: TYPE NUMBER TANK CAPACITY EXTRA TANKS SCOTT 6 2300LB 6 PORTABLE PUMPS: MANUFACTURER TYPE NUMBER CAPACITY AMERICAN VOL 2 300GPM HOMELITE VOL 1 400GPM RUPP VOL 1 1000GPM GROUND LADDERS: LENGTH TYPE NUMBER 35 EXT 1 24 EXT 1 20 EXT 2 SPECIAL EQUIPMENT: SUCH As kl2'S GENERATORS, PORTA POWERS, SAWS, SMOKE EJECTORS, PR0OXIMITY SUITS, LIGHTING EQUIPMENT, ETC. K-12 GENERATOR 115 VOLT GENERATOR 230 VOLT PORTA POWER 10 TON PORTA POWER 4 TON CHAINSAWS 2 SMOKE EJECTOR 1 PROXIMITY SUITS 2 PORTABLE LIGHTS-6 JAWS OF LIFE- AIR BAGS- MOBILE 4 BOTTLE CASCADE PORTABLE RADIO 6 39,18,29,32,39,50-1 HIGH BAND RETAILS COOPERATIVE MUTAL AID AGREEMENTS: LIST DEPARTMENTS, AGENCIES, LEELANAU CO FIRE RESCUE Suttons Bay Bingham Fire & Rescue EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR MUTUAL ASSISTANCE FIRE DEPARTMENT: Suttons Bay Bingham TX NUMBER 616- 2713580 - 3343 COUNTY: Leclanau CHIEF Dick Catton ENGINES: MANUFACTURER YEAR PUMP CAPACITY TANK H20 CAPACITY 1: Chev 87 1000 6 PM 1500 - 2100 Dump Tank 2: INTERNATIONAL 72 750 6 PM 750 3: 4: GMC 86 EQUIPMENT VAN WATER TENDERS: MANUFACTURER YEAR TANK H2O CAPACITY DROP TANK CAP 1: FORD 78 2000 2100 2: FORD 79 1300 2000 3: FORD 76 GRASS RIG 250 GAL TANK 4: CHEV 78 GRASS RIG 200 GAL TANK HOSE: NUMBER OF LENGTHS THREAD 1" 500 FT N F T LIST ANY OTHER HOSE BELOW 1 1/2" 40 - 2000 FT 1 1/2 2" 5" 450 FT 2 1/2" 30 - 1500 FT 2 1/2 HEAVY STREAM APPLIANCES: DELUGE SETS. TURRENT PIPE, MONITORS LIST: 1 ELK HART BRASS 2 1/2 MONITOR PORTABLE 2-2 1/2 INLET FOAM EQUIPMENT: TYPE AMOUNT EDUCTORS: CAPACITY NUMBER ELK HART 2 90 6 pm SCBA'S TYPE NUMBER TANK CAPACITY EXTRA TANKS SCOTT 10 30 MIN. 8 PORTABLE PUMPS: MANUFACTURER TYPE NUMBER CAPACITY HALE 2 350 6 PH PORTABLE HYD HALE 2000 6 PM TRAILER MOUNTED GROUND LADDERS: LENGTH TYPE NUMBER 35 EXT 1 24 EXT 2 12 ROOF 2 SPECIAL EQUIPMENT: SUCH AS K12'S, GENERATORS, PORTA POWERS, SAWS, SMOKE EJECTORS, PROXIMITY SUITS, LIGHTING EQUIPMENT, ETC. 1- K-12 SAW 1- CHAIN SAW 2- GENERATORS 2 SMOKE EJECTORS 1 HEAVEY DUTY HURST JAW & CUTTERS COOPERATIVE MUTUAL AID AGREEMENTS: LIST DEPARTMENTS, AGENCIES. ALL COUNTY MUTUAL AID GRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY FIRE - 1 FORD AMUBULANCE 84- 1 CHEV AMBULANCE 76- NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY 1 4 3 6668 14111905 9