' - - . . .. . ,. .- .,,.-.,. nw;:"‘~='.‘din‘

 

. .
v
.
.
- .
. .
a - .
n
u . .
a
' .
. .
. . .
I
u
n
.
- <
. I ' '-
~
.
n .
u
. o

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State.
University

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/07 p:/C|RC/Date0ue.indd-p.1

 

.w— u— A

l ‘3'“ . _ -' a‘l;__~— - I-fl ‘ _ :1 ‘1. - 1-1 iii—A

qh-i—u- rt...-

15-1%.: _ --_.’ gm . . _ . -;: ”d“ '
- Plan B Paper . H
' Phillips, Craig. 1999. -

a}

The US 31/Petoskey Area Bypass:

An Analysis of Potential Economic Impacts

By: Craig Phillips

'pH Anna-tun)

J
:2- ..c..,.... -_ . ._, ,. _,.\...} .
rntmfld. - - - .
‘13», 3:1,‘1-‘M‘Iiflfiwat-ndfinf . "KW " m ' W ' W4M' grim:
”7%:me i V

‘5‘
'64:
§
in'.
1'5
3
CL'
p.
in

 

Inteqtowq Sonth
RESORT TOWNSHIP ‘ BEAR CREEK TOWNSQIPQ‘

no BAOJS) 3012‘] j
'. ,. n as" --

 

A Plan B Paper submitted to:
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of:

MASTER OF URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING

College of Social Science
Urban and Regional Planning Program

Spring 1999

 

Acknowledgments

 

Without the assistance and guidance of several people, this effort would not have been
possible. First, I would like to thank Drs. Zenia Kotval and William Huang for their
guidance, inspiration and assistance throughout the course of this endeavor. Both of these
people were positive mentors during the preparation of this document, and well as the

throughout the pursuit of my graduate education at Michigan State University.

I would also like to thank the many individuals in the communities represented in this
report who provided information, Opinion, and background materials for the preparation
of this report. The participation of those who were interviewed is also greatly
appreciated. Without these contributions, this project would not have been realized.

I must also thank my parents, and my fiancee, Andrea for their support throughout the
duration of this project.

Finally I would like to thank Dr. and Mrs. John Tanton of Petoskey, Michigan, for their

generous financial support for the preparation of this document, as well as the use of

office facilities and other materials throughout the research portion of this project.

Table of Contents

 

Executive Summary

Introduction and Purpose

Research Methodology

Structure

Literature Review

Case Studies of Comparison Communities
Petoskey, Michigan and the Proposed US 31 Bypass
Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin (WIS 26, US 12)
Rhinelander, Wisconsin (US 8, WIS 47, WIS 17)
Port Washington, Wisconsin (1-43)
Lake Geneva, Msconsin (US 12)

Conclusions and Recommendations

Bibliography

Appendices

Sample Interview Form

Sample Opposition Group Newsletter

10
11
12
20
20
4O
50
62
73
83
89
91
91
92

List of Maps

 

Map 1
Map 2
Map 3
Map 4
Map 5
Map 6
Map 7
Map 8
Map 9
Map 10
Map 11

Petoskey, MI Location Map
Petoskey, MI City Map

Project Proposal Map

Fort Atkinson, WI Location Map
Fort Atldnson, WI City Map
Rhinelander, WI Location Map
Rhinelander, WI City Map

Port Washington, WI Location Map
Port Washington, WI City Map
Lake Geneva, WI Location Map
Lake Geneva, WI City Map

26
29
41
45
51
56
63
68
74
78

List of Figures

 

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14

Downtown Petoskey, MI

US 131 at city limits, Petoskey, IVfl

Artist’s Rendering of Proposed Bypass

WIS 42/57 Bypass, Sturgeon Bay, WI

Fireside Dinner Theatre, Fort Atkinson, WI

Aerial View of Downtown Fort Atkinson, WI
Downtown Rhinelander, WI

Boom Lake, Rhinelander, WI

Downtown Port Washington, WI

WIS 32 at I-43 Bypass, Port Washington, WI
Before and After I-43 Bypass, Port Washington, WI
Downtown Lake Geneva, WI

Before and Afier US 12 Bypass, Lake Geneva, WI
WIS 120 at US 12 Bypass, Lake Geneva, WI

24
28
32
33
43
48
54
6o
65
69
7o
76
80
81

Executive Summary

 

This paper presents an analysis of the potential economic impacts upon businesses as a
result of a proposed highway bypass in the Petoskey area. This was accomplished through
the analysis of existing conditions and trends in the Petoskey area, as well as the collective
analysis of four comparison communities in Wisconsin. As a result of this analysis, a set
of recommendations has been developed as suggested methods for mitigation of potential

impacts related to this highway project.

The Michigan Department of Transportation has proposed a new highway bypass as a
remedy for an increasing traflic flow and management problem in the Petoskey area. This
problem has come about as a result of the growing popularity of the Petoskey area as a
vacation and resort destination, as well as a favorite location of second homes of the
wealthy from cities like Chicago, Detroit, and Miami. The problem worsens each year,
and peaks during the summer tourist season. This, coupled with the nature of
development in the Petoskey area raises concern as to the sustainability of the current
economic success which the community possesses. In addition, the current development
rates are likely to continue, and may be exacerbated by the development of a highway
bypass. For this reason, careful control of the future growth and development, as well as

strong continued promotion of the Petoskey community is crucial.

The case studies presented in this report lead to the conclusion that traditional sprawl and
strip-type development will occur in proximity to the bypass, especially near the access
points and intersections. If the development occurs in the same fashion as that of the
comparison communities, it is likely that a majority of the land surrounding the bypass will
soon become urbanized. As a result of a bypass, some of the businesses in the comparison
communities have been compromised, especially highway-oriented businesses along
former highway routes. As a general rule, the central business districts in these
communities have weathered the changes brought upon by the bypass quite well. This is

due to many factors, including strong recruitment efforts, and marketing of the downtown

5

areas. The experience of the comparison communities has been one of adaptation and

redirection.

Based on the analysis of Petoskey and the comparison communities, it is likely that the
land around the new bypass will develop, and may eventually become part of the urban
fabric of the city of Petoskey. The fate of business and the downtown Gaslight District
depends upon a number of factors including active control and monitoring of growth and

development in the Petoskey area.

In order for the community of Petoskey to preserve and protect its character, and
effectively manage growth, several techniques could be used. These include but are not
limited to:

0 conservation subdivision design

9 planned unit development

0 transfer/purchase of development rights

0 historic and cultural preservation techniques

0 strict architectural and site design guidelines and standards

0 Overlay TIF District/Development Authority

0 development blueprint/ service boundary/ growth boundary

0 strong promotion of the Gaslight District of downtown Petoskey

If an appropriate mixture of these methods is adopted and implemented, the firture
success and stability of the Petoskey area as a favorite tourist destination may be
achieved. In addition to these suggestions, it is crucial that strong intergovernmental and
interagency bonds and relationships be formed in order to properly direct the firture
growth of the Petoskey community, and to preserve this northern gem for the enjoyment

of fiiture generations to come.

Introduction And Purpose

 

As a result of increased growth and development in many areas of the United States, as
well reliance upon the automobile for movement, important issues have arisen regarding
the firnction and capacity of traffic and transportation systems. When urban areas expand
outward, and their fi'inges begin to develop, existing transportation networks become
inadequate and must adapt to meet rising demands and standards. Quite often, a bypass or
beltway is constructed in order to alleviate congestion along existing roads, and reroute

the trafiic around a city, or to a different location.

A bypass, the term used throughout this study, is “a road enabling motorists to avoid a
city or other heavy trafic points or to drive around an obstruction” (Random House
Dictionary). Typically, a bypass will run relatively parallel to the route it feeds off; and
reroute traflic around a busy population or activity center. This study will analyze the
potential economic impacts of the proposed US 31 Bypass, to be constructed near
Petoskey, Michigan (see Map 1).

As a result of its increase in popularity as a tourist destination, and a favored location for
seasonal homes, the Little Traverse Bay/Petoskey area has been plagued by increased
traffic volumes and congestion. This problem with traflic flow is partly due to a
bottleneck created within the city of Petoskey where US Highways 31 and 131 converge
near the heart of the city. This is a phenomenon which is most prevalent during the
summer months and to a lesser degree, the winter ski season. Over the past few decades,
the problem has continually worsened. The US 31 corridor through the city currently

carries trafic volumes equal to that of roads in cities many time larger than Petoskey.

A 9.5 mile-long parkway-style bypass has been suggested in order to improve traffic flow
in the Petoskey area. This proposed roadway will completely bypass the city of Petoskey.
A bypass of this type may have effects upon the economy and ultimately, the quality of life

of the city and surrounding area.

 

 

     
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

j 0940"“
7. 1 40km
1‘ . ’\ ”It Ste. Marie
an \ \\ £11161qu
. - , 51 r_
I \_ . Mr O
‘r a“)
‘s
Q fifi ‘\ T
. \
‘3 ‘N
. -. 1‘
Q I.
t PETOSKEY '11 19...; \
' Traver' Gily . fa ‘ ‘
, us: _
M? 1. ‘é‘
‘ J Wurtsmith are
I I
Cadrlhc \
*3
27 - 11
r"
23 :‘JJ
5‘ la a
3.’ s Mldla ”d " Bay aiéy _l
i
Fbrt Washingb'n Inna \ aqmaw 4 A
. 1 1 . ' \
. nomonee Falls Muskegon 1 Grelenville K /
1 ‘ rad—L » i '
1‘ Allendale Grand Eupids '"E’ "'m'LPor n _.
‘i ”Wan“ 131 CnndL‘odge Lansing 0 °' 1
.} ‘ “‘ Sterli g Heights “I
"“"°—'—' 1" Ln—lmrom '
f “N. ~ .0360 it
Ft'a‘ge A n Arbor
' ‘ I - 5’15” l ' 5W
' [— j . .__.- . ' s Tecu nah ‘
if Thmx'lw' 11mm ‘ " 6966 1
1 .4" Stun-3f r-q Adrhnl ,. ‘
—— - - /
So "I so 11 E liar ' 1° _ 1 oledo “s... _/
Portage a; ”"5; 1' Ceshené million BdClillbll
WI 1 24
i I? kakoe 3—] / l '
1999 Ma Questoom Inc. i eColumb'nC' 1 \

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Map 1
Petoskey, MI Location Map

 

 

 

 

 

This paper examines the potential impacts associated with bypass construction, and
analyzes the experiences of comparable cities which have been bypassed. Specifically, this
study examines possible effects upon the businesses located within the limits of the City of
Petoskey. This analysis will identify economic issues and trends related to bypass
highways, and fi'om these studies, presents a set of recommendations to mitigate the
impacts of bypass-oriented development, in order to preserve the small town character and

beauty of the city of Petoskey.

Research Methodology

 

The primary structure of this research consists of a set of comparative case study analyses
between Petoskey and the communities of Rhinelander, Fort Atkinson, Port Washington,
and Lake Geneva Wisconsin. Comparison communities in Wisconsin were chosen due to
the lack of similar bypass projects in the state of Michigan. The states of Michigan and
Wisconsin are similar in many ways, including: topography, land cover, population
composition, latitude, history, and governmental structure to name a few. Interviews and
current/historic land use inventory and analysis are used in order to identify key issues. By
examining Rhinelander and Fort Atkinson existing characteristics and development
patterns may be found, and trends can be established, which could then be applied to the
Petoskey example. In addition, an analysis of the current development patterns and those
prior to the construction of the bypass in Port Washington and Lake Geneva have been
conducted. The development patterns of these cities could aid in the forecasting of
potential development patterns in and around Petoskey. The case studies look at
Petoskey, and these communities of similar size and character and draw conclusions which

could aid in the decision-making process involved with the US 31/Petoskey Area Bypass.

One tool for the analysis of potential impacts was a series of interviews. Interviews of
various individuals, such as business owners and governmental oflicials both in Petoskey
and the comparison communities contributed some of the information used in the analysis.
The interviews consisted of a specific set of questions regarding the bypass in each
community, as well as comments and suggestions from the interview participants.
Information gathered during the interviews has been combined in an anonymous,
aggregate form and used to develop a sense of community attitudes toward the bypass in

each given community.

In addition, an analysis of current and historical land use and development in previously
bypassed communities as well as Petoskey was undertaken. This assessment involved

studying existing land use maps and aerial photography as well as other related materials

10

in order to obtain information on current and previous land use, and changes in use over
time. Of specific interest was the development which has occurred on or in proximity to
the bypass in each of the comparison communities. From this analysis, trends and
probabilities of development were identified, and in turn, applied to the US 31/Petoskey
Area Bypass scenario. This information was used to make estimates of firture

development of the Petoskey area.
Together, these techniques yielded information which led to the development of impact

estimates for the city of Petoskey and the surrounding area, and finally, a set of

recommendations and final thoughts have been included.

Structure

 

This document consists of a series of case study analyses, as well as other background
data and information, and a section with findings and recommendations. First the history
and background information about Petoskey and the US 31 Bypass is presented.
Following this, case studies based on site visits and interviews in Rhinelander and Fort
Atkinson, Wisconsin will be detailed and discussed. Next, two development case studies
involving Port Washington and Lake Geneva, Wisconsin are included as additional
evidence. Finally, the information from each of the previous studies is compiled and
compared to Petoskey, and a final set of recommendations and points of information are
identified.

11

Literature Review

 

Many existing pieces of literature focus on the probabilities of impact as a result of
highway and transportation improvements such as bypasses. Some of these take a look at
the theories associated with development and impact potentials. They offer an expected
outcome with respect to transportation improvements as well as the general development
patterns of cities. Some of the most well known theories about location and development
will be discussed here, as well as some newer accounts of development and location in
scholarly journals and sources. Of the many theories available to analyze the effects of
transportation and the location of land uses in proximity to transportation corridors,

several are considered in this analysis of the Petoskey region and the US 31 bypass.

Residential Location Theory
The theory put forth by Johann Heinrich Von Thunen, centered around the agricultural

landscape, and was very limited by the time in which it was developed, but serves as the
basis from which many of the famous theories stemmed. One of the underlying factors in
Von Thunen’s theory, was that the shape of the zones surrounding a city were effected by
transportation costs, and were shaped to reflect this cost. In his book Land Resource
Economics, Raleigh Barlowe takes the theory presented by von Thunen and relaxes some
of the assumptions, such as the existence of a uniform and featureless plain, to show how
the introduction of a feature changes the shape of the zones. He shows examples of the
effects of a river, and a roadway, or series of roadways, and how the land use changes to
reflect the existence of these uses. This is based on von Thunen’s idea that transportation
cost effects the zones described in his theory. Barlowe shows how land uses become

focused on and elongated along rivers and roads

The theories of urban structure and development as proposed by Burgess, Hoyt, and
Harris and Ullman as described by Barlowe also describe the location of various land uses
within a city. Ernest Burgess’ model of a city consists of concentric circles or zones

radiating outward from the city center, with income levels increasing as distance is gained

12

from the city center. Homer Hoyt designed a model which described the layout of a city
in sectors. His model identifies the center of a city as being surrounded by sectors or
shoes which represent various land uses of the city. In his model, land uses develop along
an axis, or transportation route. He also describes industry as being located along
waterways, railroads, and sometimes major streets. Residential areas, according to Hoyt
are located in various areas of the city, with lower class areas tending to be located closer
to the center, and higher class areas in pockets on the outskirts of the city, ofien near or
around attractive features such as parks and lakes. Hoyt’s model also describes the
activity known as filtering, a process in which homes which were once occupied by the
upper class are occupied the lower class as upper class residents build new homes on the

outskirts of the city, and the city grows outward.

Another model, developed by Harris and Ullrnan is the multiple-nuclei model. This model
recognizes the existence of multiple areas of central influence such as shops and ofice
centers in cities. In this model, the city has a central core, but there are additional business
districts located elsewhere in the city on major thoroughfares or intersections of major
routes in and around the city. This model which is younger than those proposed by Von
Thunen, Burgess, and Hoyt more accurately describes the development of modern cities,

which have multiple business and oflice areas.

Barlowe also presents an interesting discussion of commercial and residential land use in hi
book. In terms of commercial activity location and analysis, he states that decisions for
location of commercial uses relies heavily upon accessibility and visibility from major
transportation influences. According to Barlowe, other factors for consideration when
making location decisions regarding commercial uses include land costs, proximity to
market and customers, availability of adequate space, and other factors. He claims that
larger commercial centers tend to favor sites with large amounts of available land that are

close to major transportation routes.

13

Residential location, according to Barlowe, is contingent upon available space and
convenience, and a pleasant environment. Often, residents prefer to live close to places of
employment and centers of commercial activity in order to increase the convenience to
these features. As an expansion to this, the author describes the importance of commuting

activity and the effect it has had on the location decisions of homeowners (Barlowe 1986).

One theory which can be used to describe residential land use and location is the theory
which is discussed by William Alonso, in his book, location and land use. In his book,
Alonso suggests that residential location decision is based on two major factors,
accessibility and space requirements and desires. His monocentric city theory of
residential land use states that lower income households will tend to locate near the center
of a city, while the more affluent residents will chose areas on the outskirts of a city. He
states that the rich can afford more land than the poor, and can pay for the extra
transportation costs associated with being located firrther fi'om the city center (Alonso,
1964).

Retail Logtion Than

William Reilly and David Hufi‘ each present interesting ways of conducting retail location
theories. Reilly’s Law of Retail Gravitation is a popular method of analyzing and
determining the characteristics of retail markets and service areas. David Hufl’s model,
which takes Reilly’s theory into account, and compensates for urban area characteristics is

widely used for retail trade area analysis.

Additional Theoretical Sources

One source which examines the transportation investments and their location and land use
effects is Genevieve Giuliano’s chapter in Susan Hanson’s book The Geography of Urban
Transportation, entitled “Land Use Impacts of Transportation Investments: Highway and
Transit”. This work takes a close look at the many location theories with respect to

transportation. The overall point made by the author is that based on historical accounts,

14

transportation has a very direct influence on the urban form. In this chapter, Giuliano
identifies the fact that the older theories of residential, industrial, and business location do

not adequately explain or account for new changes and improvements in transportation.

She refutes the use of theory to attempt to predict the impacts of specific transportation
investments, and concludes that. the classic theories such as central place theory, and
various gravity models only work when used in a large regional complex, not in large, or
even small metropolitan areas. The existence of new technology and transit alternatives is
mentioned, and Giuliano states that the use of theoretical explanations cannot be used in
most cases because of the many factors which have been introduced since the evolution of
these theories (Giuliano, in Hanson, 1995).

mm

According to various studies which have been conducted on the economic impacts of
bypasses, some communities have seen negative impacts, no change at all, or positive
impacts to their communities as a result of the bypass around their community. Various

studies point to either positive or negative outcomes in a community.

A great deal of evidence discusses the idea that a bypass can improve the economic
situation in a community. Many communities see the new roadway as a chance to
welcome new opportunities for economic development, while some have seen increases in
activity within the central business district or downtown area, as a result of decreases in
trafic congestion, and conflicts. Some residents in various communities found that it was
easier to gain access to the businesses in the Central Business District, and that the lack of

traffic congestion made for a much more attractive, and inviting downtown atmosphere.

A recent set of bypass impact studies completed in January 1998, by the Vlfrsconsin
Department of Transportation suggests these ideas for most of the municipalities which
were included in their survey. This study highlighted 17 communities in Wisconsin which
have been bypassed since 1980. Among the overall results of this comprehensive look at

15

these communities, it is mentioned that these bypasses “had little adverse impact on the
communities”, and that ‘Very little retail flight has occurred in bypassed communities,
meaning that few businesses have relocated, or developed new operations in areas
adjacent to the bypass route.” It is also noted that the collective communities see their

bypasses as overall positive additions to their communities (Yeh, 1998).

A previous study in 1988 conducted by the Wisconsin DOT echoed many of the same
arguments and feelings associated with the bypassing of communities. This study,
involved six Msconsin communities. Each of the six communities were selected because
of their diverse geographic, economic, and social characteristics. This report focuses on
the personal accounts, experiences and viewpoints of various residents in the communities.
The report consists of very little statistical data, and is highly qualitative in nature. The
study showed that communities could solve this problem by promoting visitor attractions,
which would act to draw the visitors passing by off of the bypass, and into the Central
Business District. The study found that communities were able to overcome the odds
through strong promotion and advertising. In terms of employment, most residents
involved felt that the bypass had no negative effect on the number of jobs in their
communities (WisDOT, 1988).

There are other reports or works which tend to take a more middle-ground approach to
the bypass situation in their municipalities. For example, an older 1958 study which was
conducted by faculty and students at the University of Kansas provides arguments on both
sides of the question of bypass impacts. This is a study which highlights numerous
communities which were bypassed by Interstate 70 during the 19505. The study examines
the economic firnction of each of these cities, which turns out to be quite different fiom
city to city. Each of these communities were under 50,000 in population. It also includes
statistical analyses of every city, including retail trends, and highway oriented versus non-
highway-oriented businesses. The study noted that the economic situation of the towns
which were heavily reliant on tourism , and highway-oriented businesses experienced

negative effects due to the bypassing of their community. Cities which were larger in

16

regional terms (such as Lawrence and Wamego) saw positive increases in their economic
activity. It was also mentioned that “the most vulnerable location for highway-oriented
businesses, when a bypass is constructed, is along the old route. Only the city of
Lawrence, with an approximate 1950 population of 20,000, showed signs of positive
change in highway-oriented business and sales. The study also noted that the success of
the city following a bypass is relative to its overall economic trends and the size of the

community (Wagner, 1959).

In the case of a similar document put out by the Pennsylvania State University staff and
students. The study conducted by the PSU group looks at the social and economic
impacts of the US. 22 bypass around Blairsville, a small community of approximately
5,000 inhabitamS in 1960. This study looked at economic impacts to the community in
terms of changes in the value of real property, costs in the local government, and local tax
patterns, as well as changes in business activity. In summary, the study found that “land
values and properties along the new bypass route increased in value during the pre-bypass
period, and sharply increased during the post bypass period, whereas property along the
old route increased, but at a much lower rate than the areas adjacent to the new road. The
same was true for building values in both cases. “The total number of business enterprises
within the borough of Blairsville declined slightly during the decade under scrutiny.” The
borough also lost businesses and activity in manufacturing, construction, and retail
businesses. In comparison, these areas saw an increase in activity following the

construction of the bypass, in the surrounding communities (PSU, 1962).

The Draft US. 31 Petoskey Area Improvement Project is a usefirl document to examine as
well. This document includes short portions which identify the fact that there is a serious
potential for impacts due to the Petoskey Bypass. “The economic integrity of downtown
Petoskey is also a matter of concern if either a Near South or Far South Alignment is
selected”. The document also identifies that “the demonstration component of the project
has an economic aspect”, and “should seek methods to improve transportation efiiciencies

and provide opportunities to enhance the economic vitality of the community” (U SDOT,

l7

1994). The report also mentions that the City of Petoskey and particularly the Central
Business District are considered to be “Affected Environment”, and highlights the
potential losses to highway-oriented businesses and tourism in the city of Petoskey in
particular. The study also points out that a majority of the employment in Petoskey is
attributed to retail establishments, the very establishments which will be most efi‘ected by
the bypass. However, it is interesting to note that this report offers no consideration for
mitigation of the economic impacts which would be received and suffered by the city and

its thriving downtown district (U SDOT, 1994).

One report which includes portions which are similar to nature to the ones proposed as
part of the Petoskey Area Bypass Study is entitled Effects of opening the M-ZI
Expressway. This is one of the few documents which was discovered that focuses on the
potential impacts of a bypass highway upon a community. In this case, the community is
Lapeer, a city of approximately 6,000 inhabitants located along the present Interstate 69
corridor in eastern Michigan. This study noted that the majority of businesses which
would be effected by the bypass would be highway-oriented businesses such as grocery
stores, gas stations, restaurants, and motels. Of particular concern in this study was the
fate of several truck stop establishments located on or in close proximity to the former
location of Michigan Highway 21 (Coil, 1984).

As can be seen, upon examination of the previous literature and evidence about the
economic impacts of bypasses, there tends to be a trend towards praise of these projects.
However, it must also be noted, that almost all of the reports suggest some type of
adverse impact, especially in the case of highway-oriented businesses. Because of this, the
analysis of impacts tends to be fi'agmented and subjective. There is a lack of homogeneity
of data with respect to the analysis of the economic data presented in these reports. As a
result each impact analysis take on a difi‘erent shape, and is unique to any other. However,
it must also be noted, that almost all of the reports suggest some type of adverse impact,
especially in the case of highway-oriented businesses. With this taken into consideration,

and the historical changes suffered by cities as a result of outward expansion and the

18

phenomenon known as sprawl, it is easier to substantiate the adverse impacts that highway

bypasses visit upon the communities they avoid.

Rgtgfl Development Sgngaggs

When considering theoretical approaches to determining the probability of retail
development and location, it is important to look at traditional retail and business location
theories and standards. One source which provides a basis for shopping center and retail
location decisions is the guidebook put out by the Urban Land Institute entitled Shopping
Center Development Handbook. This book identifies the various factors which must be
considered with the successfirl development of a shopping center or retail establishment.
The handbook states that commercial success is highly dependent upon location, access,
and visibility. The handbook identifies the fact that “location is of paramount importance
in the success of all shopping center types. The manual firrther identifies the location
requirements of various types of shopping centers, identifying accessibility to major
transportation routes as an essential component to success. It also identifies the existence
of major thoroughfares adjacent or nearby to a site as a factor which increases a particular
site’s probability for success (1le, 1977).

19

Petoskey, Michigan and the Proposed US 31 Bypass

 

Case Study

 

Introdugtion

Petoskey is the central study community in this project. All of the analysis in this report
will focus on the Petoskey area. Each of the case studies presented later will discuss
implications of their situations for the community of Petoskey. The following information
will provide a basis for analysis, including information such as location and geographic
features, historical background, a detailed demographic and economic section, and
information specific to the proposed US 31/Petoskey Area Bypass project.

Lewis.

The community of Petoskey is located in the northern part of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula
on Lake Michigan’s famous Little Traverse Bay in Emmet County. The city is situated on
a blufi‘ overlooking the Little Traverse Bay, at the mouth of the Bear River. The area is
also home to a number of large lakes like Walloon, Charlevoix, and Crooked to name a
few. The hills around the city are covered with a mixture of farmland and forest, and have

20

been compared to some of the hilly regions in Germany. Because of this variety of natural
landscape features, the Petoskey area is a very picturesque and popular location.

The city of Petoskey is the largest city for over 50 miles in every direction, and thus is a
very important city for this area of Michigan commonly known as the “tip of the mitt.”
Petoskey is located approximately 270 miles fi'om Detroit, 370 miles north of Chicago,
200 miles from Lansing, and 190 miles from Grand Rapids. The nearest large city,
Traverse City is 67 miles south of the city. The Mackinac Bridge is 34 miles north, and
the Canadian border at Sault Ste. Marie is about 93 miles north.

Petoskey is served directly by three highways: US 31, US 131, and M-1 19. US 31
follows the Lake Michigan shoreline to Petoskey fi'om South Bend, Indiana, and continues
north to end near the Mackinac Bridge at I-75 just south of Mackinaw City. US 131
starts at the Indiana Border just south of Kalamazoo, Michigan, continues through Grand
Rapids, and other west Michigan communities, and terminates at US 31 in the center of
the city of Petoskey. The city is also located near M-68, which leads east to I-75, and
Rogers City, allowing access to the rest of the state of Michigan (see Map 1).

The city is serviced by Pellston Regional Airport Located ofi‘ US 31, about 20 miles
northeast of the city. The city is also served by bus lines, and a railroad which comes into
the southern portion of the city, and ends near Washington Street in an industrial portion
of the city.

31819;!

The city of Petoskey and the entire Little Traverse Bay area is rich in history. The
Petoskey area was once home to a band of the Ojibway Nation of Native Americans. In
the middle 1800’s, Chief Petosega (Petoskey) and his family called the Petoskey area their
home. During the same time, white settlers came to the Petoskey area, and constructed
homes, and a small village on the banks of the Bear River. Soon after the city was granted
a charter in 1879, the residents chose to name the community after the Indian Chief

21

Petosega. The anglicized version, “Petoskey” was adopted, and remains the name today.
During the mid to late 1800’s, the Petoskey area became widely known, and thousands of
visitors flocked to the area, and took advantage of the unsurpassed beauty of the area. As
a result of this new popularity, many new hotels and resorts began to develop. The first
large Hotel, The Perry Hotel, and others were constructed near the city’s railroad depots.
The railroad put the town of Petoskey on the map, and soon the city became a preferred
destination of the wealthy from cities like Chicago, Detroit, and Indianapolis.

During the late 1800’s and early 1900’s many new vacation homes and communities were
developed around the bay. Most of these “cottages” were built in the larger clubs and
associations such as Bay View, Wequetonsing and on Harbor Point in Harbor Springs.
The cottages in these associations soon became a common symbol in the Petoskey area,
and continue to be built today. At the same time, the downtown area of the city began to
develop and flourish as a shopping destination. One section of the downtown district
known as the “Midway” catered to wealthy tourists and residents, and the bustling
business district was characterized by hundreds of gas powered street lamps.

One of the largest developments of summer homes and cottages in the Petoskey area is the
Bay Vrew Association. Founded in 1875, The Bay View Association is a large collection
of Victorian cottages, homes, community buildings, and a famous inn. The community
was founded and remains a popular summer retreat for members of the Methodist Church.
Today the community consists of over 450 cottages, and public buildings, and the Bay
View Inn. The Bay View Colony was granted a position on the National Register of
Historic Places in 1988 (Historical Glimpses, 1986).

Over the years, the city of Petoskey and the downtown area continued to develop, and the
city has become one of the state’s top tourist resort communities, and a favorite location
of second homes of the wealthy from the big cities of the Midwest. The downtown, or
“Gaslight District” of Petoskey is known for its variety of stores, restaurants, and
recreation areas, including the popular Bayfront Park, which is adjacent to downtown on

22

the bay, and can be reached fi'om an underground tunnel beneath US 31, as it travels along
the lakeshore toward the Bay View Colony. It is home to numerous hotels, inns, resorts,

and cottage colonies.

Demographic and Economic Overview

According to the US Census Bureau, the city of Petoskey had 6,045 residents in 1990.
The State of Michigan Demographic Oficer estimated that the city had 7,241 persons in
1997. The townships adjacent to Petoskey, Bear Creek, Resort and Little Traverse each
have experienced explosive growth. The total population of Emmet County was 25,040 in
1990, and it is estimated that this number has risen to over 29,000. Projections from the
State of Michigan Ofiice of the State Demographer indicate that the population of the
county is expected to grow to 34,300 by 2020.

Due to Petoskey’s position as a favorite tourist and resort destination, it is important to
mention the impact of the seasonal activity of the area. According to the Petoskey Area
Chamber of Commerce, the population of the county and city more than tripled during the
peak tourist season between May and September. Also, over 35% of the 14,731 homes in
the county are seasonal or second homes, and this number is increasing dramatically. The
average price of a new home in the Petoskey area is S 184,000. Just last year, a new
resort development, Bay Harbor, owned by Boyne USA Resorts, was opened. This
development includes over 500 luxury units ranging from $800,000 condominiums to $5-
10 million second homes. There is also a large village center, which sports a large luxury
hotel and yacht club. This development stretches along the Lake Michigan coastline for
over 10 miles, and is nearly one mile wide at its widest point. (www.bayhabor.com, 1999.

23

 

p-r'
s 3."

«1.
h.
1: .
K .
£1.
‘3?

411K
-. I:

a"
,5".

lei-warm

l
I
.. ‘5,
. “in”
. 1 -4
‘ "he
‘ ‘.I‘ ,.
' -'.¢
-

 

‘- ,. If: " .-,

:\$ .3 In.“ .

 

 

 

 

Figure 1 Downtown Petoskey, MI, 1998

According to the Petoskey Area Chamber of Commerce, the employment base of the
Petoskey area (Emmet County) is comprised mainly of service industry employees
(35.7%), followed by government (11%), and manufacturing and retail (approx. 9.5%
each). It is also interesting to note that construction employs 8.6% of the county’s
residents, with 39 contracting companies, and over 30 real estate brokerage companies.
Among the county’s largest employers are the Northern Michigan Medical System (2200
employees), Boyne USA Resorts (600 employees), Stafford’s Hospitality (275
employees), and many others. The county has over 2000 hotel/motel rooms, and over 400

retail establishments, and more than 50 dining establishments. In all, there are over 7400

tourist/seasonal accommodation units in the county (USDOT, 1994).

As can be seen, tourism is a very important and significant part of the economy of
Petoskey. The top employers in the county area tourist resorts and services, and there are
hundreds of businesses in the area that cater to tourist and resort activity. Many of these
are located in Petoskey’s famous waterfront Gaslight District. Nestled among Northern

24

Michigan’s lakes and hills, the Petoskey area is home to 3 large year-round resorts, many
hotel/motels and cottages. There are also several inns and guest homes, and hundreds of
cottages located in private clubs and communities that ring Little Traverse Bay. In
addition, the area abounds with recreational facilities and activities, including ski and golf
resorts, bayshore parks, a state park with sand dunes, a city winter sports park, several
nationally recognized trout streams, and hundreds of campsites. The city is also located at
the western end of the Inland Waterway, a navigable chain of rivers and lakes which flows
eastward fi'om Petoskey to Cheboygan, located on Lake Huron. Over the years, the
Petoskey area has become one of the Midwest’s top vacation and resort destinations.
“Among Michigan’s 83 counties, Emmet ranks 10th in terms of the impact of Travel on the
local economy. Other than urban counties (e. g., Wayne, Oakland, Kent), Emmet is only
outranked by Grand Traverse in terms of tourism-related jobs and tourism-generated
dollars” (U SDOT, 1994).

Development in the Pgtoskgy Am
In order to properly assess the development potentials in the Petoskey, it is necessary to

look at existing development patterns along the major thoroughfares in the Petoskey area.

This section examines each of the major entry points of the city.

US 131 AT SOUTH CITY LIMITS

The development in this area tends to be in the form of traditional commercial highway-
oriented strip development. It is characterized by large hotel/motel chains, restaurants,
office complexes, and three major strip shopping plazas, each of which is anchored by a
major discount, Big Box retailer (see figure 2 ). This area of the city is perhaps one of the
most picturesque with wide vistas and views of the Little Traverse Bay. It is also one of
the most developed. The highway travels down a steep grade, and finally meets US 31,
near the center of the city, just above the bay.

25

- Map 2 Petoskey, MI City Map

    

In: (“not Tow-05b

   

Woodview

0

Source: Emmet County Mapping/G18, 1998

US 31 AT PETOSKEY EAST CITY LIMITS

Like the southern gateway to the city, this area is also characterized by scattered,
commercial development. Most of the development in this section of the city is in the
form of fast food restaurant chains, gasoline and service stations, restaurants, and smaller
shopping plaza areas. There are also a small number of motels in this area, as well as

numerous entertainment businesses such as mini golf, and water attractions.

US 31 AT PETOSKEY WEST CITY LIMITS

This location is less developed than all other entries to the city. It is not void of
commercial uses, however. There are a number of smaller motels overlooking Little
Traverse Bay at this point, as well as a few scattered commercial establishments. The
development potential of this area is limited by a large bluff, that runs parallel just to the
south of the highway. The north side of the highway fiom the city limits west to the
county line is occupied by the large new Bay Harbor resort community. Views of the

resort can be gained at various points along the highway on the west side of the city.

US 31 WITHIN PETOSKEY CITY

Many commercial uses similar to those mentioned in the previous section are common and
found in many locations along the US 31 corridor as it passes through the city. The
western portion of the route is characterized by traditional strip-style development, as well
as the large Burns Clinic and Northern Michigan Hospital Complex. The middle portion
of US 31 in the city is occupied by a mixture of uses, ranging fi'om commercial to
residential in nature. The Central Business District is located just east of US 31 in this
section, and many of the city’s parks along the lakefiont can be accessed from cross
streets, as well as US 31 itself. As US 31 exits the city to the east, it passes by a
residential and commercial mixture, including a shopping plaza. At this point, the highway
cuts through the historic Bay View Colony, and continues to the commercial area
mentioned above (see Map 2).

27

 

-. .' 53.x} ."5 f...‘ 4’ ’
fir-f1 49 fl. ' .5396 1
”a ..‘. '\ _ .

' A? ' - v ' b“‘f

.. Fifi ,.

  
 

   
 

 

 

'. .

 

 

Figure 2 US 131 at city limits, Petoskey, MI, 1998

Th; US 31 Petoskey Area Improvement Project

The US 31 Petoskey Area Improvement Project, otherwise known as the Petoskey Area
Bypass is a project which has been proposed by the USDOT Federal Highway
Administration, and the Michigan Department of Transportation as a method to improve
the flow of traffic in and around the city of Petoskey.

HISTORY

The discussion of the traffic congestion problem in Petoskey has existed for decades, but
was first formally recognized in 1971 in the Thoroughfare Plan for the Emmet County
Master Plan. This document noted that traffic was particularly bad from the central
business district eastward along US 31, and suggested a widening of US 31, as well as a
bypass utilizing existing county roads as a way to reverse the adverse efi'ects caused by the

28

Map 3 Project Pr0posal Map

 

 

E O Feudal GredeSepented Intersection
lun- Ntenudye Seqmntabt Won

0 Pound-twang.

 

v.3 Alternative

U8-31

 

 

Blackbird Rd.

our Jr Rd. |

\

L____ml Rd.

/:-_—\

r
\

 

’-l-

I

 

05-131

Lake Mrchr‘gan
Little Traverse Bay

 

rum-11811.:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\s \\‘- ,

_o_wruend Rd.

\J

Stump Rd.

Camp Dag/9611 Rd.

;\\..l
\

\
Proposed Intertown-South Alternative

 

 

 

Lake Grove y Or

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rebound Rd. .

  
 

    

Cedar Valley Rd.

 

e
e
.-o--4

 

 

 

Source: Michigan Department of Transportation, 1999

heavy trafic (Thoroughfare, 1971). Soon after this, the MDOT recognized the need for
firrther study of the trafic flow in the Petoskey area, including a bypass around the city.

In 1978, in reaction to a recommendation to widen US 31 east of the downtown area,
including through the Bay View Colony, representatives fiorn the Bay View Association, a
local Hotelier, and the Chamber of Commerce petitioned local congressmen and expressed
their support of a bypass around the city of Petoskey. This led to the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in 1986 for a possible bypass in the vicinity of the
Bay Vrew Association on the east side of the city. At a public hearing about the proposed
project, individuals encouraged MDOT to firrther study the possibility of a bypass around
the city (MDOT, 1987).

In 1988, an oficial announcement was made of Public Law 100-202, December 1987,
which stated:

“Trafiic Improvement Demonstration Project
For 80 percent of the expenses necessary to carry out a highway bypass
project in the vicinity of Petoskey, Michigan, that demonstrates methods of
improving economic development and regional transportation, there is
authorized to be appropriated $28,000,000 to remain valuable until
expended, of which $475,000 is hereby appropriated, to remain valuable
until expended: Provided, That all firnds appropriated under this head shall
be exempt from any limitation on obligations for federal-aid highways and
highway safety construction programs.”

As a result of the release of this information, the Citizens Advisory Group (CAG) was

formed to provide local input about the US 31 project. This group included

representatives from all local governmental jurisdictions and representatives of eight

special interest groups. In 1993, the CAG became the Intergovernmental len' g Group

(IPG) (USDOT, 1994).

In 1994, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was issued to the public. The
release of this information resulted in a great deal of controversy in the community, and
several anti-bypass special interest groups were formed. Because of this, the project
became known to all residents of the Petoskey area, and became a widely debated, argued,

30

and discussed project, which divided, and in some ways may have united different
members of the community. This atmosphere prevailed for several months, and intensified
and subsided with the release of additional information regarding the project. These
groups grew large in membership numbers, and became fervently involved in educating the
public about the bypass issue. During the time period following the release of the DEIS,
the bypass issue became the most widely discussed topic in the community. Several major
public hearings, attended by hundreds of people with opposing viewpoints either for or
against the bypass took place in the years following. Because of the unrest created by the
proposal, the project has been delayed several times over the past five years (Petoskey
Interview, 1998).

Currently, the details of the proposed Petoskey Bypass are being investigated and
considered by the MDOT. Per request of the residents of Bear Creek and Resort
Townships, an additional alternative, known as the Intertown South Alternative,
suggested by residents and government officials is being studied by the MDOT. As a
result of a study conducted by an outside consultant, the eastern half of the Intertown
South Alternative has been discontinued and discarded from consideration, and the eastern
portion of the Far South Alignment will be used. The western half of the suggested route
is being analyzed further, as is the remainder of the MDOT preferred Far South
Alternative option. According to MDOT omcials, construction of the first segment of the
bypass will commence some time shortly after the turn of the century, after the release of a
supplemental EIS to the DEIS, which will detail all of the changes to the original
document. Following this a Final EIS will be issued, and construction will begin (MDOT
Interview, 1999).

PROJECT DETAILS

As described in the US 31 Petoskey Area Improvement Project Draft Environmental
Impact Statement and Section 4(1) Evaluation issued in 1994, “the project has been
identified by the MDOT as a priority transportation need to address transportation

deficiencies in this scenic, tourist-oriented community of northwestern lower Michigan.

31

Figure 3 Artist’s Rendering of Proposed Bypass

 

 

_Ili r11 ' -. .._—-—- ----

. 1'1 1.1. 'l, ‘ . ‘ h 1 A‘ “m
. 1 11m iii 1 11111111911er
- was +9-

 

 

 

 

 

 

4'
e

.g‘ - _.
Q‘-
‘ .'

'9
\
.‘.
'5’
..’

 

 

Source: Emmet County Planning and Zoning, 1998

US 31 is the principal state arterial highway serving the Petoskey community along the
Lake Michigan shoreline, while US 131, which terminates near downtown Petoskey,
provides north-south access for Petoskey.” The area being considered for the
construction of the bypass is bounded by Townsend Road on the west to the intersection
of US 31 with State Highway M-119 on the east. The north-south bounds of the project
are located between the Little Traverse Bay and Click Road, south of Petoskey. The
predominant land use in the proposed corridor is agricultural/open space and scattered
rural residential development. A majority of the new development in the vicinity of the
bypass is related to the seasonal resort and tourist activity of the area. The existing
roadway is a standard undivided highway which varies from two to five lanes depending

upon location (see Map 3)(USDOT, 1994)

 

 

 

 

 

WIS 42/57 Bypass, Sturgeon Bay, WI, 1998

According to the DEIS, the traffic volumes along the current route are very high in
relation to the character of the roadway. Traffic counts range fi'om 10,900 near the
western edge of the city to 32,700 in the vicinity of the Bay View Colony. These levels
are especially prevalent during the peak tourist season in summer. “Seasonal traffic is
generated by Petoskey State Park (over 240,000 annual visitors); Boyne Highlands, Boyne
Mountain, and Nub’s Nob resort complexes, Petoskey marina, and nearby parklands.”

33

The Far South Alternative, the preferred alternative, is located approximately 3 .2 miles
south of the Central Business District at its southernmost point. It consists of 10.2 miles
of boulevard style limited-access roadway (if the western section of the Intertown South
Alternative is selected, this length will increase slightly) (see Map 3). The proposed route
traverses several types of land use, ranging from urban commercial to rural farmland and
forest. The topography of the route varies greatly, and includes large changes in
elevation, especially with respect to the Bear River valley. A large amount of cut-and-fill
operation will be required, and the project is estimated to displace approximately 50 acres
of wetland, 33 residences, 2 businesses, and 21 farm structures. In all, the project will
require 757 acres of right-of-way, and will remove 190 acres of farmland from
activity(USDOT, 1994).

The need for the project is clear. As mentioned in the DEIS, the Petoskey area is “one of
Michigan’s most popular resort areas.” Growth and development within the area has been
steady and has been increasing with time. A majority of this growth has been in the form
of traditional strip-type commercial, and standard suburban subdivision development.
Additional major developments, such as Bay Harbor and Crooked Tree have been
announced or are under construction, and more are likely to follow (Petoskey Interview,
1998).

The existing transportation system in the Petoskey area is inadequate for current activity
levels, and falls well short of the firture demand which will be placed upon the road in the
area as development continues in the area. The existing roadway proves inadequate by
MDOT’s standards in terms of sufficiency ratings, which consist of factors including
surface, base, capacity, and safety. The ratings used by MDOT are as follows:

9 0-49 Very Poor
0 50-64 Poor

0 65-79 Fair

e 80-89 Good

0 90-100 Excellent

34

All of the segments of US 31 in the Petoskey area are rated in the Fair to Very Poor
range, fiom 65 between The western city limits and US 131, to 26 in the segment between
US 131 and the Bear River Bridge in Downtown Petoskey. In terms of the factors, the
most common deficiencies lie in the capacity and safety standards (U SDOT, 1994).
Another analysis of the existing route is an Origin-Destination Study. The 0&D Studies
for Petoskey indicate that a majority (70%) of the traffic on the state routes in the
Petoskey area is destination-oriented or local traffic. And that those through trips on US
31 usually were destined for the resorts located north of the city accessible fi'om M-119
(0&D, 1990).

Existing Levels of Service also indicate deficiencies in the state and national roadway
network in the Petoskey area. Level of Service is a measure of the flow and operational
conditions of a particular segment of roadway. Level of Service is represented by letters
A through F, with F representing the worst conditions and A optimal traflic flow speeds,
and operations. All of the segments of US 31 in the project area are represented by LOS
DE, and F. Only one segment has a better rating ofLOS B, just west of the US 31/131
intersection (U SDOT, 1994).

35

 

2°
N‘
3’
‘i
L:

 

‘5‘
®,
1
r
1
I
l
l
1
\
.. ‘ 3.,
V
r r
1311 "051*!0

 

 

 

 

 

 

n 1".
q 1 i '— .—
/ "I a 1 :m : ' "'1 “- I r
- ..........-./‘ 2 g i, ‘1. 1 g
. ‘5‘” '2 \( 1 ‘1. “'5“? -, n
“t‘x . ' ° 2, i“ . r
a, i far-South Alignment e l @ x g .
g 1' y i ; 3 la ‘. .—
; : r- - *~--*~-----—-m.~..... , . 3 1 f
91...;4; 8..., . .trrrwstangg ~- . , g
g Intertown-South \" -- r -- ,._
g RESORT TOWNSHIP ‘ BEAR CREEK TOWNS
ProposedUS 31/PetoskeyAreaBypass, currentsratus
Source: Michigan Land Use Institute Homepage http://www.mlui.org
PROJECT IMPACTS

In terms of project impacts upon land use and economic impacts, the preferred alternative
will adversely effect existing land uses as a result of the conversion of agricultural and
forested lands to accommodate for the new roadway and right-of-way. The type of land
use most impacted by the proposal is agricultural. According to the DEIS, “Impacts to
the project area’s economy would occur with the selection of the Build Alternative.
Displacements of businesses and productive farmland would have the most direct and
adverse consequences to socioeconomic conditions in the Petoskey area. Selection of one
of the alternatives (Near South) could increase the potential for business development.
Certain intersections may be more likely to experience future commercial growth where
substantially vacant and developable land exists and increases in traffic can be expected”
(U SDOT, 1994).

The DEIS firrther states that there are some issues of controversy. Among these is the
potential for uncontrolled growth with the construction of a bypass, the ability to maintain

36

the economic integrity of Petoskey’s Central Business District. In specific, the DEIS
mentions that the major factor is the extent to which local traflic is diverted by a bypass.
The document also discusses that, especially with a bypass, the conversion of farmland to
other uses is a potential threat to the economy of the area. Although the area is currently
undergoing this type of activity, if proper measures are not taken to control land use, a
bypass could easily exacerbate the current problem. To this point, The DEIS states
“Uncontrolled growth, thus would represent a considerable threat to the scenic and
pastoral qualities of the project area” (U SDOT, 1994). Vlfrth the tourism industry reliant

upon the scenic quality of the area, this is a major concern.

Potential development at or near intersection of the bypass and existing roads pose the

greatest risk to the economic vitality of the Central Business District and the City of
Petoskey. According to the DEIS, the Build Alternative (the Far South Alternative at this

time) “are more likely to accommodate and possibly encourage development within Resort
and Bear Creek Townships.” The MDOT cites the inclusion of a limited-access feature as
a method of growth management along the corridor. According to the standards used in
the MDOT analysis, potential for development at intersections is reliant upon the existence
of:

Substantial vacant land

a compatible pattern of existing land uses

a major north/south arterial
no apparent environmental constraints

Further, the DEIS identifies the fact that “Strip commercial development is likely occur
along higher volume roadways, with limited or no control of access points (i.e., US 31,
US 131 and M-119) This type of development not only draws business away from a
central business district, but also reduces the traffic operation features design for the
roadway. The intersections which were identified as having “high” potential for
development include US 131, Mitchell Road, and the one with “moderate” potential was
Resort Pike Road, while all others were given a “low” rating (U SDOT, 1994).

37

Intervim Rgults

Interviews of local business owners and selected residents were conducted during the
summer of 1998, by the author. Interviews were conducted in a random fashion, using a
standard set of interview questions, and were collected in person. The 25 interviews were
conducted over the course of one week. After the interviews were completed, the
answers were collected and aggregated in order to gain a sense of understanding of the

overall attitudes and opinions about the bypass.

The results showed that approximately one-half of those interviewed felt that the bypass
was necessary, and that it would not afl‘ect their business. Of the remainder who
responded to the question, the feeling was one of insecurity and animosity towards the
proposed development. Overall, respondents felt that the proposal posed a serious threat
to the downtown. Generally, the respondents were more afraid of the efi‘ects that the
bypass would have on the landscape, and therefore indirectly the downtown merchants,
and the overall economy of the city. Many people felt that the type of development which
could occur in proximity of the bypass was already happening, and given time, will have a
negative effect on the city.

Of those who felt no negative feelings toward the development of the bypass, the
comments always centered upon the uniqueness of their business. The respondents
generally felt that their business did not rely upon passersby or locals. Many felt that the
bypass would not have any effect on their business because they have a loyal clientele who

are willing to pay the price for quality retail items.

When asked whether they felt the overall economy of Petoskey had changed, many felt
that it had not necessarily gotten worse, but mentioned the fact that the type of business in
the downtown has changed from elite men’s and women’s clothing stores to quaint gift
and keepsake shops, and galleries. Some even commented that the “old money” that used
to support Petoskey was not going to be there much longer. One respondent noted that

38

the money is still there, but that it is a difi‘erent type of interest and leisure that the people
with “new money” have. Many mentioned the destination element of the city as a reason

why pe0ple will not avoid Petoskey because of the construction of a bypass.

One sentiment was echoed by every respondent on both sides of the issue. It is a general
consensus that Petoskey area residents do not want to see Petoskey become another
Traverse City. Traverse City has experienced heavy deve10pment, especially on the south
side of town. This gigantic area in Traverse City along US 31 and Airport Road is ofien
sited by Petoskey residents as what they do not want to see their city develop as, in that
fashion, or to that extent (Petoskey Interview, 1998).

siti n h s
A number of residents and business owners in the Petoskey area formed groups to try to
fight and stop the progress of the development of the proposed bypass. Many of the
groups did not endure the time period following the release of the DEIS. A couple of the
group joined forces and became quite strong. These groups discussed the issues
surrounding the bypass, and circulated memos and information newsletters to residents of
Petoskey. Many of the members of these groups were quite active in the issue, and

flooded government oflicials with letters of dissatisfaction, and other materials.

These groups also worked to mobilize and educate the residents of the community. One
group organized a tour of the active farms and other areas of the surrounding townships
which were in the path of the proposed right-of-way. They even went as far as to sell
merchandise such as T-shirts, banners, bumper stickers, etc. to display their position. In
sum, the opposition groups in the Petoskey area were very well organized, and efl‘ective in
delaying the construction of the bypass. These groups forced the officials of MDOT and
the US FHA to take a more thorough look at the community issues and concerns related

to the bypass (Petoskey Interview, 1998)(see appendix - sample newsletter)

39

Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin (W IS 26, US 12)

 

Case Study

 

 

E”

 

 

 

 

 

a :: '.K' it. .
. . ‘. . . DC? 1013
A; ' m
b 1"; '. ‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

__ '..I;_- ‘ :- ”I i
(i a .. ‘ . k '3‘
_—F' ‘ 22‘. L . _K:l age'ifiww .—r
' "tr 3 ‘ . -
L. ‘ g. -
a a .1 ‘
- , * A m
.' “Tl-L
Fort fl; m
Atkinson i
Introdugtiog

The City of Fort Atkinson was chosen as a comparison community for this analysis due to
its similarity with Petoskey in size, and the existence of a sizable tourism sector within its
economy. In addition, the bypass opened to the public only 5 years ago, and therefore

serves as a good example for the short-term analysis portion of this report.

mam

Fort Atkinson is located in southeastern “fisconsin approximately 30 miles southeast of
Msconsin’s capital city of Madison, and 20 miles north of Janesville, “Wisconsin. It is
about one hour west of Milwaukee via Interstate 94, 2 hours from Chicago on US 12, and
5.5 hours from the Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota metropolitan area.

The city is accessible via 4 highways, including State Highway 26 and US Highway 12.
WIS 26 is a heavily-traveled north-south corridor which traverses the state from Janesville
to the south and the highly populated Fox River Valley Region to the north. US 12 has
less traffic volume than WIS 26, but is still a very important transportation artery,
connecting the city to the Madison Area and the Chicagoland metroplex (see Map 4).

[——
/ ,J
' " /
. {I N /
,- diturgeou b. ’/
.f /
recn Bay .
0’.
woc‘
I
(I

monec Falls
ilwaukee

FORT m Mikaela-e
ATKINSON 3111851” '
- _ 12

,"H ,r aukegan ,

enosha

an Estates"
h icftgo

1 Ma nestoo

 

Map 4
Fort Atkinson, WI Location Map

Fort Atkinson comprises 4.5 square miles, and is divided by the Rock River, which flows
south into the Illinois River, the Mississippi River, and ultimately to the Gulf of Mexico.
A small municipal airport is located northeast of the city, and the city is served by the
Union Pacific Railroad for purposes of shipping cargo and products related to the many
industrial operations in the community (Fort Atkinson, 1999).

£14ng

The history of Fort Atkinson and the surrounding area is deeply rooted in Native
American culture, the agricultural industry, and more recently, tourism. The city is named
after General Henry Atkinson, an American Army leader famous his victory over the Sauk
Indian Tribe and Chief Black Hawk during the settling of the Midwest by farmers from the
eastern states.

Soon following the Black Hawk War, the first white settler, Dwight Foster came to the
present location of Downtown Fort Atkinson, and opened a hotel and ferry service across
the Rock River. Soon after this, in 1870, W.D. Hoard came to Fort Atkinson, and became
known as the “Father of Dairy Farming in Wisconsin.” He also founded the national
agricultural magazine Hoard ’s Dairyman in 1885, which still remains the premier trade
publication of US dairy farming, and is written and published in Fort Atkinson. Hoard
also served as Governor of “fisconsin after arriving in Fort Atkinson. Since that time, the
city grown to over 10,500 inhabitants, and has become an important light industrial
operations center in the region, as well as a tourist destination, with the opening of the
famous Fireside Dinner Theatre in 1964 (Fort Atkinson, 1999).

42

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4 Fireside Dinner Theatre, Fort Atkinson, WI

Source: http://www.firesidetheatre.oom

Demographig Overview
According to population estimates from the State of Wisconsin’s Office of the Chief

Demographer, Fort Atkinson had 10,600 inhabitants in 1997. The 1990 US Census of
Population states that the city’s population was 10,277 in 1990. This shows that the
population of the city has steadily increased since the beginning of the decade. The total
population of Jefferson County is approximately 69,000 according to State of Wisconsin

population estimates.

The population of Fort Atkinson is primarily white and the employment base is composed
of mainly blue-collar workers in various sectors of the manufacturing economy of the city.
Fort Atkinson is a relatively self-sufficient town, and a large number of its residents within
the city or county. According the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
(SEWRPC), Fort Atkinson is increasingly becoming a bedroom community and source of
commuter population for cities such as Madison and Janesville (SEWRPC, 1999). As
mentioned before, the economy of Fort Atkinson is characterized by a diverse industrial
base and a recent tourism market. Among the largest employers are companies which.
specialize in food products, office and institutional furniture and supplies, Printing and
publishing, educational and laboratory products and supplies, as well as sheet metal
forming and pulp and paper products. Fort Atkinson has 8 companies that employ over

300 people, and has a highly-skilled, well-paid employment base. The industrial base of

43

the city is constantly expanding as additional interests begin operating in Fort Atkinson’s

two large industrial parks located in the north an south areas of the city.

In addition, the popular and successful Fireside Dinner Theatre draws in large amounts of
tourism dollars daily all throughout the year, with several major shows, and numerous
smaller productions which cater to motorcoach tours and senior citizen travel groups (see
Figure 4). Ever since the introduction of this highly-profitable venture to the City of Fort
Atkinson, the business has continually grown and has spurred a great deal of tourism-
related facilities, such as hotels and restaurants. According to estimates fiom the Fort
Atkinson Area Chamber of Commerce, a significant portion of the economy of Fort
Atkinson is based on the travel and tourism industry (Fort Atkinson, 1999).

The WIS 26 Bypass
The 6.6 mile-long Fort Atkinson WIS 26 Bypass opened to the public in late 1995. This

roadway consists of a two-lane limited access highway with grade-separated interchanges
and additional right of way for future expansion if the necessity arises. The bypass is
located along the north and west sides of the city, and forms a connection between the old
northeast and southwest entrances to the city along WIS 26. The former road consisted
of many lane width changes, four 90 degree turns in the central area of the city, and

various street name changes as it passed through the city (Yeh, 1998).

The W18 26 is heavily-traveled by commercial trucking traffic and traffic from the many
industries within the city limits. Many conflicts arose over the years as a result, and the
problem continued to worsen until the new roadway was completed. Among the biggest
concerns were the danger to pedestrians in the downtown area of the city, vehicular and
physical structure damages, and general parking and maneuverability problems.
According to the chamber of commerce, the problem got so bad that local residents and

Map 5 Fort Atkinson, WI City Map

APPROX. SCALE lN MILES

0 K 'A uh

 

Source: Fort Atkinson Chamber of Commerce, .1999

area shoppers avoided the downtown because of the noise the traffic created as well as

parking problem and accidents between residents and trucks in the central city area.

The WIS 26 bypass was developed and constructed in response to this overload of
commercial truck traffic within the city. Since it opened in 1995, the bypass has diverted a
majority of the through truck traffic around the city, and the downtown area has become

more attractive to locals who can conduct daily business again (Yeh, 1998).

Since the bypass opened, a great deal of development has occurred in close proximity to
the bypass, and much more is planned in the coming decade. This is partially due to the
bypass location, and also the increase in drivers using the US 12 corridor as an access to
the capital city of Madison to the northwest of Fort Atkinson. Examples of the type of
development that is occurring include convenience stores, restaurants, commercial,
residential, and educational. The new Fort Atkinson High School complex is being
developed directly adjacent to the bypass at the US 12 interchange.

A majority of the new development in the city, and all of the development associated with
the bypass has happened at, or is planned near the intersection of the WIS 26 bypass and
US 12 . Most of the commercial development that has occurred in this part of the city is
connected to regional or national chains. An additional bypass on the south side of the
city is planned and will eventually replace the existing US 12 corridor through the city
after it is completed (see Map 5).

Interview Results

The interviews with residents of Fort Atkinson were conducted in early January 1999, by
the author. Approximately 25 interviews were conducted in a random fashion. The
interview information was collected in person, and written on a pre-designed form (see

appendix). Following the Interviews, the results were combined to arrive at a general

46

consensus among participants. The results of the interview questions are summarized

below.

Opinions regarding the WIS 26 bypass are mixed, but are generally in favor of the project.
Some of the comments regarding the WIS 26 bypass include:

o “It was wrong for Fort Atkinson to get it. It hasn’t removed that much truck
traffic.”
0 “It’s terrible, and it should be torn out.”

When asked if the bypass had any sort of impact on their business, the results were similar.
Except for a few businesses, owner generally feel that there was no impact, or in some
cases, an improvement to business as a result of traflic diversion. Some of the results
were:

. “The bypass has accelerated the overall commercial development within the
city.”

. “Yes it has, because there is less trafic downtown, and therefore fewer
potential customers.”

0 “Yes, there has been no grth in my business since the bypass was put in.
Before it was built, my business increased every year.”

. “Yes, for the better, people like to come downtown now, and they didn’t
before.”

0 “It hasn’t hurt my business at all.”

One of the interview questions asked whether the business owner felt that the WIS 26

bypass was necessary. Some examples of responses included:

0 “No, there is still the same amount of truck traffic in the downtown as there
was before the bypass was constructed.”

In terms of development patterns as seen by business owners, the results were mixed:

“It has changed the development ad trafic patterns in the city.”
“Development along US 12 is expanding rapidly.”

“It’s easier to get around. The city is quickly growing toward it,”
“The city is developing toward it, and definitely in the northwest area.”
“It has made it easier to get around.”

47

. “Development is occurring toward the bypass, but development in these areas
probably would have happened anyway.”
0 It has added new businesses to the city.”
Most of the residents of Fort Atkinson feel that the overall economy of the city has
improved in the past 5-10 years, and will continue to do so in coming years. However,
based on the responses of many of those interviewed, the general attitude is that the

downtown will continue to decline over time unless measures are taken to attract new uses

to it, and better promotion and recognition of the central area is undertaken.

Many of those surveyed feel indifferent toward the proposed US 12 bypass on the south
side of the city. Several feel that I will not serve any useful purpose, due to thefact that
US 12 is not a major thoroughfare in comparison to WIS 26 in the city. A few feel that
the US 12 bypass will remove even more truck traffic from the downtown, which will be
positive for the city. A few of those interviewed also felt that the new bypass would

further negatively effect the downtown (Fort Atkinson Interview, 1999).

 

 

Figure 6 Aerial View of Downtown FonAtkinson, WI
Source: http://www.fortchamber.oom

48

Summary and Implications for Petoskey

Based on interview data as well as windshield surveys, and other sources, the city of Fort
Atkinson has received more benefit than negative impact from the construction of the WIS
26 bypass. The bypass was successful in diverting a large amount of truck and
commercial traffic, as well as some pass-through traffic using WIS 26 to travel north or
south across the state. Overall, the proposal, construction and effects of the bypass have

been well received.

Land use patterns in close proximity to the bypass have changed since the bypass was
opened. A large amount of highway-oriented, and chain retail uses have been built, and
many more are planned in the future. According to the Fort Atkinson Master Plan
Update, the largest areas ofplanned development are located in the northwest and. south
areas of the city, especially near the WIS 26/US 12 interchange. The future city service

boundary extension areas are located in this area as well.

The outcome of the WIS 26 Fort Atkinson bypass may provide insight as to the potential
effects that could be seen in the Petoskey Area. Like Fort Atkinson, Petoskey enjoys a
vibrant economy and the areas around Petoskey are developing at a very rapid pace. In
the Fort Atkinson Scenario, the US 12 corridoris developingat the fastest rateinthe city.
In Petoskey, the same is true with the US 131 corridor on the south side of the city.

Even though a majority of the grth in the Fort Atkinson is not attributable to seasonal
tourist activity, a great deal of similarity exists between the development patterns in the
two cites. Petoskey is seeing the same type of development of highway-oriented and retail
chain and big box development as Fort Atkinson. It is reasonable to ascertain that the
post bypass scenario in Petoskey will closely resemble that of F ort Atkinson In addition,
with a vibrant economy, and based on the information gathered about Fort Atkinson, it
can be assumed that the downtown area ofPetoskey will not sufi‘er in the short-term.

49

Rhinelander, Wisconsin (US 8, WIS 47, WIS 17)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case Study

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

' . - .1 .. H 7v»
.3 .- ’ 7 I". :7 .~ '., ' ..
-' ‘ ,5... ; ,' I l
, ._ ,-- . ‘ l "l" _ I _ .-
Wp— ‘ ”Ha“. ~ __ , .... ,__,_ _- , ‘ u- _ . ’
,6 . .‘j- .-- .1» , .._
( .’ 'I._: ~- 1 I f ,
’ ‘ -"-3-..Y' 3:? .~ . -‘
“ . .. ‘3‘- ? ‘ .
' _1__a,'—..“ 2'. ‘ _‘ ’ by) . 1:1, > .
. ., . 1.. _ _ 1 ' . _ “—9
r‘. l 1' ' ‘ V. ‘ ‘ ‘ 3J6": .
_' i_‘ ‘1‘ ‘ , .. ~ 2 I 1.. r ,
1 . 2 :3.“ (r... . _ L -.... L. . ‘1'... _,. E:
L I ,— '.‘ j.‘ a. .. r , J .
me an CI' ”? ~ *- " 6‘ -' ~- - - . "
x - ;;~,,“y'~\‘_'.\.“’ , ‘ _ .
4’1 ,.' ‘c. .f a: 1.....7, _, , ‘ , . ~ ..-..
"" I._ 3 . .. A _, -1 ’. .,..‘. ‘ ,.-_ '3‘"! .. <
I ‘I . ‘1‘- 0'6'1'1'. . n .~-‘, ,, » , _
- .- . o.‘ ~..-¢-~ cf - _.
, «fig! 1.. .. ‘—.Iv‘n‘g"‘I-‘ _ or r“ 1» ,w, . _.
__ "l 44’" 1... L7,- . z -..-..r ”‘N‘N .._. . Pi‘r‘zx T», 'h' ".12: I f
6 .- ~’. 1 .6.’ .. "3‘". ‘~ 't‘,“c .‘
l —‘ ‘ '1” ..,',~‘ T -. . "7“...."‘. t."ls.!.. - 1"
“ ' 'r‘.“ '- 39:". 73-7. . "'1' ‘63.}; ,' "‘ _§ __ :3?” K
x . g .r f __, -t“‘“ I"! .- 6%: .- -> u .. ‘ . k
I" _ -.;-=,- '31:; ” 131.10 '4'; m larder) ,5“
— -. 'f 7 ‘.- 5 .33. _ i7 ‘r‘ O .- ' ’1
,_ ‘ A .- . , - ,l ---\J I . .. . -
—— v-----"!' A- .r. “ - . .' 6 :6 u . .p -, _.._
. _ t 3.. < ~,‘ \ -~ , All._ , 1“ Jyoti : r- c . ' —-- I
, I __ v ' -_ If} ‘ ' 5“,?~ ‘V' I .au““"~' I
h“ .1._ 1' 6.»‘ , , "ta ' “set-65.2 :‘F . u ,6 , .
l-I ---._ __~‘, ..L."' " WI'S‘ry : .. wul ‘.. 1 a
a. - . as ,. '1 ' ._ , '.:- 1|. -__. _
s7.» .' . ‘ r 6"!“ .- ' “ «‘1- I .- 4“ .0753
-' . - ‘? / 4 r . 1‘ . ....
-r 41*; —.._,- ' t, '5’ .- - . a..- .n' , - . I .; 6. r- x.;
' . .~ . . I ~ . . _ "I,
”—11.1615" ,p. ed." “1).? u ’ l ‘. t .; ‘YL...1‘) .. fl- . .. 1‘11“ -
. X . .. -- . a ., .
“I". {:‘1a t: ,J .-—J ‘x—éfirfl - ‘_ .- ‘ _- ‘ '.‘-:"- :dn'; J" \A
a ‘ . ‘ .1 ' "r ‘ .. . 0‘ ‘1'.” Iain-.2): '3... Jp-
-' ‘ - .“z W” {i .. -, - _r_'. . ..
5 ‘ w mil.“ 4-u :13 “ ' - “5...”. -*."’“ ‘--.--‘I-
L, 'J ‘ . -'- 5;. _ l.':\ . ,9... ,6 11-1"-
“ ' {4, ,- * . g " "2"". 6n ' ‘- ‘ 3““.
. I . _. I ‘ l
{3. ’1 ‘ . _ -- \ ~_‘ g E‘ ‘- . ,
r mgr; . ..
‘ S... ,5 'sim .' _ ,___ ‘ ? ;.-_, .. .' T“
— ‘O—vd "‘ '. - .. '.. . . . I r . ._ I : ,.‘-‘-’L—r _ I
' l . ‘ g!- . P s 'r‘ ‘1‘ ¢¢_ -
l 'q‘} :’u"1_‘.:23}', .1 - _. I A FA. .- 45 ,l “s: ‘31,; t
. -, .r ... ;:.v ,. {ting-j; '
_..“ l6 t 53.5: . r - 245....
.1 _._. .. ‘i‘ ‘l | z ‘ q“, ‘a ,
-6 .- i - . ... .. - _ _
u. ' I r-- r 4:" 1an

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction

 

 

 

The city of Rhinelander was chosen as a comparison community for the purposes of short-

term analysis because of the existence of a northern tourist economy, the size of the

community, as well as the type of bypass constructed here. As with Fort Atkinson, the

bypass here was constructed recently, opened less than ten years ago, and therefore will

serve as a good comparison to the Petoskey Situation.

Location

The city of Rhinelander is located in north central Wisconsin, and is the largest city for

over 50 miles in every direction. It is approximately 130 miles northwest of Green Bay,

Wisconsin, and over 200 miles north of Madison. The Minneapolis/ St. Paul twin cities

area located approximately 210 miles west of the city.

Rhinelander can be reached by many highways, including US Highway 8, and State Routes

47 and 17. Interstate Highway 39 is located approximately 30 miles southwest of the city.

State Route 47 is the most heavily traveled of these roads, allowing tourists to access

many of the popular Wisconsin Northwoods resort areas north of Rhinelander. This

50

,2... .... a.
fir}: '9 V,

Feen Bay

anitowoc‘
f' Ludingto
I

l

omonee Falls
ilwaukee

nth mammal;

anesui
. enosha

__ 1
x} au kegan
c kfo rd' 3

—~-k
"‘ f ' an Estate s"

hicégo

 

Map 6
Rhinelander, WI Location Map

roadway begins in the Fox Valley Region of the state, and allows access to the area from
cities such as Green Bay, Milwaukee, and Chicago. US 8 is the major east-west road
through this region, traveling fi'om Iron Mountain, Michigan west to the Minneapolis/ St.
Paul area (see Map 6).

The large Wisconsin River, a tributary of the Mississippi, divides the city of Rhinelander in
half. The Rhinelander area includes a large number of lakes and streams, with over 250
lakes within a ten minute drive of downtown, and over 1100 lakes in Oneida County.

The city of Rhinelander is situated deep in the forests and hilly terrain of the Wisconsin
Northwoods. A large municipal airport, located within the city limits, offers over 30 daily
flights to various cities, and the Wisconsin Central Ltd. Railroad allows rail access to the
city (Rhinelander, 1999)

EM

Like many communities in North America, the history of Rhinelander stems from the many
native American tribes which lived here prior to white settlers who came fi'om the east in
the 1820’s. When the town itselfwas first settled in 1880, it was known as Pelican
Rapids, until 1886, when the name was changed to Rhinelander, in honor of F.W.
Rhinelander, the owner of the railroad which was constructed to Rhinelander. The
townspeople were so grateful that they decided to name the town after the man who

helped put it on the map.

Ever since its inception, Rhinelander has been focused on its largest industry, logging.
Because of its location and the early construction of the railroad, the city became the
trading center for the logging industry for the \Vrsconsin Northwoods, and the many
logging camps in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Over time, the lumber industry
experienced a decline in activity, which forced the city to diversify its industrial base. This
was quite successful, and as a result, Rhinelander continues to enjoy a thriving economy.

The largest employer is a pulp and paper mill located on the Wisconsin River. The city is

52

also home to many other industrial operations such as manufacturing of durable goods,

electronics, and packaging systems (Rhinelander, 1999).

Dem hic ervi w

According to the Rhinelander Area Chamber of Commerce, the city of Rhinelander had
7,758 residents in 1997. The 1990 US Census of Population states that the city had over
7400 residents in 1990. The population of the city has continually increased over the past
several decades. According to the Wisconsin Public Service Commission, Onieda County
had 33,853 inhabitants in 1997, and according to the US Census of Population, had
31,679 residents in 1990.

The population of Rhinelander is primarily white, and the majority of its workforce is
composed of blue collar workers, in manufacturing of durable goods and paper/pulp
products. The largest employer is a paper products company which employs over 700
people. Many of the city’s residents work within the city of Rhinelander. As mentioned
above, the economy of Rhinelander is relatively strong and secure. The economic base of
the city is composed of the many industrial activities in the city, like the pulp and paper
mills, durable goods manufacturers, and more recently many smaller light-intensity
manufacturers and research facilities, including a major national food production

company’s agricultural research facilities (Rhinelander, 1999).

The economy of Rhinelander is also reliant upon the tourism industry. Unlike the other
comparison communities in this study, the tourism in Rhinelander is focused primarily on
northern wilderness tourist recreational activities such as fishing, boating, camping, and
hiking in the summer months, and snowmobiling, hunting, fishing, and skiing in the winter
months. The beautiful fall color of the area in and around Rhinelander also draws many
tourists to the area in the fall. Just to the north of Rhinelander are the communities of
Minocqua/Woodrufi' and Eagle River, which draw thousands of visitors annually to enjoy
the many quaint shops and eateries, and enjoy the heavily forested lakefront resorts in the

area.

53

Rhinelander services some of the needs of the tourist activities of the Wisconsin
Northwoods, and has a large number of hotel rooms and restaurants to house the visiting
tourists and businessmen to the area. Many shopping and other service centers are found
in the vicinity of Rhinelander. The city is also the largest employment center in the
northern Wisconsin region, and as a result draws a great deal of business activity to its

many retail and service establishments on a daily basis (Rhinelander Interview, 1999).

According to the Rhinelander Area Chamber of Commerce, over a sizable percentage of
the economy of the city is attributable to tourism and related activity. In addition, the city
is home to many festivals, including the annual large Hodag Country Music Festival, in
which several of the largest nationally-recognized artists perform each July. The
Rhinelander area is also a favorite Snowmobiling center of the Wisconsin Northwoods,
luring thousands of winter thrill-seekers to the area on an annual basis. The large

Oktoberfest celebration is also an important annual festival in the city.

 

 

 

Figure 7 Downtown Rhinelander, WI

Source: http://wwwcirhinelanderwius

54

mUS 8/W IS 47 M

According to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (W isDOT), the Rhinelander
US 8/WIS 47 bypass was completed in 1990, and opened to the public during the same
year. The bypass consists of two lanes of roadway, and is approximately 6.5 miles in
length. It completely bypasses the city of Rhinelander, and with the exception of a small
portion of the city near the western terminus of the bypass, is located entirely outside of
the city. The bypass goes around the southern side of the city. It is located between the
point where highways 8 and 47 divide and travel west and north to other destinations
respectively and the point where the former US 8 route enters just south of Lake George,
approximately five miles to the southeast of the city.

The former US 8/WIS 47 route was a 24 lane facility which traveled through the heart of
the city of Rhinelander. It included two 90 degree turns in the downtown area of the city.
Known as Lincoln Street in the city, it is the most heavily-traveled road in the city, and a
majority of the commercial development in the city has occurred as strip-type development
and larger shopping center areas anchored by well-known discount and department stores.
Most of this development is located on the eastern side of the city. The former roadway
did not go directly through the downtown, but does afi‘ord easy access to all areas of
downtown, traveling along the southern southeastern portion of this area. There is also
some commercial development along the western portion of the old route, near the
intersection of the business route and the point at which US 8 and WIS 47 split on the
west side of the city. This consists mainly of hotels and gas stations, of mostly national
chains.

The bypass travels through primarily old grth Hardwood forests, and with the
exception of crossroads, is completely uninterrupted by development. Since the bypass
opened, there has been no commercial development along the entire length of the
highway. This is because of a lack of public facilities and infiastructure necessary to
support commercial and residential development in this area. Only a few previously

existent land uses are located in close proximity to the bypass, including a very large

55

  

1

POINTS OF INTEREST

) Au Industrial Part

a Alrvab’RnunelanoQV-Oneoaa County

Annual SMIIcv/Rnunounoov
J chNHodag Pull-Publ-c
0 chamber 01 Commerce!
Rhinelander Am-

J College/Nicene! Ana TQCHHICDI
Couflhoustnc-da County
Department at Tunaportat-oa
Golt Coovchonnwood
Hogh SCHOOVRNMIOHGQI

) Hodag County Fond PW

County rm:

3 JUfllo' Hugh Schoou

James warrants

q, Lmvuymhmcunou Dunner
Logo-n9 Museum
Pol-coffin Department
Dost Ofluco .
Rhlmm Ice Arena
500.! Socunly Ofitco
Sun monument ot

Natural Resource. .
Tc Yelephooe Company/Rhinelander
Telephone Company
MEDICAL FACILITIES

g Moran mum Cm» or Woe. Inc
mum, Medical Center

T: SI. Mary's HOSDIIII

HCNAUONYON - O

 

‘m.

’0

”OKOUIS . I: u
I.

\

  

 
 

anucotl.o~troa co
Huron a "nun-u.
can near“. ntsuuuur, 4

cmnrcn avc. u n In 01ch

\F

 

VIII
(All!

 
 
  

I
1N9”?
/.

'1 'fl //
acorns /.

 

     

‘ 1'07 5 m:
0‘ "00°
new“

‘

E
856

“I
C"'k'. . '/'-——’
’- fivr

. L_

Map 7 Rhinelander, WI City Map

  
  
   
     
   
   
 
 
  

E‘.‘
r

O'Vgu
7‘

£3
£4

      
  
   
 

RHINEL NDER

mm ST
Riflflll arc
All.

cuvuvtll

'Ilo ufl .‘ '

      
        
   
   
 
  
 

'o

"on

M. l.”

; nut"

  

   
     
  
  
 
 
  
   

2
S >
i' a
: to I
U ‘ A.
to”, h e:
co

Map courtesy of:

C

 

Rhinelander Telephone Company
M .

5

   

  

6

Source: Rhinelander Chamber of Commerce, 1998

elderly care facility, a manufactured housing company, and a few residences. All of these
uses, however, are accessed by the crossroads of the bypass, and there is no access to the
US 8/WIS 47 bypass itself. This is in part, due to the fact that WisDOT will not allow
ingress or egress from the bypass itself for businesses or residences along the entire 6.5
mile corridor. \VrsDOT owns a wide right of way on both sides of the roadway in order

to maintain the environmental features associated with the corridor.

The WisDOT has undertaken many studies for the development of an additional bypass
along the eastern flank of the city. This bypass, which will replace the existing WIS l7
route, will intersect with the former US 8/WIS 47 near the commercial development on
the east side of the city. Although the exact details of the location have yet to be
determined, the new bypass will be located in the vicinity of these developments (see Map
7) (Rhinelander Interview, 1999).

Interview Rgults
The interviews with residents of Rhinelander were conducted in early January 1999, by the

author. Approximately 25 interviews were conducted in a random fashion. The interview
information was collected in person, and written on a pre-designed form (see appendix).
Following the Interviews, the results were combined to arrive at a general consensus

among participants. The results of the interview questions are summarized below.

As with the other comparison communities in this study, the reactions and opinions of the
residents and business owners was relatively mixed, but in the case of Rhinelander, most
think that the US 8/WIS 47 bypass has had any negative or positive effect upon the city.
Those who felt that the bypass did have some effect either positive or negative gave
comments such as:

o “It has changed the city, but not necessarily in a negative way.”

. “It hasn’t efi'ected business as much as the regular businesses moving cut to

the shopping centers.”

0 “It takes away potential customers.”

57

. “It was inevitable.”
o “It has made some improvement to traffic along the old route.”
. “Eventually it will hurt the downtown as development occurs.”

. “Bypass is bad for Rhinelander, bad for any town.”

Most business owners in Rhinelander felt that the bypass had no effect on their business,
mostly due to the fact that the old route did not out directly through downtown. Some of
those for or against the bypass had this to say:

a “The bypass has had no effect on my business, but it has effected the overall

economy of the downtown, and the city.”

. “N c, not mine specifically, but it has effected the city and downtown.”

. “Somewhat, because they (customers go to other locations now more.”

0 “No, but with more businesses there, it may in the firture.”

0 “Yes, there’s less traffic now, and my business relies on out-of-towners.”

When asked whether they felt the bypass was necessary, most of those interviewed felt
that it was unnecessary and unwarranted. These are comments from those who thought
the construction of the bypass was needed:
0 “Yes, but the east-west traffic on (U S) 8 was not as bad as that of the north-
south travelers on (WIS) 17.”
0 Yes, but it hasn’t really accomplished what it was meant to do.”
0 “I feel it was inevitable.”
According to those surveyed, the bypass has not caused a change in development and
activity patterns of the city. Most of the development continues to occur in the places
where it used to. This lack of influence is almost entirely due to the absence of the utilities
and infrastructure needed to support development near or on the bypass. Those who felt
that the bypass has affected the development of the city said:
0 “Traffic patterns in the city have changed, some secondary roads have seen
increases in traffic.”

0 “A lot of people go right by the town now.”

58

0 “There is more business on the outskirts of town now, but that may not be
because of the bypass.”

o “I think it has, but I’m not sure how to measure that.”

0 “As of yet it hasn’t changed anything, but I’m sure it will in the firture.”

0 “Yes, and it will continue to do so.”

When asked a general question to describe the overall economy of Rhinelander, and
whether it had changed in the past 5-10 years, the results were mixed. Many noted the
fact that several businesses had moved out of downtown, but stated that the overall
economy of Rhinelander was good, and continues to improve. However, many also feel
that the economy of the downtown is slowly deteriorating, and additional businesses on

the outskirts of the city will only serve as a catalyst for this downturn.

Many of the business owners in the downtown feel much more unsure about the effects of
the proposed WIS 17 east bypass. Most feel that it will have a very negative effect on the
downtown because W18 17 actually goes through the downtown, one block east and
parallel to the main street, Brown Street in downtown Rhinelander. Among the biggest
concerns was the removal of trafi'rc from the existing route, and the opportunities that the
new bypass would create at or near the major intersection it comes in contact with on the
east side of the city, which is experiencing the fastest and most growth in the city. A few
of those interviewed mentioned a previous closure of WIS 17 for construction for a few
months, and how much it negatively effected the business in downtown, especially those
that rely on pass-through highway traffic (Rhinelander Interview, 1999).

59

 

 

 

Source: http://www.ci.rhinelander.wi.us

Summagy and Implicatigns for Petoskey
Based on the information gathered about the US 8/WIS 47 bypass, at first glance it would

appear that there should be no effect upon the downtown businesses in Petoskey.
However, upon firrther investigation, it can be seen that the US 8/WIS 17 may not be a
good comparison to the proposed US 31 bypass in Petoskey. One of the major points to
be mentioned, and the biggest difference between the two cases is the lack of development

pressure in the Rhinelander area except for that on the eastern edge of the city.

Like Petoskey, the highway in Rhinelander does not go directly through the downtown,
but is diverted from it. However, the major difference in the two communities is the
traffic volumes in the two communities. The volumes along the former route do not
compare to those on US 31 in Petoskey, which experiences more than 32,000 cars a day
on average along some stretches of the roadway in the city. In comparison, traffic

volumes along Old US 8 are approximately half of those in Petoskey.

The WIS 17 bypass which has been proposed by the WisDOT is of much greater concern
in the community of Rhinelander. The possible route alternatives all come in close contact
with the large commercial developments on the eastern side of the city, and the general
feeling is that an intersection or interchange in this location will firrther exacerbate a

growing sprawl and strip commercial development problem. This assumption is based on

60

the recent interest of many new national chain retailers to locate in this vicinity in response

to the news about the new bypass project.

61

Port Washington, Wisconsin (I-43)

 

Case Study

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Port
WaShingtolt:

 

 

 

E1m8660§t£m6bba100rp

Introduction

Port Washington, Wisconsin was chosen as a comparison city due to its location on Lake
Michigan, and its similarity in size and population to Petoskey. The bypass here was built
in the middle 19605, and was a part of the United States Interstate Highway system. The
development patterns in the vicinity of the interchanges on I-43 are used to study

historical development along the bypass.

Location

Port Washington, Vtrrsconsin is as the name suggests, a port city located on the western
shore of Lake Michigan in the center of Ozaukee County, in eastern Wisconsin. The city
of Port Washington is located on I-43, approximately 25 miles north of Milwaukee, and
about 115 miles north of Chicago. I-43 continues north to the city of Green Bay, located
approximately 90 miles north of the city. Madison, the capital city is about 2 hours west
of Port Washington.

Port Washington is serviced by three highways, WIS 32, WIS 33, and I-43. 143 is the
largest and most heavily traveled of the three, and travels from Beloit on the southern

border of the state of Wisconsin, through Milwaukee, and then north to Green Bay. State

62

)1
‘f2 /. T/

d;hrrgcon hy’//

a} '

x.

f
(,1
reen say

I Man
anitowoe‘

I
l
1

PORT j

WASHINGTON
monee Falls

ilwaukee

nth Mira-rural;

aukegan

Estate 5“
h icta'tg o

 

Map 8
Port Washington, WI Location Map

Routes (WIS) 32 and 33 are also important thoroughfares in the area. WIS 32 allows
access to Milwaukee, Racine, and Kenosha to the south via I-43 and I-94, finally splitting
off as its own road south of Milwaukee. WIS 32 also travels north to Green Bay, and
eventually to the Michigan/Wisconsin border at Land O’ Lakes. State Route 33 begins in
Port Washington, and heads west across the state to LaCrosse, located on the Mississippi

River on the border between Minnesota and Wisconsin (see Map 8).

The city of Port Washington is comprised of approximately 4 square miles of hilly,
undulating Wisconsin landscape. Known as the city of seven hills, the geographic layout
of the city is formed and shaped by the landscape. The city is located on Lake Michigan,
and is home to a large commercial and pleasure crafi port. In addition, the Chicago and
Northwestern Railroad travels through the western portion of the city, and allows the
shipment of cargo and goods to points north and south, including the major railroad hub
of Chicago to the south. Currently there is no airport in close proximity to the city of Port
Washington.

@1042

The city of Port Washington was first settled by Native American tribes like the
Menominee and Fox of the Algonquin nation. The first white settler was Wooster
Harrison, who began to develop the small town as long ago as 1835. He chose to settle in
the location of what is now downtown Port Washington due to the Sauk Creek emptying
into Lake Michigan here, providing energy and power for the first industries in the city.
The first name of the town was “Wisconsin City, but soon they realized that there was
already another settlement of the same name, the name was changed to Washington City.
In 1847, the city was named the county seat of the then Washington County, and the name
was again changed to Port Washington. A large lighthouse was built on top of the bluff
overlooking downtown in 1849. Recognizing the importance of the Lake to the city, a
new manmade harbor was dredged in 1870

64

This opened a whole new set of opportunities for the city. Soon shipping of goods and
recreation and fishing activities took off and gained importance in the city. In 1882, the
city of Port Washington was incorporated. Soon, the city of Port Washington became an
important industrial center in the region, with large factories which built things such as
school firrniture, gas engines, and other durable goods. A large powerplant was built

adjacent to the harbor in 1908.

During the following decades, the city saw increased growth, and with it increased
commercial and industrial activity. Since it was first settled, the city has grown to be a
city of over 10,000 people, with more than adequate employment, educational, and
recreational opportunities and resources. During the past several years, the city has begun
to embrace the idea of promoting itself as a destination and vacation location, with a
variety of shops, restaurants, hotels, and recreational assets to promote and enjoy (Port
Washington, 1999).

 

J
vv .. a, - '
- ' - *1- ,v.
‘ ‘ "Fl. 1.

~.. 13
‘ ‘\
._ j '
x. ..
%T.}‘
2“ c ‘l
*1... i
‘1 A l
6"
-‘ 1.
...

 

Figure 9 Downtown Port Washington, WI, 1999

Demographic Overview
According to the Wisconsin Department of Administration, the city of Port Washington

had 10,225 inhabitants in 1997. The US Bureau of the census statistics say that the city
had 9,388 persons in the 1990 census. As can be seen, the city has grown very rapidly

65

over the past decade. According to the US Census, the total population of Ozaukee
County was 72, 831 in 1990.

The population of Port Washington is primarily white and blue collar, employed by the
many industrial facilities in the city. In addition, the city is home to a growing number of
commuters to the Milwaukee area. The city of Port Washington is quickly becoming a
bedroom community of Milwaukee, with the expansion of the metropolitan area.
Currently, the city of Port Washington is located on the outskirts of the Milwaukee
metropolitan area. As mentioned above in the history portion of the case study, the
economy of the city of Port Washington is good, and is constantly diversifying and
improving. Over time, the economy of the city has undergone many changes, and the
economic base of the city has adapted to these changes. An example of this is the shift
from heavy industry to more light intensity industrial uses, and more recently a recognition
of recreation and tourism as an important part of the economy of the city (Port
Washington Interview, 1999).

Among the city’s largest employers are those in the manufacturing of durable goods, such
as gas engines, metal stamping products, concrete mixes, and other products. In addition,
services such as health care, and retail trade are important to the economy of the city.

Port Washington has a large industrial park, located on the city’s south side. According to
the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC), the income of
residents in Ozaukee County and the city of Port Washington is considerably larger than
those of the SEWRPC region, and the state of Msconsin, with a 1994 per capita income
of $ 30,214 in comparison to $ 23,453 and 8 20,884 in the region and state respectively.

Tourism is an important part of the economy of Port Washington, and has this importance
has greatly increased over the past several years, with the promotion of the harbor,
parkland, and other recreational activities of the city. Downtown Port Washington is full
of various shops, restaurants, and opportunities for entertainment and lodging for visitors,

and the city is a busy place for tourists, and boaters in the summer months. With recent

and additional planned improvements to the harbor and waterfront, this tourist and visitor

activity will likely continue to flourish and even grow in the coming years.

The [-43 Bypass and Related Development
According to the WisDOT, the I-43 bypass was constructed as a part of the overall

construction of 143 from Beloit to Green Bay during the mid to late 19605. Prior to this,
US 141 followed the lakeshore and bypassed the city, in the location that is now County
Road LL/Seven Hills Road. I-43, like most of the interstate highway system is a four-lane
divided limited-access expressway which completely diverts traffic around the city of Port
Washington. Three exits are located on the north, west, and southwest sides of the city,

and allow easy access to all parts of the city.

The former route (US 141) traveled through the city of Port Washington and had to
maneuver around a tight and sharp 90 degree turn, then it bypassed the city on the western
edge, an finally, when the new interstate was developed, was again redirected to its
current location part of the previous route has been replaced by WIS 32, which travels
through the entire length of the city.

Over the years, the bypass expressway has attracted a great deal of development at the
interchanges, especially at the west and north ends of the city. The aerial imagery shows
that prior to the construction of [-43, there was very little, and in some cases, no
development in the location of the current interchanges. Over time, and in response to the
development of the expressway, a large amount of development has occurred in close
proximity to the I-43 corridor. This development consists of primarily commercial
property, but more recently, a large residential development has been introduced near the

northern interchange.

Taking a deeper look at the development associated with the bypass expressway it is clear
that a great deal of traditional and chain retail development has occurred in close

proximity to the expressway. At the west interchange, development has occurred or is

67

Map 9 Port Washington, WI City Map

 

 

Source: SEWRPC, 1990

under construction on all four corners. The northwest corner includes a gas
station/convenience store, and a bank. A hotel, restaurant, and fast food establishments
are located in close proximity to the interchange on the southwest corner. The southeast
corner development includes a Wal-Mart, grocery store, automobile dealership, and a gas
station. Only the northeastern quarter of this interchange area remains relatively
undeveloped. However, there are some smaller uses both office and commercial located
here. Currently, there is a construction project located behind the existing residence on

the east side of the highway (see figure 11).

The interchange at the north end of the city is quite similar, but the development is mainly
focused on the southern side of the expressway. Here there are several chain retail
establishments, including a large supermarket, two fast food chains, a shopping plaza, a
large factory and corresponding outlet store. There is also a great deal of residential
grth in close proximity to the highway in this location on both sides of WIS
32/Wisconsin Avenue. The area to the north of the interchange is still relatively
undeveloped in comparison to the south side of the overpass. The development here is
primarily residential, but there are a few smaller retail establishments located near the

intersection (see Map 9)(see figure 10).

 

 

 

“3 T.
.4-

r’ .r- I- > , - _ ‘ . ‘ .'-
' ‘ .3 <5.» . . .' r-I -. . .2.” I ‘-
. . ; .' , . . ' -.. “ftp“?
- - f ‘ . *~- . ' 3, _ ‘ . a: F“
.. " . I. "‘3' ‘ 1" ”do . ' . fi ('1‘; w - - : {TN-7’-
. c _\ . .. _ . ‘ . M . I 3* '3‘:- .
' \ «L . V ‘ ~ . T"
\ ' _ p
..v. .. , V

‘ a " "Eff

. » ' J: ‘ wirmwai
. arrfij‘2.¢rjti-'gi‘. . fig“ .9» l
' ' .r- as. fists-ow 5:».

4 . -'
.".."
a

‘ ,_ ..,g:_..-.
”M'w ' .215“?! . .1.

Figure 10 WIS 32 at 1-43 bypass, Port Washington, WI, 1999

 

69

Figure 11 Before and After [-43 Bypass, Port Washington, WI

.. o$

. ..ff
arm].

mafia?“

1.035.,
‘ 4

o
W

A

. \i a. r n
..J J. .
fl . . an

.. Ala.

. . ii
Sm. .

r

.O

r.“

‘1. 3101’s

.. 1 1:3. .

.3.

,3.
\T

tail

1.I\.v.

o

_ .‘u.

i‘l‘ rill

 

Office, 1995

Ozaukee County Land Information

SEWRPC, 1963

Source

Summagy and Implications for Pgtpskgy
Port Washington is a good comparison to the Petoskey area in many ways. First, the area

is experiencing very rapid growth and this trend shows no sign of changing in both
communities. Both cities are approximately the same size, and enjoy the privilege of being
located on Lake Michigan. The high points around both cities afl‘ord good views of the
lake and the surrounding areas. The lake and the recreational Opportunities associated
with it are both important factors in these communities.

Because the rate of grth and type of development occurring in both Petoskey are the
same, the community of Port Washington may be a good example of things to come in the
Petoskey area. Most of the current development in the Port Washington area is located in
close proximity to the interchanges and major roads parallel to I-43. As a result, it is safe
to assume that in time, the same will occur in various areas around Petoskey, especially in

the locations where intersections or interchanges are planned.

The development in the Port Washington area took place in relatively recent time period,
and has begun to increase in amount an intensity in the past two decades. Before this, the
city was not experiencing tremendous growth pressures. Unlike Port Washington, the
development in Petoskey has always been rather constant, and growth pressures were
always strong. During the past decade, the rate of grth of residential, commercial, and
office real estate has increased dramatically. In fact, Petoskey has never seen the
magnitude of grth it is currently experiencing.

If the development patterns in Petoskey react to the development of the bypass, and
grth at interchanges/intersections and in areas along the bypass, the result could be the
same as what has occurred in Port Washington. The types of development in proximity to
the interchanges along I-43 at Port Washington have already occurred in Petoskey, and
one of the larger and more recent developments is located adjacent to the right of way for

the proposed bypass.

71

Based on the Port Washington experience, it is likely that this type of development in
Petoskey will serve to exacerbate the existing problem of sprawl and strip style
development. This will probably be most pronounced in the location where the bypass
will intersect with US 131 south of the city in Bear Creek Township, due to the
availability of land in this area.

72

Lake Geneva, Wisconsin 01$ 12)

 

Case Study

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction
There are many similarities between the cities of Petoskey and Lake Geneva. Among

these include population, economic base and activity, and history. Lake Geneva was
chosen as a comparison community to Petoskey for this reason. Since the highway which
bypasses the city of Lake Geneva was built over 30 years ago, it will serve as a good

example for historical development comparison in this study.

M22

The City of Lake Geneva is located in the Geneva Lakes Region, in Southeastern
Msconsin, just north of the Illinois border. The three highways which serve the city are
US 12, WIS 50, and WIS 120. The largest of the three is US 12, a four-lane, divided
limited-access highway which allows access to the city fi'om Chicago 73 miles to the
southeast, and Madison located approximately 73 miles northwest. State Routes 120 and
50 are the north-south and east-west routes which serve the city respectively. State Route
120 travels from I-43 north of the city to the state border, and continues into Illinois as
Illinois 47. State Route 50 begins in Kenosha to the east, and continues west to the

community of Delavan, just west of Lake Geneva on I-43. Lake Geneva is located

73

>1

"'2 /.T/

’l

Sturgeon hy//

1.

Fun Bay .

,-

f
anitowoc'
,' Lud
I

l

l
omonee Fall‘s
ilwaukee

trill Mikaela;

LAKE 1
GENEVA "}

an Estates‘
h icgig o

 

Map 10
Lake Geneva, WI Location Map

approximately six miles south of [-43, which can be accessed by all three highways. The
nearest major metropolitan area is Milwaukee 45 miles northeast, which can be reached
via I-43 (see Map 10).

As mentioned above, Lake Geneva is located in the Geneva Lakes Region of Wisconsin.
This region is made up of several large lakes, the largest of which is Geneva Lake. The
city of Lake Geneva is located on the far eastern end of this lake, which is a very
important resource to the city. The only access to the city by air is available at the airstrip
located in the Grand Geneva Resort, located just east of the city. No railroad company

services the city.

Em

The history of the city of Lake Geneva is based heavily in its long tradition as a favorite
year-round vacation and weekend destination for the wealthy, primarily of nearby
Chicago. The first residents in the Lake Geneva area were the Potawatomi Indians. The
first white settler to the area was John Brink, a surveyor. He settled near the mouth of the
White River in what is now downtown Lake Geneva. The city quickly developed around
this location, and a large grist mill, a sawmill, and a distillery were constructed. Shortly
after the great Chicago Fire of 1871, the area became a favorite location for many wealthy
business owners and officials to rebuild their lives after losing everything in the fire. By
1900, the entire shore of Geneva Lake was developed with large estates, resorts, camps,
and parks. Around the turn of the century, the community became a very popular summer
tourist destination, and as a result the economy of the area thrived. Because of this large
increase in popularity, and the existence of so many stately mansions, the community

earned its nickname of “the Newport of the West.”

The community continues to retain its position as a favored vacation and tourist
destination today. It is home to several premier resorts and clubs, and has a very
successful and unique central business district with many shops, eateries, entertainment

and service establishments. The waterfront is a focal point for the city, with the Riviera

75

Docks, from which the Geneva Lake Cruise Line departs from late April to Early
November. The city is also known for its many inns, bed and breakfasts, and guest
houses. It is one of the premier resorts of the of the Midwest (Lake Geneva, 1999).

 

 

.. w s . v6 .
WW..._.Mr.«-;. v-u‘l-.«~~. -,.,

Figure 12 Downtown Lake Geneva, WI, 1999

Demographic Overview
The city of Lake Geneva had approximately 6,548 residents according to 1998 estimates

released by the Southeast Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. This represents a
9.5 percent change fiom 1990, when, according to the Wisconsin Department of
Administration, the city had 5,979 people. According to the 1980 Census of Population,
the city had 5,612 residents. The total population of Walworth County was 82,045 in
1998, and 75,000 in 1990 according to the US Census Bureau.

According to the US Census Bureau, the population of the city of Lake Geneva is mostly
white, and the city is about half blue-collar and halfwhite-collar workers. Among the
largest employers in the city are the large resorts and tourism-based activities such as the
Grand Geneva Resort, The Geneva Inn, and Geneva National. The medical facilities in the
city, and the larger industries, including a producer of rubber products also employ many

people in the city. The economy of the city of Lake Geneva is flourishing, and has been in

76

good standing throughout its existence. The economic base of the city of Lake Geneva is
based greatly upon industrial and commercial activities. In particular, the commercial
activity is centered on the many businesses which target and cater to tourists and resorters
in the Geneva Lakes Area. Among the largest industrial concerns in the city is a rubber
machine parts manufacturer, electronic instruments manufacturers, and other factories of

various types.

Tourism is the most visible type of economic activity in the Lake Geneva area, and is the
economic heart of the city. The city is home to several large year-round resorts, numerous
shops, restaurants, and recreational activities. According to the Wisconsin Department of
Tourism, approximately 6,000 full-time jobs are tourism-related in Walworth County. Of
these, it can be assumed that a majority are located in the Geneva Lakes region, and a
good share of those in Lake Geneva. The tourism activity in the Lake Geneva area is
characterized by wealthier visitors who come to the city to relax, shop, recreate, and dine
in the many tourist-related establishments (Lake Geneva, 1999). According to the
Wisconsin Department of Tourism, the Lake Geneva area is among the top 10 tourist

destinations in the state.

The US 12 Bypass and Ralated Development
According to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, the US 12 expressway was

constructed and opened to the public in the middle 19605. The facility consists of four
lanes of divided limited-access roadway, with conventional interchanges at major
junctions. The city is served by two interchanges, located where the expressway intersects
State Routes 50 and 120. The expressway completely diverts traffic away from the city,
and basically parallels the former route.

The former route of US 12 entered the city on the southeast side on County Highway H,
and followed the path of what is now Wells Street. Then the highway shifted two and
one-half blocks west on WIS 50 in downtown Lake Geneva, and joined WIS 120, heading

77

Map 11 Lake Geneva, WI City Map

 

r---------

 

.- 900! null out. me

l'""""°""""'

5------4

 

   

 

Source: SEWRPC, 1990

north on Broad Street through downtown. The roadway then went west and northwest
along George Street, and followed the route of the current County Highway H, toward
the county seat, Elkhom. The previous aligmnent was not well suited to the heavy resort
and through traffic, and included three sharp turns within the city, as well as narrow lanes

of roadway, and steep grades.

The development along the US 12 corridor, and at the interchanges has been relatively
moderate, and a great deal has been constructed in the past decade in close proximity to
the expressway. Both interchanges at WIS 120 and 50 have experienced development.
The type of development located in these two locations is typical of other interchange
development patterns seen across the nation. The WIS 50 Interchange is more highly
developed than that of the WIS 120 location, just one mile to the north. Here
development can be found on all sides of the interchange. The most activity is located on
the southwest comer of the interchange. This development includes a Wal-Mart, Large
Chain Supermarket, fast food restaurant, and a small shopping plaza. There is also a large
business and light industrial park located south of the above facilities. The other corners
are less impacted by development. The northwest comer houses a gas station,
office/professional building, and a small shopping plaza, with chain establishments.
Across the highway, the southeast corner is occupied by the city’s wastewater treatment
facilities, while the land on the northeast corner, as well as the entire eastern side of the
highway north to WIS 120 is owned by the Grand Geneva Spa and Resort, but is free of
development (see figure 13).

The interchange at WIS 120 is characterized by similar development to that of the WIS 50
location. The southeast corner is occupied by a large strip-type shopping center with a
large chain supermarket, and a chain retail department store anchor. The southwest
corner of the interchange is relatively fi'ee of development, but is zoned for single-family
moderate density residential use. The opposite side of the expressway is less developed.

There is a new movie cinema located north of the interchange are on the northeastern

79

Figure 13 Before and After US 12 Bypass, Lake Geneva, WI

'. l..¢v .I‘
. . l

-»..

aria-.1]

“ganaw

guru...

1W1 . .53!

U I. «II.

Imprint..- . .m 11.9.3 3.

3";yv .
.

(3.4

WE:

 

..Of _-‘

d

mng, an

20

anning,

Walworth County Department of PI

9

l 999

SEWRPC, 1963
anitation,

S

Source

comer, and an extractive/excavation use located on the northwestern corner of the

interchange (see Map 11).

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 14 WIS 120 at US 12 Bypass, Lake Geneva, WI, 1999

Summagy and Implications for Petoskey
In general, the development around the interchanges has been typical of that of other

highway locations. It is characterized by traditional chain retail operations, and other
types of business that thrive upon a location adjacent to a major thoroughfare. The
development around the interchanges in Lake Geneva occurred at the WIS 120
interchange first, followed by the construction near the WIS 50 interchange, which took
place in the late 19805 and early 19905. Development of the land in the Lake Geneva

Business Park is currently occurring.

Although this type of development is occurring or has occurred in the Petoskey area, it is
likely that the areas adjacent to the proposed bypass right-of-way which currently remain
undeveloped or agricultural will become candidates for future development. This
development will most likely resemble the type which has been built in Lake Geneva, and
is currently being introduced along US 131 south of the city of Petoskey. The

development of some of the corners of the bypasses along US 12 in Lake Geneva is not

81

possible due to natural constraints such as wetlands. It must also be noted, that the lake
Geneva is not experiencing the same level of development pressure as the areas

surrounding Petoskey.

In terms of the comparison of the two communities, they each share numerous similarities,
including size, history, and economy. With this in mind, it is feasible to deduce that the
central business district of Petoskey will not experience drastic negative effects as a result
of the immediate and short term construction projects in the Petoskey area. The
downtown area of Lake Geneva remained very successful in spite of the removal of the
additional traffic fiom the downtown. The city of Lake Geneva and the surrounding
Geneva Lakes Region is a major destination, and much less of a through point. The only
major difference between the two communities is the demand for land and development
sites. Currently, the Petoskey area is experiencing development like it has never seen,
while the development of Lake Geneva has not been overwhelming and as intense as that

of Petoskey.

82

Conclusions and Recommendations

 

Based upon the analysis of the current and historical trends and attitudes in the Petoskey
area, as well as the information gathered for the case studies of comparison communities,
the proposed US 31/Petoskey Area Bypass will result in significant changes in the
Petoskey area. Whether the outcome is positive or negative, depends upon a number of
factors, including strict land planning and management policies, active citizen
participation, and a desire to preserve the picturesque and quaint character of the Petoskey

community.

Based on the results of the Wisconsin case studies, it is possible to control and direct the
development related to the bypass. Vlfrth carefirl monitoring and promotion, the historic
Petoskey Central Business District may not experience negative effects as a result of
potential development in the vicinity of the bypass. However, the current atmosphere of
stability and success enjoyed by the business owners in downtown Petoskey’s Gaslight
District may be compromised if proper conservation and innovative land use measures are

not considered and implemented.

Given the existing development types and trends in the Petoskey area, it is very safe to
assume that similar activity will result and possibly be exacerbated by the development of
the US 31/Petoskey Area bypass without carefirl and astute commitment to controlling
land development. Since historically, highways tend to invite development, often
commercial in nature, it is likely that commercial development will occur in the vicinity of
the bypass, especially near the intersections and interchanges along the new route. The
trend of development in the areas which will be the site of new access points to the bypass
has been one of wide scale, traditional strip-type development, on large plots of previously
agricultural land. The most recent developments have been in the form of gigantic
shopping center areas anchored by national chains and big box discount retail
establishments.

83

This type of strip commercial development is also prevalent in all of the comparison
communities. As seen in both the recent and historic case studies, commercial
development has occurred in reaction to the existence of a highway bypass. Only in
Rhinelander does this scenario differ, due to the lack of adequate public facilities necessary
to support this type and intensity of development. Once these facilities are extended to the
areas in proximity to the bypass, the result is expected to be the same in the Rhinelander
area as well. As a rule, all suitable land adjacent to highway bypasses in the case study
communities has been developed or is being developed. In cases where this has not yet
occurred, the probability of development is quite high. With this in mind, as well as trends
in the Petoskey area and northwestern Michigan, it is likely that the lands adjacent to the
bypass will develop in the same fashion, and at a much faster rate than in the comparison
communities. Without proper management techniques, the land in the vicinity of the
Petoskey bypass will be characterized by traditional sprawling commercial mixed use, and
residential development. If current trends are allowed to continue, Petoskey will quickly

become yet another example of sprawl and congestion in the United States.

“With these underlying issues in mind, it is crucial that the Petoskey community and all
stakeholders become actively involved in preservation and land conservation techniques.
This requires cooperation from residents, stakeholders, and public entities alike. The
government units connected to the bypass issue must develop specific policies and
guidelines for firture land development and conservation. The residents of Petoskey and
the surrounding townships need to remain actively involved in the public input processes
concerning development proposals and decisions. Merchants and business owners in
downtown Petoskey must actively continue to promote business activities and
opportunities in downtown Petoskey. Attitudes and positions towards economic
development of any type by the chamber of commerce must change, and the current
atmosphere of acceptance of any type of development should be discarded and

reconsidered if the current economic success enjoyed by Petoskey is to remain.

84

In order to suggest preferred and desired development types and patterns in the Petoskey
area, local planners and governmental units should consider grth management and land
conservation techniques such as planned unit development, conservation subdivision
design, performance standards, overlay zoning, historic and cultural preservation,
architectural and site standards, development blueprints, and other various methods of
control. Control and management of land resources and grth is one of the most
important issues in the Petoskey area. Each of these as well as other considerations is

detailed in the following section.

§pgga§ted Lang Conservation and Management Technigues

CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION DESIGN

This is a recent movement geared toward the conservation of open space and agricultural
lands, in rapidly develOping areas and areas with firture development potential. This
practice is currently growing in popularity and use. The idea of this type of rural
conservation technique is to require minimum amounts of open space retained and
undeveloped in order to preserve open space, and create a more aesthetically pleasing
community. This type of development should only occur in areas adjacent to existing
continuous urban development, and not in all areas of a municipality or other
governmental unit. Conservation subdivision design should be used in areas in close

proximity to the bypass in both Resort and Bear Creek Townships.

PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT

This technique affords greater control of development and may allow better standards for
development. This type of land control mechanism can be used in the same areas and in
unison with conservation subdivision design. It can result in a more harmonious
development mixture and pattern, when combined with other control and management
techniques. Planning and other policy-making bodies have greater control and strength

with planned unit development in comparison to traditional zoning techniques.

85

TRAN SEER/PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS

Many communities in the United States and Michigan have begun to incorporate
techniques for preservation of open and agricultural lands by way of transfer or purchase
of development rights techniques. This is a type of grth management technique which
involves the establishment of a program in which land development rights are purchased
by a community, or land owners may transfer their development rights from a sending area
to a receiving zone deemed appropriate by local policy makers. Generally this method is a
voluntary incentive-driven system which may be used to slow or halt urbanization in
specific areas of a community. The Petoskey area could see great benefits in terms of
grth management as a result of the use of a transfer or purchase of development rights
program. The most likely candidate for the sending area would be those areas of prime
agricultural land identified in the DEIS, whereas the receiving zone would be located at
points where development is to be concentrated near the existing pockets of densely
packed development. With this in mind, it could appear that the receiving zone(s) would
be located on or in close proximity to major thoroughfares, such as US 131, US 31, and

Mitchell Road on the Petoskey side of the new bypass route.

HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION TECHNIQUES

Careful consideration should be given to the thoughtful and adequate preservation of
historic and cultural resources and structures in order to retain the character of the
community. Historic districts and ordinances may be established in order to preserve and
protect valuable sites which reflect community character. Strict guidelines should be
instituted in order to allow for the security of historic sites and structures. Some historic
districts have been formed in the city, and one in northern Resort Township. Continuance
of the use and creation of historic districts including clusters of historic farmhouses should
be employed in Bear Creek Township in areas which could be directly efi'ected by the

bypass route.

86

ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS

Through the steadfast adoption and use of specific and appropriate site and architectural
standards, a more orderly and harmonious development pattern along with a greater level
of aesthetic quality may be achieved. Careful consideration of desired architectural and
site design standards will help to retain the positive image of the Petoskey area as a
favored tourist destination. It is important to include adequate buffering and vegetative
cover in order to preserve scenic vistas, and avoid visual pollution of the landscape. These
are already in place in the jurisdictions in the Petoskey area, but require more attention.
Careful watch of variance from the standards set by councils and boards should be
undertaken, to ensure the consideration and provision of aesthetically pleasing structures

in the rapidly developing areas surrounding Petoskey.

OVERLAY DISTRICT/TIF DISTRICT/DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

These bodies, which serve to guide development in a community, can be incorporated as a
part of a community’s planning or business advisory committees or councils. These
represent various sources of financial support for the physical improvement and
maintenance of a district. Such authorities or programs may be used to provide needed
aesthetic improvements and pedestrian facilities. These techniques are being more widely
used in suburban fiinge areas as well as urbanized central areas. Examples of
improvements provided by these techniques include signage and banner programs,
pedestrian facilities, landscaping and aesthetic improvements, building and facade
improvements as well as various other additions and improvements. A suggested location
for a Tax Increment Financing District would be at the two major gateways to the city, US
131, and US 31 on the east side of the city. Suggested improvements in this area include
the installation of banners and attractive lighting which would serve as a welcoming
mechanism for the community, as opposed to the existing haphazard signage and lighting

found in the commercial strips in the gateway areas of the city.

87

DEVELOPMENT BLUEPRINT/ SERVICE BOUNDARY/GROWTH BOUNDARY
This is a process in which current conditions and future development potential is assessed
and considered in order to develop a pattern of desired, guided urbanization, through a the
use of a boundary or designated service area which is determined by a governmental or
policy-making body. The intent of this type of grth management technique is to
provide for the orderly development of an urbanized area, while preserving other areas for
rural and open use. These boundaries should be established and followed, allowing for
adequate area for development so as to avoid sharp increases in land and real estate prices.
In order to conduct the analysis necessary to develop a grth boundary or blueprint for
development, a committee, such as the Intergovernmental Planning Group, which formed
as a result of the release of the bypass proposal during the early stages of planning the
facility should be utilized. This group would include representatives from each of the
governmental units around the city, as well as representatives from the city and various

interest groups and stakeholders.

INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION/RELATIONSHIPS

This is crucial to the Petoskey area in order to provide for the orderly and appropriate
development, as well as the preservation of important historic, cultural, and natural
resources, while retaining the character of the Petoskey area. The governmental units in
the Petoskey area must work together to manage growth and sustain the economic
prosperity and function of Petoskey and the surrounding region. A set of policies for
growth management, conservation, and promotion should be established and agreed upon

in order to ensure a positive firture for the community of Petoskey.

These suggestions represent only a handful of potential methods which may be used to
assure positive growth, management, and preservation in the Petoskey area. The
underlying idea that must be considered is the unique position and special character that
the community possesses. In order for this to avoid from being compromised, proper

methods should be considered and implemented.

88

Bibliography

 

Alonso, William. Location and Land Use: Toward a Theory of Land Rent. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1964.

Barlowe, Raleigh. Land Resource Economics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall,
1986.

Bay Harbor Resort Homepage. Available from http://www.bayharbor.com; Internet;
Accessed April 1999.

Coil, John L. Eflects of opening M-ZI Expressway. Flint: Region V Planning and
Development Commission, 1984.

Fort Atkinson, WI Business Owners and Residents. Interview with business owners and
residents conducted by author, March 1999.

Fort Atkinson Area Chamber of Commerce. Fort Atkinson 1999 Visitor’s Guide. Fort
Atkinson, WI: Fort Atkinson Area Chamber of Commerce, 1999.

Giuliano, Genevieve. “Land Use Impacts of Transportation Investments: Highway and
Transit”. The Geography of Urban Transportation, 2“d ed., Susan Hanson, ed.
New York: Guilford Press, 1995.

Historical Glimpses: Petoskey. Petoskey: Little Traverse Historical Society, 1986.

Lake Geneva Area Convention and Visitor’s Bureau. Lake Geneva Area Visitor’s Guide
1999. Lake Geneva, WI: Lake Geneva Area Convention and Visitor’s Bureau,
1999.

Michigan State University/Highway Traffic Safety Center, and U. S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads. Economic and Social Impacts of Highway
Improvements. East Lansing: MSU/Highway Trafic Safety Center, 1961.

Pennsylvania State University Highway Impact Research Stafi‘. Blairsville: A ijass
Study. University Park: Pennsylvania State University, 1962.

Petoskey Regional Chamber of Commerce Home Page; available fi'om
http://www.petoskey.com; Internet; Accessed 28 January 1998.

Petoskey Residents and Business Owners. Interview conducted by author, August 1998.
Petoskey, MI.

89

Port Washington Area Chamber of Commerce and Visitor’s Bureau. Port Washington
Visitor and Tourist Guide 1999. Port Washington, WI: Port Washington Area
Chamber of Commerce and Visitor’s Bureau, 1999.

Port Washington Business Owners. Interview with business owners conducted by author.
Port Washington, WI, 1999.

Rhinelander Area Chamber of Commerce. Rhinelander 1999. Rhinelander, W1:
Rhinelander Area Chamber of Commerce, 1999.

Rhinelander, WI Business Owners. Interview conducted by the author, January 1999.
Rhinelander, WI.

Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. Interview with staff conducted
by the author. Waukesha, WI, January 1999.

State of Michigan Department of Transportation. Interview with Muhammad Alghurabi
and David Geiger conducted by author, October 1998, April 1999. Lansing, Nfl.

State of Michigan Department of Transportation. US-31 at Bay View, Emmet County,
Michigan, an Environmental Impact Statement. Lansing: State of MI. Dept. of
Transportation, 1987.

Urban Land Institute. Shopping Center Development Handbook. Community Builders
Handbook Series. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute, 197 7.

U. S. Department of Transportation-Federal Highway Administration, and Michigan
Department of Transportation. US-3I Petoskey Area Improvement Project: Draft
Environmental Impact Statement Section 4(f) Evaluation. Lansing: Mich. Dept.
of Transportation, 1994.

U. S. Department of Transportation, and U. S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development. The Land Use and Urban Development Impacts of Beltways.
Washington, DC: GPO, 1980.

Wagner, Hulse. The Economic Efl'ects of Bypass Highways 0n Selected Kansas
Communities. Lawrence: University of Kansas Center for Research in Business,
1 95 9.

Wisconsin Department of Transportation. Highway Bypasses: Wisconsin Communities
Share their Experiences. Madison: “Wisconsin Dept. of Transportation, Division
of Planning and Budget, 1988.

Yeh, Daniel. The Economic Impacts of Highway Bypasses on Communities. Madison:
WisDOT, February 1998.

90

Appendices

 

Sample Interview Sheet

How long has your business been here?

How would you describe the economy of Fort Atkinson?

Has it changed in the past 5-10 years?

What is your opinion of the WIS 26 Bypass?

How (if at all) has the bypass changed the city?

Has the bypass had any type of impact on your business? How? What?

Do you feel the bypass was necessary for Fort Atkinson?

How do you feel about the proposed US 12 bypass?

Do you think it will help or hurt business in downtown?

Additional comments:

91

TO: Citizens Concerned About a Beltway
FROM: Earth Day Action, S.A.V.E., Sierra Club, Growth & Development Forum

DON'T GIVE UP YET!

it's not too late to convince MDOT (the Michigan Department of Transportation) that we don't
want ANY of their proposed beltways around Petoskey.

Did you notice that none of the options given to this community involve improving existing roads
only? The only option that even considered widening US 31 had a beltway attached to it (the
Bayvlew bypass, C-4).

Yet MDOT stated several times at public meetings that they would given the community that
option. Let's hold them to their word!

A group of us have been meeting regularly to fashion an “existing roads“ alternative to present
to MDOT. The plan we came up with involves:

* Widening US 31 and US 131 to 4 lanes (where it is not already that wide).

* Leave Bay View at 3 lanes (historic protection)

* Open up Howard and Atkins Roads for local traffic

* Upgrade River Road to ease congestion from the main highways

* Incorporate various Traffic Demand Management and Transportation Systems
Management ideas into the broad plan (this would include such things as traffic lights,
left turn lanes, buses, bike paths, ride-share lots, possibly a ferry boat to take people
from Petoskey to Harbor Springs, etc.)

We think MDOT has the whole plan backwards: MDOT suggests building a new road (beltway)
that would destroy homes, farms, wetlands, and businesses for the benefit of 16% of the traffic
that is termed “through" traffic, traffic that has no intention of stopping in our community! We
say let those 16% of vehicles go on through on existing US 31 and US 131. Instead, let‘s upgrade
existing side roads for local traffic. The "scenic parkway” MDOT plans would only be scenic to
those driving on It -- the people who want to bypass Petoskey anyway! Why should we destroy
our way of life and our greenbeits and open spaces to give these folks a view on their way
through?

What can you do? Write to MDOT and ask them to go back and analyze the ”existing
roads" option -- without any beltway. Feel free to remind them that they promised to do
this but didn't. Even if you already submitted comments on the beltway, there is no limit
to the number of times you can submit comments. But you only have until September
26th, so please jot a note TODAY. if they get hundreds ‘of letters asking for a new
alternative, it will be hard for them to ignore.

titanium

' Bear Creek Township has gone on record as opposing a beltway

" Resort Township has gone on record as opposing a beltway

" A group of us have a meeting in Lansing on September 22 with the Director of MDOT
to present the above plan

" The Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council Board of Directors adopted a position opposing
all of MDOT's alternatives due to excessive water resource impacts

Please help! Write to: Mr. Philip Chisholm, MDOT, P.O. Box 30050, Lansing, MI 48909
before September 26.

We also need financial assistance to keep the work going“ please read the letter from
Dr. Tanton on the Inside cover of this mailing. And THAN S FOR YOUR EFFORTSI

Source: US, Inc, 1998

 

 

 

0003232020
003.. m0..0<0 2....30 >000. m0..20<

2.3.... .2 - > 303320.... 0....0 00..20< 2... 00 00038 030 3.0<03.
00<0.033.03..

.8 50 2.83.30... 003.. 0. ....0303030..03 .2503... 0 303.23.. .088 .0
0 83008300 02.000 3.3320< 030 300 305.33 .0 00 2.5 3.0<033c
00330.08. 008833030 0.03 50 305 0. 0 302 .000. .. .0 2.00.<
0050280300 0< 2.00... 030 .000. 3830.0 50. 3.08333 00<0.03.

303. 0.033 0 0<3000 EEK». S0233. 300.30. 030 030.33
0 00_.20< 2... 30. 00 0333.33 ..30 0 .30.x20<.. 0.3030300.

 

2.5.... an - > m<3000 2... 00 3000 .0. ..0033030...

._.30 .300. 0005.. 030 ..0. 0005. 0<3000 0.633030 03.03 ..0..8 020<
..03 0.00.33 000300000. >03 03< 8.0.8. 23050. 0003000 2... 00
30.00000 0< 80.80.33 80830.0 020< ..03 03 00.00..03303. >
0<3000 2... 00303.< 0.03.000 030 .08008 000.300000. 00. 30x33

3080x0< 0 DEED... .050. .303 0 3000 Eb 003 03.<

00 000 8. 000.3000 .3 0 .023 2.5 03 000303< 00000 03 80303.

2.2.... ..u - >30. 0 0<3000 .0 00.... .30 0023023 003 00
.000330080 2.... .30 208133..

...3.0 3.300.003 0. 0<3000 3.0303030 .0 30.0 .0300<. ..30 0.00.33
305 0. cm 0. 2... 003.300 .0 00..< .30 00... 0. 50 ..038 0.8. 0 0<3000
.0 0030.30.00. 0000.033 .0 200.... 0000000 300. 0. 50 3030.0. ..0...0
.0...008.0. :30 20330.3 2.83.303 100330.. 3080.8...0 0023823
0003000 0.030.. .30 308030.. 20.03.03. 030 w0< <82 0.0 .00080
0.033 ..0 305.

23...: .3 - 3.30 003030 0 0<3000 0000 .0 8.30. 30300. 000.-
300000. 2000300. <.020. 0.0.. .0 03088008 .. 20 0.0.0 00.<0 .30
0.02.0 3.00.03.

.3 .30.. 00 303 0.50 03<..033030. .3300. 0.0.0303. .0. 50 m0<
<82 3.3323. 3.0.00... 2.00... 0.0.00 50.0 2.00333 0. 0.00.33 cm 0.
.0 .00. .0300 200.0 00.<0 30.00x0<.0 ..0..8 30000 .0. .30 50.0.0.0.
H30. 0030 <00.. 50< 3.0080 00.833 0 0<3000 00 0 00.0..03 .050
83300.83 03 cm 0.. 5.0033 m0< <82 008000 0. 030803.00? 3.33
3300.0 .3 8.0.83 .050 03003. 0. =38 .30. 200.0 00 020300 .0 0
302 .000. .308 0.0 <0.< 20300.0 0..0.30..<00 .0 2.00.10 0<300000
50. 303030 00. ..0303030..03 30000 030 3.00020 50 030.008. 030
300...< 0. _..0 .3 00. 003303.?

2.5.... 0 m - 5.0 003 ..00. 2.00... .0 008.330 230..0 000. .0. 00..
0.00.

00. 300.8 00203.0 0. 2.00... 0.0 3000 .000 00:00.0. ...30< 0.0 30.
3000 0.003 38330.0. 50.030000. 03533303088 0. 000.3000
3003.0. ...30< 0.0 30. 30300.0 0. 00. 003303..<. 3.30 0<3000 0.63-
303.0 3.030000 0< .300... 0.0 .3 0033.0. 2.5 .30 302 O..<-0003.<
2.00.0. 3.03 00 0.0.80 0< 0013060833030. 3.0333 0.003. 00.
.023 .0 0..000< .0380 .m5 03033 .30 .30 000. 030.. .0230 .3

230.80. 0 0<3000 2... 000..0< .30 .03. 030.008. 030 300...< 0. _..0 .30.

303.0 5.0 .0333...

23...... 00 - :6 30.2.... o. :5 .33... o: 00 0. .0 5.20.... .33...
.30. 000.0 00 030300 .0 0 0<3000. .00<.33 cm 0. .0. .30 ...000.0...
03.33 030 000.3083 0.00.00 3.0<0 50.0. 800.00.... 0.50 ..0...0 03
cm a. .0 .000. ..038 2.5 03 033.3 0. 00030.83 2.5.3 50 3080.8<
0.00. O3.< .0.... .0 5.0033 ..0...0. 030 .. .0 0 00303.< 50. 303< 0.
5000 0..<0.0 200.0 030000 .30 30.0 0003.0 2083.03. .008 0<03 ..
50.0 200 03 0..0.30..<0.

35.... 23 .. 3.30.0.0 30.3.33 <00 003 00 I 2.00... .0 30.30 .0 00:0
230.0<0. .30.. 203. .0 03<20<.

...3.0 003 03.< 303303 .. 50 30.032 0. 80.0030 0..02 .. .0 303303.
1030.000 0. 3003.0 230 0.83000 .30 300.8 100.33 .3 >500. 030.8

00. 030 0.0 3o<3c 8 3.00020 .30 823 20 .08 0< 00.83.. 003003000 ..

0.0030 ..0303030..03 3.03000_0 50.0.0 .3 30.303< 2.5 00. 0003<
300.0. 3.03.

<00 003 3200300 50.30. 00.0030 .3 5.00 20<0u

.. .238 0. 00.. <00. 0003... 833.00.030.. 0..< 00.30.80.003. 030 0003< 030 0..< .,

3.03333 0033808308 0308.. .303 230. <00 53...

M. 2.0.. <00. 0033030 03.30 3.030000 0<3000 0.833030 .0 2.00... 300030.300 .

0.. M03830... mm.

a. 00.3 00 0< 0030.33 .3 <00. 0300... .0 00330.. 00. 0.830. 003.33 38.30.83 00. .

.050 300.8 903 30. 03030.8 030 <00. 0030.830 0.0 .0.. 00000.88.

.33.... 3000030 3.00 0.0033. .0 <0: 0v. 3. 0.02.3 0.... 003.0330... 3.0.0... 00 30. <00 03 00
3.0.3.0.. 033 303308 3 .30 3.00000.

00 <0: 20... .0 00 .33. 3.0.300 0000. .30 003203
2030
.8033
0..... 0.0.0. N...
33030.0
0 m308000 .0 0 0030.83 0. u 8 30.3 2.5 0.830 .0 3.0.3 50 300.8

0000.50 3.030000 00..20< 3.080..
2.0... .0 033.3 m 03.0.0330... 30.0.... 03 QM 22.030... he... 0. 3.0.0023. 2.. 0330.
2.0.8 300.8 3.3008 .0 0.025 003 02.0.0330... 3.03.3. 003300.830 0.0 80.08.0000...

 

 

 

 

 

 

.i‘l'llll’l l .l .lllllllllillllllllurl'lil'l

0 ~ °
__._ —__ -A.-_- -_—____.

\~

Source: US. Inc.. 199}

:LMNW-Wtfifia' ~

lllllllllllmlllHlllllllllUIIHIINllllllll}HIIIIIIHIIIHII

31293 02625 5012

 

E‘-