Summary Report for the Lansing Metropolitan Area - Tri-County ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$lÉâ TÜx \Çä|àxw àÉ à{x gÜ|@VÉâÇàç exz|ÉÇtÄ cÄtÇÇ|Çz VÉÅÅ|áá ...$

Figures 30 and 31 contrast traditional suburban development on the fringe to a mixed use site plan. Mixed use provides close to home shopping, work and recreational opportunities at higher densities with lower transportation costs. Figure 30: Traditional Suburban Development Figure 31: Mixed Use 41
PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS Persons listed below served on the “Regional Growth: Choices for Our Future” Steering and Stakeholder Committees between 2000 and 2005 and include both delegates and alternates. An asterisk indicates current delegates and alternates. Steering Committee Harold Leeman, Jr.*, Chair Larry Martin* Phil Chisholm* Mark Meadows* J. William Hawes* David Wilson* Andy Schor Dianne Holman* William Rieske* John Pearson* John Czarnecki Stakeholders Committee Ingham County Gerald Ambrose,* Chair Aurelius Township Craig Iansiti* Larry Silsby* Bath Community Schools Susan Bolton* Rick Oberle Paul Roney Summer Hallwood Renee Farnum Marsha Small* Andrew Such* Earl Barks* Larry Horstman Ben Munger Jerry Ambrose* (ex officio), Stakeholders Chair Jeff Oesterle* (ex officio), Stakeholders Vice Chair Michigan Works! Michael Quinn Doug Stites* Steven Leiby Capital Area United Way Paul McConaughy Capitol Excavating & Paving Company George Hayhoe* Bingham Township Harold Rappuhn* Steve Schafer* Clinton Area Planning for Intergovernmental Teamwork (CAPIT) Barry Dean* Capital Region Airport Authority Daniel Otto* Thomas Schmidt Mike Lynn* Capitol Transport L.L.C. (Spartan & Yellow Cab) Ronald Salmon* 42
Page 1 and 2: September, 2005 Regional Growth Sum
Page 3 and 4: DISCLAIMER This document was prepar
Page 5 and 6: What does the Project Mean for You
Page 7 and 8: Why Was This Project Conducted? In
Page 9 and 10: Figure 4 shows that between 1938 an
Page 11 and 12: Project Process The “Regional Gro
Page 13 and 14: Figure 6 shows particpants by zip c
Page 15 and 16: Table 2: Preliminary Comparative An
Page 17 and 18: The Preferred Alternative Once the
Page 19 and 20: “Wise Growth” The other scenari
Page 21 and 22: Figure 11: Adopted Regional Land Us
Page 23 and 24: Principle #10 − Waste Management
Page 25 and 26: Principle #28 − Viable Neighborho
Page 27 and 28: By defining an agreed upon land use
Page 29 and 30: • Assisting Ingham County Plannin
Page 31 and 32: Now that the planning team has comp
Page 33 and 34: Figure 13: Transition from Planning
Page 35 and 36: Final Focus Group Results As part o
Page 37 and 38: Figure 15: Comparing Leader & Citiz
Page 39 and 40: Figure 16 shows the existing rural
Page 41 and 42: These figures show development in t
Page 43: Figures 28 and 29 contrast a typica
Page 47 and 48: City of Williamston Thomas Coleman
Page 49 and 50: Ingham County Sheriff’s Office Al
Page 51 and 52: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS (Consultant Team M

Summary Report for the Lansing Metropolitan Area - Tri-County ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?