[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
TRImCOMMUNITY COMPRENE-NSIVE P wgz 07@ ai.@IIM LAN Prepared By The Tri-Community Area Joint Planning Committee JOINT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CITY OF SAUGATUCK, SAUGATUCK TOWNSHIP,'AND VILLAGE OF DOUGLAS Prepared by the Tri-Community Area Joint Planning Committee in cooperation with: In Coastal Zone Management Program :VE Land and Water Management Division Department of Natural Resources and with the assistance of-. Planning & Zoning Center, Inc. 302 S. Waverly Road Lansing, MI 48917 (517) 886-0555 November 1989 This document was prepared in part throughfitnancial assistance provided by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration authorized by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. US Department of Commerce NOAA Coastal Services Center Libruy 2M South Hobson Avenue SC 29405-2413 Viefollowirig individuals partic1pated in the preparation of this plan: JOINT PLANNING COMUTTEE Debra Quade, Linda Kinnamon, Mike Esposito, Margaret Sanford, Terry Bums, Carole Schreckengust, and Frank Pluta. VILLAGE OF DOUGLAS Planning Commission Kendal Showers, Erwin Kasten, Kathy Johnson, Debra Quade, Cheryl Giller, John Haas, Bill Schroeder, Betty Mokma, Philip Walter, and William Campion*. Village Council Mike Esposito, Embrit Giles, Debra Quade, Kendal Showers, Dean Johnson, George Baker, Pat Shanahan, Joe Brady, William Campion*, and Jane Mayer*. CITY OF SAUGATUCK Planning Commission Cynthia McKean, Ernest Evangelista, Robert Lord, Dan Wilson, Don Wobith, Lloyd Hartman, Richard Crawford, Robert Berger, and Elsie Christenson. City Council Robert Berger, Mark Bekken, David Mocini, James Christenson*. Sue Kurrasch, Richard Crawford, Margaret Sanford, and Linda Kinnaman. City Manager Laverne Seme SAUGATUCK TOWNSIHP Planning Commission Andy Jager, Frank Pluta, Gene Olsen, Herb Klernm*, Terry Locatis, Rex Felker, Robert Miller, and Jean Vanderberg. Township Board Terry Bums, Carole Schreckengust. Patricia Birkholz, Frank Pluta, Mary Lou Novak, and Tom Murdoch*. 1* no longer serving] PLANNING & ZONING CENTER, INC. Staff of Ptanning & Zoning Center, Inc. who assisted with the preparation of this plan are: Mark A- Wyckoff (President), Kristine M. Williams (Community Planner), Tlmothy J. McCauley (Community Planner/ Geographic Information System Specialist), William Bogle (Graphic Artist), Carolyn Freebury (Office Manager), and John Warbach (Environmental Planner). Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF MAPS LIST OF TABLES MRODUCTION .............................................................................................. i Chapter I GOALS, OBJECTIVES & POLICIES: THE AREAWIDE POLICY PLAN ..................................................................... 1-1 Chapter 2 DEMOGRAPHICS ......................................................................................... 2-1 Chapter 3 THEECONOMY ............................................................................................ 3-1 Chapter 4 NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE ENVIRONMENT ....................................... 4-1 Chapter 5 EXISrnNG LAND COVER AND USE ............................................................... 5-1 Chapter 6 PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ............................................................ 6-1 Chapter 7 RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ................................................................. 7-1 Chapter 8 WATERFRONT .............................................................................................. 8-1 Chapter 9 GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT TRENDS ..................................................... 9-1 Chapter 10 FUTURE I-AND USE .................................................................................... 10-1 Chapter 1 .1 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ..................................................... 11-1 Chapter 12 STRATEGIES FOR IMPLEMENTA71ON ......................................................... 12-1 APPENDIX A References APPENDIX B Demographic, Economic and Housing Data APPEIVDJX C Public Opinion Survey Responses APPENDIX D Soil Types - Tri-Community Area Tri-Community Comprehensive PLan LIST OF FIGURES NUAMER T17LE PAGE 2.1 Age Cohorts (1960 & 1980) - Area 2-1 2.2 Age Cohorts (1980) - Village of Douglas 2-2 2.3 Age Cohorts (1980) - Allegan County 2-2 2.4 Age Cohorts (1980) - City of Saugatuck 2-2 2.5 Age Cohorts (1980) - Saugatuck Township 2-2 2.6 Educational Background in 1980 - Persons 25 2-3 and Over, Tri-Community Area 2.7 Saugatuck Public School Enrollments 2-4 Grades K- 12 2.8 Saugatuck Public School Enrollments 2-4 Elementary and High Schools 3. IL Employment By Sector in 1980 - Tri-Community 3-2 Area and Allegan County 3.2 Average Annual Employment - Tri-Community Area 3-4 3.3 Monthly Employment - Tri-Commnity Area, 1988 3-4 3.4 Tourism Related Employment, 1988 - Allegan 3-4 County 3.5 Real Property SEV, 1988 - City of Saugatuck 3-5 3.6 Real Property SEV. 1988 - Saugatuck Township 3-5 and Village of Douglas 3.7 Annual Real Property SEV - Tri-Community 3-6 Area (1980-1987) 3.8 Percent In Poverty By Age - Tri-Community 3-7 Area (1980) 4. IL Kalamazoo River Basin 4-2 S. 1 Linkage Plan 8-7 9.1 Subdivision Trends - Changes From 1954-1984 9-2 9.2 Retiree Migration Trends 9-2 9.3 Population Trend - Saugatuck Township 9-3 Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan LIST OF MAPS NUMBER TI= PAGE 2.1 School District (note: all maps arefound at the end of each Chapter) 4.1 Topography 4.2 Watercourses 4.3 Floodplains, 4.4 Wetlands 4.5 Basement Limitations 4.6 Septic Limitations 4.7 Septic Limitations 4.7a On-Site Wastewater Limitations 4.8 Most Suitable Soils 4.9 Hydric Soils 4.10 Prime Farmlands 4.11 Groundwater Vulnerability 4.12 Water Wells 4.13 High Risk Erosion Areas 4.14 Critical Dune Areas 4.15 Woodlands 5.1 Land Use/Cover 5.2 Fodsting Land Use By Parcel 5.3 PA 116 and Unique Farmlands 6. 1 Water System 6.2 Sewer System 6.3 Gas Mains 6.4 Street Classifications 6.5 Act 51 Roads 6.6 Public Facilities 7. 1 Outdoor Recreation Sites 7.2 Bike Paths 8.1 Watersheds 8.2 No-Wake Areas 8.3 Saugatuck Harbor 8.4 Marinas 8.5 Street Ends/Parks 8.5a Street Ends/Parks 10. 1 Future Land Use 10.2 Entry Points Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan LIST OF TABLES NUMBER TITLE PAGE 2.1 Population (1950-1980) 2-1 2.2 Educational Status - Persons 25 and Over 2-3 2.3 School Enrollments - Saugatuck School District 2-4 3. IL Impact of Travel On Allegan County, 1986 3-1 3.2 Major Employers 3-1 3.3 Employment By Industry - 1980 3-2 3.4 Employment By Occupation - 1980 3-3 3.5 Average Annual Unemployment Rate 3-6 3.6 Per Capita Income, Allegan County 3-7 3.7 Income and Poverty Characteristics 3-7 Tri-Community Area 4. 1 Summary of Relevant Climate Conditions 4-1 4.2 Land Cover Codes for Protected Wetlands 4-3 5. IL Existing Land Use 5-1 5.2 State Historic Sites 5-2 6.1 Non-Park Public Facilities and Public 6-2 Property Inventory 6.2 Projected Saugatuck Township Wastewater Flows 6-4 6.3 County Drains 6-5 6.4 Existing Traffic Counts 6-6 6.5 Tons Generated per Day By Land Use 6-8 6.6 Solid Waste Composition 6-9 6.7- Per Capita Waste Generated 6-9 7. IL Summer Recreation Programs 7-1 7.2 Inventory of Outdoor Recreation 7-2 7.3 Parkland Inventory 7-4 7.4 Proposed Recreation Projects - Tri-Community 7-6 Area 7.5 Planned Acquisitions/ Improvements to Parks and 7-7 Open Spaces 7.6 Recreation Needs In The Tri-Community Area 7-7 1988 Public Opinion Survey 8.1 Kalamazoo River Exceedance Flows (1929-1985) 8-2 8.2 Kalamazoo River Water Quality 8-3 8.3 NPDES Pern-Ats Issured In The Tri-Community Area 8-5 8.4 Lake Michigan Lake Levels 8-5 9.1 Rate of Population Change 9-1 9.2 Projected Population - 1970-1980 Trend 9-3 9.3 Projected Number of Households 9-3 9.4 Percentage of Population By Density Type 9-4 9.5 New Households By Density lype 9-4 9.6 Future Residential Land Needs 9-4 9.7 Available Acreage By Land Use lype 9-4 9.8 Population 2010 - Build-Out Scenario Under 9-4 Zoning In Effect 12.1 Recreation Facilities - Minimum Size 12-4 INTRODUCTION support for the achievement of the following OVERVEEW public objectives, among others: The purpose of this Plan is to provide a - to conserve and protect property values by policy and decision making guide regarding all preventing incompatible uses from locat- future land and infrastructure development ing adjacent to each other: within the tri-community area. Within the Plan, - to protect and preserve the natural re- key planning issues are identified; a clear set of sources, unique character, and environ- goals and policies are outlined: future land uses mental quality of the area; are described and mapped; and specific imple- - to maintain and enhance the employment mentation measures are recommended. and tax base of the area; All future land uses and policies presented - to promote an orderly development process in this Plan were developed based on a blending by which public officials and citizens are of the natural capability of the land to sustain given an opportunity to monitor change certain types of development: the important nat- and review proposed development; and ural functions played by unique land and water - to provide information from which to gain resources in the area; the relative future need a better understanding of the area, its for residential, commercial, and industrial uses; interdependencies and interrelationships the existing land use distribution; and the de- and upon which to base future land use sires of local residents and public officials as and public investment decisions. expressed through direct interviews a public opinion survey, town meetings, and public hear- This Plan is unique in that it was conceived ings. of and prepared with the full and equal partici- This Plan was prepared by the Planning & pation of representatives of Saugatuck, Douglas Zoning Center, Inc., under the direction of a and Saugatuck Township. More importantly, Joint Planning Committee with three represen- each of the individual community comprehen- tatives each from the City of Saugatuck, the sive plans were prepared in light of the issues, Village of Douglas and Saugatuck Township. problems and opportunities that the three com- Financial support was provided by the Michigan munities face together, rather than being done Dept. of Natural Resources, Coastal Zone Man- in isolation as is more frequently the norm. agement Program. This Plan represents a com- While a Joint Planning Committee oversaw the pilation of the most significant aspects of the production of this plan, the individual planning individual comprehensive plans for the partici- commissions and legislative bodies of the three pating communities, with the addition of special communities were directly Involved in the prep- emphasis on intexjurisdictional issues (espe- aration of those plans. Chapter 11 proposes that cially see Chapters 8 and 11). the Joint Planning Committee be continued and There are three critical components to that this Plan be updated at a minimum of every using this plan as a decision making guide. five to ten years. First, are the goals, objectives and policies in Chapter 1. Second, is the future land use map The contents of this Plan and the three and associated descriptive information pre- individual plans draw directly from planning sented in Chapter 10. Third, is the supporting documents previously adopted by the individual documentation found in Chapters 2-9. jurisdictions. There has been no effort made to Although this Plan states specific land use explicitly footnote when material has been used. development policy and proposes specific land Instead it is intended that the contents of those use arrangements, it has no regulatory power. documents continue to carry forward where it is prepared as a foundation for and depends they were found to be helpful in addressing the primarily on the individual zoning ordinances current and projected issues facing the tri-com- (and other local tools) of the tri-communities for munity area. In particular, the Village of Doug- its implementation. This Plan is intended as las Land Use Plan of 1986 and the Phase 1 1979 planning report of the (then) Village of Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Saugatuck were frequently relied upon in draft- citizens of the three entities. Even many neigh- ing portions of all three plans. A number of borhoods have strong separate identities (e.g. engineering and technical documents prepared the hill, the lakeshore, Silver Lake, etc.). This by outside consultants over the past decade provides an important richness and depth to the have also been relied upon. They are referenced area, but it can also be politically divisive. in Appendix A Second, tourism is the primary engine driv- ing the local economy. Despite several industrial SPATIAL LOCATION employers that provide important diversity to the area's economy, it is the dollars brought in The maps on the following page show the by tourists and seasonal residents that fuel location of Saugatuck, Douglas and Saugatuck most of the local wages and local purchasing. Township on the shores of Lake Michigan. This The environmental splendor and wide range of location along 1- 196 makes them easily accessi- activities open to tourists are the primary attrac- ble to travelers from across North America. The tion. But no less significant is the small town shoreline along the Kalamazoo River, Lake character of the area. This character, often de- Kalamazoo, and Lake Michigan and the beauti- scribed as "cute" or "quaint" by tourists, is ful sand dunes and wide beaches make this a highly favored by tourists and deeply cherished tourist mecca and an attractive place for retire- by local citizens. As a result, any intensive or ment. poorly planned alterations to the natural envi- The trade area for commercial businesses ronment. or homogenization of the character of in the three communities is quite small. Local the individual communities is likely to have a residents tend to only do daily and weekly shop- potentially negative effect on both tourists and ping locally as Holland, Grand Rapids, and residents. This Plan proposes keeping the scale Kalamazoo are nearby for wider selections of and intensity of such future changes low and consumer goods. Three school districts serve the proposes a variety of mitigation techniques to area but the largest number of students within prevent adverse Impacts on the environment or the planning area attend the Saugatuck School on the character of the area from these kinds of District. changes. Third, a balance of future land uses is KEY FACTORS GUIDING THIS PLAN necessary to enhance the stability of the com- Three considerations played prominent munity during poor economic times and to roles in fashioning the contents of this plan broaden the population base. Presently there is These are based on widely held public opinions' a significant lack of housing in the area that is past and present investment by public and pri' affordable for families with children. That, in vate entities and a growing recognition among concert with a decline in children generally (and citizens of the interdependence of the three com- an increase in the elderly) has severely impacted munities. the Saugatuck School District. If all future land First, the three communities function as a use decisions were made based exclusively on single economic, and social unit. Many people minimal alteration of the natural environment live in one of the three communities and work or maintenance of the existing community char- in another of the three. Most people live in one acter. then over time, the community would and shop with some frequency in another. become more vulnerable to economic downturn, School children, by in large, attend the same which usually hits tourist communities very schools. Local cultural, conservancy and retiree hard. Thus, a balance must be sought between activities arejointly supported by residents of all what otherwise become competing goals (eco- three communities. Several public services are nomic development and environmental protec- jointly provided including the Interurban bus tion/community character). This will present a service, sewer and water (at least between Doug- serious challenge in the future. The pressure las and Saugatuck) and fire protection. The will be great to "sell the farm" for developments Kalamazoo River and Lake Kalamazoo connect which promise new jobs/tax base. And while all three communities, as do the local road these are important, the long term impact of network. Sometimes it seems, only the three such proposals (in a particular location) could units of government are separate. Yet despite be very negative and not worth the tradeoff. All these interrelationships, each community main- such decisions need to be made primarily based tains a strong separate identity among many on long term considerations, rather than short term ones. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan Kent County Ottawa County Grand RapICIS Holland Allegan County Barry County Van Buren County Gmazoo Kalamazoo -County TRI-COMMUNITY IG Tri-community Comprehenswe Plan AV MAPS levels at the time the inventory or survey was conducted. We have 'corrected" the DNR/USGS Except as otherwise noted, all the full page base map to include Silver Lake, which Is merely maps presented in this Plan were produced shown as a wetland (not an open water body) on using C-Map software. This is a PC based com- USGS maps. A transparency can easily be made puter program initiated by William Enslin, Man- by photocopying any of these maps in order to ager of the Center for Remote Sensing at overlay several levels of information. Using C- Michigan State University. All the data on the Map on a color monitor. up to ten levels of maps was digitized either by Tim McCauley of information can be overlaid on the screen at the Planning & Zoning Center. Inc. or was once, Including "zooming" in on any area fimt downloaded from the Michigan Resource Inven- (e.g. as would be desirable when examining a tory Program (MRIP) database maintained on specific parcel). the State's mainframe computer system by the While the accuracy of all of this data is very Department of Natural Resources. satisfactory for land use planning purposes (es- Several advantages are realized by comput- pecially when contrasted with traditional tech- erizing this data. Typically, geographic informa- niques), none of it is sufficiently detailed to be tion is only available on paper maps at widely absolutely reliable at the parcel level. As a result, varying scales, which makes it difficult to com- detailed site analyses of soils, topography, pare data sets for planning purposes. With C- drainage, etc. are still necessary anytime spe- Map, all of the maps can be viewed and printed cific site designs are being prepared. at any scale via a variety of different media (color All computerized data is on file locally and plotter, laser or ink jet printer, or dot matrix accessible via C-Map for local use and updating. printer). Information can also be combined (or Contact the zoning administrator or clerk for overlaid) so that composite maps can be created further information. and compared in a fraction of the time and expense normally required to obtain the same results. Another ma or advantage of computer j mapping is the ability to update maps continu- ously, so that an up-to-date map is always available. There are three different base maps that have been used in mapping this information: 1) a base map prepared by the DNR which was digitized from the United States Geological Sur- vey (USGS) topographic map series for the area; 2) a lot line map created by digitizing the lots of record used for assessing purposes in the three communities; and 3) a soils base map derived from the SCS Allegan County Soil Survey. None of these base maps are exactly identical as they originate from different sources. All of the land cover and use based information and topogra- phy is keyed to the DNR/USGS base map. All of the soils related data is keyed to the soils base (which was interpreted and mapped by the SCS from nonrectified aerial photos, so there Is some distortion at the edges of each photo frame). The existing land use, sewer and water line maps are keyed to the lot line base map. A transparent copy of the DNR/USGS base map and the lot line base map follow. These can be overlaid on any of the maps in this Plan, but the "fit" will be best when overlaying information that it was used as the base for. Please note that the extent of the Kalamazoo River on each base is noticeably different and is related to the water Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan SSOTH AVF4 Oarm M. AV /3 2 SWH as r, 'OlAll 5 1"TH &V"TMK 9 10 1 zi Avr. CAh"MUL no KALAM 87: PO@G-S 17 9AYOU 15 14 13 0 KALAMAZO u to 0 20 A111 a 23 21 2 CWTM AVI@S_ :0 .......... 25 27 Av, 26 29 28 MYTH .................. UOTH AVC. . ........... 33 34@ 135 36 32 T3N,R 16W Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan V Avg. taw" M. A,. 3 2 9 0A MST*4 a Is- AV &VJGAT= ST Vis"D Avg. 8 --.AZOO -..E 87; I OAYOU 17 14 13 <L 0;OTNiAV r- \AKALAMAZO uc 0 .22 a 11 20 @3 - I.#-- -MOTH LV-1 @s 6 4 23 21 2 awmm Avg; tawr" ^vK' 29 28 27 127T" Avi 2 6 25 2 P. lawTH Avg. C, 34@ 32 33 35 36 .. T 3 N,R 16W 3 Tri-Conununity Comprehensive Plan IH :;I ill A rml LI EG Mm L g Chapter 1 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, & POLICIES: THE AREAWIDE POLICY PLAN G oals, objectives, and policies are the foun- pants were asked to imagine how they would like dation of a comprehensive plan. They ad- their community to be in the year 2000. Partic- dress the key problems and opportunities of a ipants were separated into groups and asked to community and help establish a direction and prepare of list of "prouds" and "sorries" in their strategies for future community development community, and things from the past which and growth. Goals establish general direction, they would like to preserve. The lists were com- objectives represent tasks to be pursued, and pared and then all engaged in an imaging exer- policies are decision guides. The goals, objec- cise where groups were established according to tives, and policies embodied in this plan were topic area and were asked to imagine that ele- prepared through an extensive process of lead- ment of their community in the year 2000. This ership surveys, public opinion surveys, meet- futuring process identified key issues and com- ings with local officials, and areawide town munity elements which were pulled together to meetings. form a vision and direction for the tri-commu- The first step in this process was a survey nity area in the year 2000. of area leaders- including members of each A draft policy plan, with defined goals and planning commission, elected officials. promi- objectives, was then prepared based on this nent members of the private sector, and other futuring process and the survey results. The citizens identified in the individual surveys. 'draft was refined through a series of meetings Leaders were asked their views on the major with area officials and then presented to area problems and opportunities facing their juris- citizens in a second town meeting. Citizen com- diction and the tri-community area, and the ments were reviewed by officials from each com- results were tabulated and presented to each munity and incorporated into the policy plan. local government. These results served as the Following completion of the draft policy basis for initiating a public opinion survey. plan. data and trends in the tri-community area Citizen views on areawide planning issues were analyzed. This analysis supported the di- were obtained through public opinion surveys rection of the policy plan and was first evaluated mailed to every property owner in the tri-com- by the joint planning committee and individual munity area and distributed in each rental com- planning commissions, and then by area citi- plex. Survey questions were prepared for each zens at the third town meeting. Next, key ele- jurisdiction through consultations with theJoint ments of the plan and proposed strategies to planning committee and each individual plan- carry It out were first reviewed by the joint ning commission. Dr. Brent Steel, Oakland Uni- planning committee, and then by area citizens versity, conducted and tabulated the survey. at the fourth and final town meeting. The response rate of 51% in Saugatuck, Thus, the broad based input of area offi- 47% in Douglas, and 38% in Saugatuck Town- cials, leaders, and citizens, plus detailed analy- ship was very high considering the length (about sis of local trends and land use characteristics 1 hour completion time) and type of survey and have formed the goals, objectives, and policies thus responses represent the majority view in that comprise the policy portion of this compre- each community. Most respondents were home- hensive plan. These joint goals and policies will owners in their mid-fifties, registered to vote, serve as a guide for land use and infrastructure who are long-term residents and plan to live in decisions in Saugatuck Township, the City of the area for ten or more years. Survey results Saugatuck, and the Village of Douglas. With are shown in Appendix A. time, some elements may need to be changed, Results of the citizen opinion survey and others added, and still others removed from the leadership survey were used to identify issues list. Before amendatory action is taken, how- for discussion at the first town meeting. This ever, the impact of the proposed changes should meeting was a "futuring" session where partici- Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 1-2 be considered comprehensively in relation to the growth patterns and for consistency with the entire plan. goals, objectives, and policies of this plan. These joint goals and policies are premised on a pledge by Saugatuck Township, the City of Policy: Consider the impact of land use Saugatuck and the Village of Douglas to mutu- planning and zoning changes on the otherjuris- ally cooperate in guiding future development to diction(s), and discuss proposed changes with advance a common vision. It is intended that the affected Jurisdiction(s) prior to making such they be consulted when considering future land changes. A common procedure for such commu- use decisions that affect the interests of more nication. shall be established and followed. than one jurisdiction. L&ND USE & COMMUNITY FACUXrIES COMMUMTY CHARACTER Goal: Promote the balanced. efficient, and Goal: Preserve the established character of economical use of land in a manner which min- neighborhoods within each jurisdiction. imizes land use conflicts within and across mu- nicipal borders, and provides for a wide range of Policy: Encourage architectural and site de- land uses In appropriate locations to meet the sign that complements, rather than detracts diverse needs of area residents. from existing development on neighboring par- cels. Policy: Insure compatible land use planning and zoning across municipal borders and rnini- Policy: Encourage the preservation and res- mize land use conflicts by separating incompat- toration of historically significant structures. ible uses and requiring buffers where necessary. Policy: Preserve the character of the area by Policy: Discourage sprawl and scattered de- encouraging land uses and densities/intensities velopment through planned expansion of roads of development which are consistent with and and public utilities and through zoning regula- complement the character, economic base, and tions which limit intensive development to areas image of the area. where adequate public services are available. Policy: Manage the trees liriing streets in the Policy: Provide for necessary community City and Village to provide a continuous green facilities (e.g. schools, garages, fire halls, etc.) canopy and plant trees along Blue Star Highway consistent with adopted land use plans and and maintain them along other roads in the capital improvement programs. Township. Policy: Encourage approaches to site design GROWTH which take natural features of the property, such as soils, topography, hydrology, and natu- Goal: Guide development in a manner ral vegetation, Into account and which use the which is orderly, consistent with the planned land most effectively and efficiently by maximiz- expansion of public services and facilities, and ing open space, preserving scenic vistas, con- strives to preserve the scenic beauty, foster the serving energy, and pursuing any other public wise use of natural resources, protect environ- policies identified in this plan. mentally sensitive areas. and enhance the spe- cial character of each community. Policy: Advise developers during site plan review to contact the State Archaeologist. Bu- Policy: Encourage development in locations reau of History (517-373-6358) to determine if which are consistent with the capacity of exist- the project may affect a known archaeological Ing and planned public services and facilities, site. and are cost effective in relation to service ex- tensions. AGRICULTURE Policy: Review all plans by other public Goal: Maintain a variety of agricultural op- entities for expansion and Improvement of exist- erations and promote the preservation of exist- ing road and street networks for impacts on Ing farms and farmland through coordinated Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 1-3 planning and development regulations public incentives, and educational strategies. Policy: Promote better communication and cooperation between the public and private sec- Policy: Discourage the conversion of prime tor. agricultural land to other uses. Policy: Discourage spot development of CONMMERCIAL non-agricultural activities in agricultural areas Goal: Encourage the development of com- to preserve the economic viability of farming and mercial land uses in appropriate locations maintain the rural character of the area. in which serve the current and future needs of particular, residential development lining residents and tourists, are of a character con- county roads in agricultural areas, that is unre- sistent with community design guidelines, and lated to agricultural activities, shall not be per- which promote public safety through prevention niitted. of traffic hazards and other threats to public health, safety, and general welfare. Objective: Encourage farmers on lands well suited to agriculture to enroll their property in Policy: Encourage new commercial develop- the Michigan Farmland Preservation Act, Act ment to locate adjacent to existing commercial 116 PA of 1974, as amended. areas. Objective: Encourage the expansion of spe- Policy: Encourage the design and location cialty farms and related activities which en- of neighborhood commercial centers in a man- hance the tourism and recreation potential of ner which complements and does not conflict the area (e.g "you pick", farmers markets, farm with adjoining residential areas. tours, etc.). Policy: Discourage unsafe and unsightly Objective: Promote agriculture through a strip commercial development through design variety of activities (such as farm tours, lectures, and landscaping requirements such as berms, farm week, etc.) which educate residents about planting, and shared access when possible. the importance of agriculture to the area. Policy: Avoid separate parking lots for each Policy: Discourage the establishment of business where feasible and encourage centrally high density livestock and poultry operations as placed lots which serve several businesses. inconsistent with the agricultural and resort character of the tri-community area. Policy: Encourage continued concentration of tourist oriented businesses in Saugatuck, general commercial businesses in Douglas, and ECONOWC DEVELOPNFNT highway service activities at the highway inter- Goal: Strengthen and expand upon the changes. Relocation of existing general business area's economic base through strategies which activities along Blue Star Highway should be attract new businesses. strengthen existing discouraged. businesses, and enhance the tourism potential of the area. DMUSTRLAL Policy: Identify potential sites for industrial Goal: Increase the amount of non-polluting development and alternative means of financing light industry in the area without damaging the necessary public improvements and marketing envirorunent, spoiling the scenic beauty of the of the sites (i.e. tax increment financing, special area, or overburdening local roads, utilities, or assessments, state grants and loans, etc.) other public services. Policy: Support efforts to foster tourism by Policy: Encourage new industries to locate preserving the scenic beauty of the environ- contiguous to existing industrial areas and in ment, expanding recreation opportunities, im- locations with e--dsting or planned sewer, water, proving tourist attractions, and preparing electric, and solid waste disposal services to promotional materials which highlight the at- minimize service costs and negative impacts on tractions of each community. other land uses. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 1-4 Policy: Identify appropriate locations for plant and wildlife species. and other character- small industrial parks which conform to the istics deemed significant. design guidelines contained in this plan, indi- vidual community plans, and local zoning regu- Policy: Devise regulations for land develop- lations. ment in special environments which permit de- velopment in a manner consistent with Policy: Implement site plan requirements identifted protection objectives and which com- for light industries which are designed to incor- plement state and federal regulations for special porate generous amounts of open space, attrac- environments. tive landscaping, and buffering from adjacent non-industrial uses. Policy: Require development projects deemed appropriate in and adjacent to special Policy: Require the separation of industrial environments to mitigate any negative impacts sites from residential areas through buffers on such environments. made up of any combination of parking, com- mercial or office uses, parks, parkways, open Policy: Encourage acquisition of special en- space, or farmland. vironments of significant public value by public agencies or nonprofit conservancy organizations HOUSING/RESMEMrIAL for the purposes of preservation. Goal: Encourage a variety of residential types in a wide range of prices which are consis- WATERFRONT tent with the needs of a changing population Goal: Protect and enhance the natural aes- and compatible with the character of existing thetic values and recreation potential of all wa- residences in the vicinity. terfront areas for the enjoyment of area citizens. Policy: Explore alternative measures to re- Policy: Promote the preservation of open duce housing costs and make home ownership space and natural areas, as well as limited, more affordable, such as zoning regulations and carefully planned development along the other programs which are designed to reduce Kalamazoo River, Kalamazoo Lake, Silver Lake, the cost of constructing new housing. Goshom Lake, and Lake Michigan and connect- Ing streams, creeks, and drainageways to pro- Policy: Allow only quiet, low traffic, low tect and enhance the scenic beauty of these intensity home occupations in residential areas waterfront areas. to preserve the stability of existing neighbor- hoods. Policy: Some waterfront lands may be de- veloped to meet residential and commercial Policy: Provide street lights and sidewalks needs, enhance local tax base, and contribute in residential areas where there is a demon- to paying for local public service costs associ- strated need and according to the ability of ated with their use and development, consistent residents to finance such improvements. with environmental protection policies in this plan, where such development would contribute SPECLAL ENVIRONNOOTS & OPEN SPACE to local quality of life. Goal: Protect special environments and Policy: Maximize public access, both phys- open spaces, Including but not limited to sand ically and visually, by acquiring prime water- dunes, wetlands, and critical wildlife habitat, front open space whenever feasible. from the harmful effects of incompatible devel- opment activity by limiting the type and inten- Policy: Acquire scenic easements wherever sity of land development in those areas. public values dictate the maintenance of visual access to the waterfront and the property is not Policy: Identify development limitations on available for purchase. special environments through a tiered classifi- cation system which classifies these environ- Policy: Limit the height and intensity of new ments based on their value to the ecosystem, development along waterfront areas to preserve unique attributes, the presence of endangered Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 1-5 visual access and the natural beauty of the Policy: Retain. maintain, and improve all waterfront for the broader public. existing publicly owned parks so that they con- tinue to meet the diverse recreation needs of Policy: Explore the conversion of street ends area citizens and tourists. which abut waterbodies for use as safe public access to the water for fishing, viewing, and TRANSPORTATION launching of small water crafts. Goal: Maintain a safe, effective, and efficient Policy: Maintain a natural greenbelt along road and street network and Improve roads and the Kalamazoo River and its tributaries. streets to promote growth in a way that is con- sistent with land use goals, objectives and poli- cies. RECREATION Goal: Enhance the well-being of area resi- Policy: Implement traffic controls and de- dents by providing a variety of opportunities for sign features that will increase the efficiency and relaxation, rest, activity, and education through safety of major arterials, including but not lim- a well balanced system of private and public ited to: traffic signals, deceleration lanes, limit- park and recreational facilities and activities ing driveways, minimum standards for driveway located to serve identified needs of the area. spacing, uniform sign regulations, shared or alternate access, left and right turn lanes, and Objective: Identify and explore opportuni- speed limit adjustments. ties to cooperate with other jurisdictions and agencies, including Allegan County and the De- Goal: Encourage a wide variety of transpor- partment of Natural Resources Recreation Divi- tation means, such as walking, biking, and sion, on recreation projects which would benefit public transportation, to meet the diverse needs area residents and strengthen the tourism in- of area residents. dustry. Policy: Promote pedestrian and bike travel Objective: Examine the feasibility of, and through a coordinated network of bikepaths, establish if feasible. a jointly owned and oper- trails, and sidewalks. ated community center to serve residents of all ages in all three communities. Objective: Develop an areawide bikepath through local funds, grants and loans, and cap- Objective: Examine the feasibility of ex- ital improvement programming. panding low cost opportunities for public beach and campground facilities for area citizens with Policy: Promote regularly scheduled, afford- boat launching sites, bike paths, cross-country able, and dependable public transportation to ski trails, and docks for shore fishing. increase the mobility and quality of life of those who depend on public transportation. Objective: Develop a system of cross-coun- try ski trails together with the Village of Douglas, Objective: Encourage expansion of the in- the City of Saugatuck, and other Jurisdic- terurban system consistent with municipal tions/agencies if possible, through the use of means to finance the increased service and an local funds, grants and loans, and capital im- identified public need. provement programming. Objective: Investigate developing a joint WATER AND SEWER public marina and launch facility where federal Goal: Insure a safe and adequate water and state funding is available to assist with supply for the area which is eflIciently provided financing such a venture. and cost effective. Policy: Encourage local government partic- Policy: Provide a reliable supply of safe. ipation in activities designed to enhance the clean, and good-tasting drinking water. area's seasonal festivals. Policy: Minimize the potential for ground- water contamination through planning and zon- Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 1-6 ing which is consistent with the capacity and through the use of volunteers for assistance limitations of the land and available services. with household chores, personal care, and home repair to help them remain independent, Objective: Prepare and implement a plan for shorten hospital stays, and lower health care the carefully timed provision of sewer and water costs. service in the area consistent with the develop- ment goals and objectives of this plan. Policy: Support efforts to establish commu- nity day care center(s) to provide quality and Policy: Devise alternative mechanisms for affordable day care to working parents. financing sewer and water expansions which are financially sound and equitable. WASTE ALANAGEBEWr Objective: Investigate refashioning the Goal: Insure the safe, effective, and efficient Kalamazoo Lake Sewer and WaterAuthority into disposal of solid waste and other toxic sub- an independent authority, in order to insure stances. that the needs of area citizen's for quality utility services are met. Policy: Encourage the reduction of solid waste through recycling, composting, and Policy: Promote a joint agreement between waste-to-energy projects. the City of Saugatuck, Village of Douglas, and Saugatuck Township to include full participa- Policy: Manage disposal of solid waste and tion by each in the Kalamazoo Lake Sewer & location of solid waste facilities in accordance Water Authority. with the Allegan County Solid Waste Manage- ment Plan prepared under PA 641 of 1978. Policy: Insure that the expansion of sewer and water service into an area is consistent with Objective: Adopt regulations for on-site the planned intensity of land use for that area, storage and transportation of hazardous waste scheduled when affordable, and implemented which require: when necessary to meet an identified need in the - Secondary containment for on-site storage area rather than on a speculative basis. of hazardous waste; - No transfer of hazardous waste over open ground or water; POLICE, FIORE, & EMERGENCY SERVICES - Arrangements for inspection of, and mon- Goal: Provide police, fire, and emergency itoring underground storage tanks; services consistent with a public need and the - Existing underground storage tanks must ability to finance improvements for each of the provide spill protection around the fill pipe three jurisdictions. by 1988 in accordance with 1988 EPA standards; Policy: Consolidate police, fire, and emer- - All existing underground storage tanks gency services across the three communities must install leak detection systems within where possible to eliminate overlap in service 5 years in accordance with 1988 EPA stan- and expenditures and improve service delivery. dards. Objective: Evaluate the feasibility of 24 Objective: Encourage the development and hour medical service which serves all three ju- use of biodegradable containers. risdictions to be provided by a public or private entity. ENERGY Goal: Promote site design and building SOCIAL SERVICES which is energy efficient and encourage energy Goal: Those social services which are effi- conservation through good land use planning cient to provide at the local level should be and wise public building management. provided to meet the needs of area residents. Objective: Prepare energy guidelines or Objective: Explore the possibility of estab- standards which address landscaping, solar ac- lishing support programs for older adults cess, solar energy systems, sidewalks, subdivi- Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 1-7 sion layout, proximity to goods and services, etc., and encourage or implement these through zoning and subdivision regulations. Policy: Require developers to provide side- walks in appropriate locations through subdivi- sion regulations. Policy: Encourage higher density residen- tial development near areas with shopping and services to limit the number and length of trips generated from that development. Objective: Establish an educational pro- gram (i.e. "Energy Awareness Week") in cooper- ation with the local school system. Objective: Encourage the use of plumbing facilities and appliances which conserve water'. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 2-1 Chapter 2 DEMOGRAPMCS POPULATION SIZE seasonal and tourist population on local ser- vices. The population of the tri-community area has nearly doubled since 1950, reaching an FIGURE 2.1 estimated 3,900 people in 1986 according to U.S. Census population estimates. This repre- sents an 83% increase over the 1950 population, AGE COHORTS (1960 & 1980) and a 26% increase since 1970 (see Table 2. 1). AREA SEASONAL POPULATION P 17- The population of the each community in E 15- the tri-community area swells during the sum- R t3- C 11 mer when seasonal residents and tourists re- E turn. in 1980, census estimates show that 2 1% N 9- (442) of the tri-community area's total housing T 7- units were vacant, seasonal, and migratory. 5- Eighty-one percent of these seasonal/vacant 3 units were detached single family homes or 0-14 5-14 15-24 451U cottages. The vacant, seasonal, and migratory AGE GROUP units made up 14% of the Township's housing stock; 26% of the City's housing stock: and 23% of the Village's housing stock. HOUSEHOLDS AND An engineering study prepared by AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber for the Until recently, the average household size Kalamazoo Lake Sewer & Water Authority in the United States has continued to shrink, MLSWA) estimates that the total tri-community due to an aging population, higher divorce rates, area population is comprised of one-third sea- postponed marriages, and lower birth rates. in sonal residents and two-thirds permanent resi- keeping with state and national trends, the av- dents and that the weekend daytime population erage household size in the tri-community area during the summer is about 2,500 persons. declined, going from 2.98 in 1960 to 2.39 in Although sewer and water demand typically 1980. Smaller household size means a Igreater grows with population, the study found that number of households. If the average household demand for sewer and water in the tri-commu- size in 1960 held true today, there would be nity area increased about 30% between 1980- about 300 fewer individual households in the 1986, whereas population increased by an area. average of 20%. This reflects the impact of the TABLE 2.1, POPULATION (1950-1980) COMMUNny 1950 1960 1970 1980 CHANGE_ Saugatuck 770 927 1,022 1,079 400/6 Saugatuck Township 845 1,133 1,254 1,753 107% Douglas 447 602 813 948 112% AREAWIDE 2,062 2,662 3,089 3,780 83% Sour= US Census Burmu X@@ Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 2-2 FIGURE 2.2 FIGURE 2.3 AGE COHORTS (1980) AGE COHORTS (1980) VILLAGE OF DOUGLAS ALLEGAN COUNTY 17. P P is. 14. E 13. R R C 12. C E 0. E N N T T 7 0-4 5:14 15@24 2" 3544 45:54 6;1 50-4 !@l 415:24 2" 5_44 AGE GROUP AGE GROUP FIGURE 2.4 FIGURE 2.5 AGE COHORTS (1980) AGE COHORTS (1980) CITY OF SAUGATUCK SAUGATUCK TWP. 20. 16. Is. P 16. P 14. E W E 12. R R C 12. C 10, E 10. E N N T : T 0-4 5-.14 1 _5 24 2" 35@44 45@54 5@" 4 0.4 5-14 15-24 2!@U 3@" 4@U &5@4 AGE GROUP AGE GROUP The number of households is an excellent ulation, however, has remained constant (see gauge of the demand for land and services. As Figure 2. 1). This Is out of keeping with statewide household size decreases, the additional house- trends and suggests that the area has experi- holds create further demand for land, housing, enced high in-migration of retirees through transportation, and public utilities. Although time. Retirees are attracted by the area's special household size has declined substantially over resort quality, small town character, and scenic the past few decades, national trends suggest beauty. that it will soon cease its decline. Nationwide the Figures 2.2 through 2.5 provide a more average household size has reached a plateau detailed picture of the age cohort distribution of and state demographers predict that Michigan each community. A cohort graph for Allegan will follow suit. Variations in average household County is included for comparison. In accor- size by jurisdiction for 1980 are as follows: dance with countywide trends, each conununity Saugatuck Township, 2.69: Village of Douglas, has a small cohort of infants and toddlers. The 2.44; and City of Saugatuck, 2.0. The City of cohort distribution of the Village of Douglas Saugatucles smaller household size is indicative most closely resembles that of the County. al- of a higher proportion of "empty nesters" and though the Village has a much lower proportion retirees. of children aged 5-14. The most striking char- acteristic of the Township is its large cohort of AGE DISTRURMON 45-54 year olds. The cohort of senior citizens is high in each A comparison of age cohorts in the tri-com- community, but this is most striking in the City, munity area between 1960 and 1980 reveals a where seniors comprise 20% of the population, large drop in the proportion of young children, while children 5-14 comprise only 90/6. The City's with a corresponding increase in the childbear- second highest cohort is 25 to 34 year olds. In ing cohort (20 to 30 year olds) and 45-54 year regional terms, Saugatuck Township comprises olds. The proportion of retirees to the total pop- 39% of the area's senior population; the City of V0000\@ Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 2-3 FIGURE 2.6 EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND IN 1980 PERSONS 25 AND OVER, TRI-COMMUNITY AREA 40 35 El TOWNSHIP W CITY 30- VILLAGE 25 E R C 20 E N 15 T ...... ....... 10 ....... ....... ..... ..... ...... ...... ..... 5- . ..... ....... ...... .... ...... ..... ...... ....... ...... ..... ...... ..... ... ....... . ..... ...... ...... 0 EL MENTARY 1-3 YRS H.S. 4 YRS H.S. 1-3 YRS COLL. 4 YRS COLL. Saugatuck comprises 37% (despite its small reveals the educational status of persons 25 size); and the Village of Douglas, 24%. years old and over by jurisdiction in 1980. EDUCATION SCHOOL ENROILWZNTS The tri-community area has a well educated Three public school districts- Fermville citizenry. An analysis of those aged 25 and older Public School District, the Saugatuck Public in 1980 reveals that 36.2% have completed 1 or School District, and the Hamilton Public School more years of college (see Figure 2.6). When District- serve the tri-community area (see Map comparing jurisdictions, the number of college 2. 1). The Hamilton School District includes only educated residents is even higher in the City at a small area of the northeast comer of the 43.6%. The corresponding number in the Village Township. The Fenriville School District covers is 35.9% and in the Township. 31.3%. Table 2.2 the southern half of the Township, and the Saugatuck Public School District covers the TABLE 2.2 EDUCATIONAL STATUS PERSONS 25 YEARS OLD AND OVER SAUGATUCK SAUGATUCK TOWNSHIP Crry DOUGLAS ARFA Elementary 185 57 73 315 1-3 years HS 199 97 84 380 4 years HS 373 276 213 862 1-3 years College 157 137 123 417 4+ years ollege 188 196 84 468 Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 2-4 central portion of the Township, plus Douglas 17% increase in elementary school enrollments and Saugatuck. Thus, the Saugatuck Public since the 1983-84 school year, and a 28% de- School District serves the majority of the area's crease in high school enrollments over the same households. School enrollment data for period (see Figure 2.8). School enrollment data Saugatuck High School and Douglas Elemen- appears in Table 2.3. tary, the two schools which comprise the Future elementary and high school enroll- Saugatuck Public School system, illustrate the ments were projected by the Saugatuck Public impact of areawide demographic trends on the School system. These projections, illustrated in local school system. Between 1973 and 1989, Figure 2.8, show an upturn in high school en- enrollments in the Saugatuck Public School rollments in 1991 with a continued climb in system, grades K- 12, have declined by 34% (see elementary school enrollments. Total projected Figure 2.7). 1994 enrollments, however, are still 23% less When divided into elementary and high than 1973-74 levels. school enrollments, however, the data reveal a TABLE 2.3 FIGURE 2.7 SCHOOL ENROLLAWNTS SAUGATUCK PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT SAUGATUCK PUBLIC SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS GRADES K-12 YEAR K-6 7-12 TOTAL goo. 79-80 326 329 655 V E 750. 80-81 307 322 629 N 81-82 306 299 605 R 700. 0 82-83 252 290 542 L 650- 83-84 232 303 535 L M 84-85 259 296 555 E 600- N 85-86 250 277 527 T 550. 86-87 275 265 540 87-88 299 246 545 500 .. . . . . . 88-89 296 215 511 73-74 75-76 77-78 79@O 81@2 87-88 YEAR FIGURE 2.8 SAUGATUCK PUBLIC SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS ELEMENTARY AND HIGH SCHOOLS 360- 340- E 320 . . . . . . . . . N R 300- 0 L 280- PROJECTIONS L 260- M E 240- N T 220- 200 . . . . . . . . 1801 1 71@80 81-'82 83-84 85-W 87.'88 840 91-'92 93-94 YEAR Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 2-5 FUTURE TRENM If local demographic trends follow those projected for the county as they have in the past, then the overall proportion of retirees in the area will expand much faster than that of school age children. The Michigan Department of Manage- ment and Budget projects that Allegan County's school age population will grow only 3% by the year 2000, while senior citizens will increase by 3CP/6. The area's small cohort of infants and children, large cohort of middle aged to elderly, and high rate of retiree in-migration suggest this will be equally true in the tri-community area. These figures reveal the need to plan for the needs of an aging community, as well as initiate efforts to attract families with children into the area. The large cohort of individuals in their childbearing years in the Township and Village should result in a natural increase in young children, but because couples are having fewer children, school enrollments wW probably ex- pand only slightly. The Saugatuck Public School system is not likely to meet its potential capacity for enrollments unless a sequence of events or actions attracts new families with young chil- dren into the area. Two key factors will be the availability of affordable housing and nearby 0 employment opportunities. In the meantime. schools must use space and resources efficiently as they experience tighter budgets and small enrollments. Many of the demographic characteristics shown here have been analyzed based on 1980 census information. These trends should be updated when the 1990 census information is available. See Appendix B for more demographic information from the 1980 census. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan N OL OLLAN @j 8 4141A F3CN AP MAP 2.1 PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS K Saugatuck Fennville Hamilton DATA SOURCE: Respective,0whool DisWcts Manning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, MI AuqustI989 SAUGATUCK DOUGLAS .26 A 3-1 Chapter 3 THE ECONOMY Oval Beach, downtown Saugatuck; sand dunes; ECONOMC BASE large wetlands abounding with wildlife; or- Tourism chards and specialty farms; and a scenic loca- Tourism fuels the economy of the tri-com- tion on Lake Michigan encompassing Silver, munity area, with associated boating, restau- Goshorn, Kalamazoo and Oxbow lakes, and the rant, lodging, and strong retail sectors. Of the Kalamazoo River. The area also has a reputation three jurisdictions, the City of Saugatuck relies as a cultural center which serves as an artists' most heavily on tourism. Although the City of retreat. The Ox Bow Art Workshop and the Red Saugatuck is seen as the resort center of the Bam theater add to the area's cultural ambi- area. the entire area benefits from and contrib- ence. utes to the tourist trade. The Village of Douglas Although it is located in Laketown Town- has boating and lodging facilities which capital- ship, the Saugatuck Dunes State Park serves as ize on tourism, but its commercial sector is another tourist attraction to the tri-community primarily oriented towards local clientele. The area. The Park offers no camping and thus many Township has a small commercial sector which visitors stay in the tri-community area. Visitor compliments that of the Village, but it is primar- counts from the Michigan Department of Re- ily seasonal residential and rural, with a large sources, Parks Division, reveal that the park has agricultural area to the south. increased in popularity since the 70's. Visitor The area's resort flair is defined by: historic counts performed by the Parks Division show buildings- including quaint bed and breakfast that 47,463 people visited Saugatuck Dunes inns; the many festivals; outstanding boating; State Park in FY 1988- a 300% increase in park TABLE 3.1 E"ACT OF TRAVEL ON ALLEGAN COUNTY, 1986 TOT.TRAVEL TRAVEL TRAVEL STATE TAX LOCALTAX EYPENDITURES GENER. PAY- GENER.EM- RECEIPTS RECEIPTS ROLL PLOYMENT $/Jobs $42,413,000 $7,689,000 869jobs $2,191,000 $363,000 % of State Total .56% .49% .62% .71% .49% % change 29.52% 37.87% 18.39% 27.98% 32.48% 1983-86 Source: U.S. Travel Data Center, *The Economic Impact of Travel on Michigan Counties." TABLE 3.2 PAAJOR EM[PLOYERS PRODUCT/SERVICE EMPLOYEES Hansen Machine Metal Stampings 43 Haworth Office Furniture 238 Harbors Health Facility Nursing Home 78 Enterprise Hinge Manufacturing 12 Douglas Marine Marina 21 Tafts Supermarket Supermarket 32 Paramount Tool Co., Inc. Machinery 24 Rich Products Pies 85 Source: Allegan County Promotional Alliance Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 3-2 FIGURE 3.1 EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR IN 1980 TRI-COMMUNITY AREA AND ALLEGAN COUNTY PUBLIC [3 CITY - - ---- --- - --- - SERVICES VILLAGE . ... ............. ........ FIN/INS/REAL EST E2 TOWNSHI M COUNTY RETAIL ......................................... ........ ............. WHOLESALE TRANS/COMM/UTIL --------------- MANUFACTURING I I I I I I I I __ I I I I I I .................. . ................ .................. CONSTRUCTION AGRICULTURE @0 0 5 10 15 A 40 PERCENT attendance since 1979, when it attracted only Travel Bureau by the U.S. Travel Data Center in 11,714visitors. 1986 found that travellers spent $42.4 million How much money does travel and tourism in Allegan County in 1986, generating $7.7 generate in the tri-community area? Although million for payroll, 869jobs, $2.1 million instate current travel and tourism statistics are not tax receipts, and $363,000 in local tax receipts. available for the tri-community area, studies This ranks Allegan County 33rd out of conducted for Allegan County reveal the tremen- Michigan's 83 counties in travel and tourism dous Impact of travel and tourism on local econ- revenues. Selected data from this study is repro- ornies in the County. This is especially true for duced in Table 3. 1. Saugatuck-Douglas- the major resort center in the County. A study prepared for the Michigan TABLE 3.3 EP"LOYMENT BY DMUSTRY - 1980 CITY VILLAGE TOWNSHIP AREA COUNTY TOTAL 547 433 689 1,669 34,025 Agriculture 9 16 37 62 2,041 Construction 30 27 75 132 2,009 Manufacturing 156 169 274 599 13,033 TCU * 25 10 17 52 1,407 Wholesale Trade 13 7 20 40 1,398 Retail Trade 146 67 106 -319 5,017 FIRE ** 21 15 39 75 1,126 Services 125 96 107 328 7.105 Public Admin. 22 26 14 62 889 Transportation, Communicatlion, Utillities Finance, Insurance, Real Estate ........... .............. Source: 1980 U.S. Census of Population, General Social and Economic Characteristics. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 3-3 TABLE 3.4 EMPLOYMENT BY 0,CCUPATION - 1980 CITY VILLAGE T)OWNSHIP AREA COUNTY TOTAL 547 433 685 1,665 34,025 Manag. & Adniin 77 34 43 154 2,315 Prof. Technical 87 62 74 223 3,319 Sales 63 24 83 170 2,696 Clerical 70 45 74 189 4,189 Service 72 73 73 231 4,300 Farm, Fishing 13 13 43 126 1,885 Crafts & Repair 66 70 144 210 5,447 Machine Operators 60 90 120 270 6,129 Laborers, Mat. Moving 39 22 31 92 3,745 Source: 1980 U.S. Census of Population, General Social and Economic Characteristics. Mant(facturing and soybeans are other major cash crops. Some Manufacturing is central to the year-round farms also have livestock- primarily hogs and stability of the area's economy. Although there dairy cattle. Nurseries are a strong agri-busi- are few manufacturing firms, they provide a high ness in the area. Rich Products, a major em- percentage of areajobs. Major area employers ployer in the area, is another category of are listed in Table 3.2. agri-business, which was attracted to the region because of its many fruit farms. The future of Agriculture agri-industry is bright in light of Michigan De- Agriculture is another strong component of partment of Commerce efforts to promote and the area's economic base. No data exists on farm expand food processing industries in the state. earnings at the Township level, but Michigan Department of Agriculture statistics on Allegan LOYAMENT County reveal the importance of farming to the Table 3.3 breaks down employment by eco- county's economic base. Between 1980 and nomic sector for the tri-community area and the 1986, agricultural net income nearly doubled, County in 1980. This information is illustrated going from 12.8 million, to over 24 million. Farm in Figure 3. 1. Manufacturing employs the most investments went from 92 thousand per farm in people in each of the three communities. Yet 1974 to 236 thousand in 1982. The market employment in other sectors varies. Employ- value of products sold by Allegan County farm- ment by occupation in 1980 appears in Table ers in 1987 totaled over $120 million and Al- 3.4. Information from these tables is summa- legan County farmers supported local business rized by jurisdiction below. and industry by purchasing over $103 million of supplies and services. City of Saugatuck Fruit farming is a rapidly growing agricul- Twenty-nine percent are employed in man- tural enterprise in the County. Allegan County ufacturing, but retail employment is also very ranks within the top five producers of blueber- high in the City of Saugatuck (27%). revealing ries, peaches, grapes, pears, nectarines, pota- toes, cauliflower, milk cows, and hogs and pigs. the dominant nature of retail activity in the City, Between 1982 and 1986, the number of fruit as compared to the region (15%) and County farms increased 86%. Based on increases in (15%). The service sector employs the third larg- overall acreage, growth in the fruit sector ap- est number of Saugatuck's labor force (23%), pears to be strongest for peaches, dwarf apples, followed by transportation/communica- and blueberries. tion/utilities (50/6), and construction (5%). The Township contains a large amount of The highest proportion of workers in prime farmland (see Map 4. 10). There are a Saugatuck ate professional/technical workers, number of fruit farms growing peaches, apples, followed by managerial and administrative, ser- cherries, and some blueberries. Corn, wheat, vice, and clerical workers. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 3-4 FIGURE 3.2 FIGURE 3.3 MONTHLY EMPLOYMENT AVERAGE ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT TRI-COMMUNITY AREA, 1988 TRI-COMMUNITY AREA 2700- 2.8. T 2.6. E 2650- H 2.4. M 2600- 0 2.2. P 2550- U 2.0. S 0 2500- A y N 1.6. M 2450- E D 1.4. N 2400- S 1.21 T 1.0 2350- 19M 196 1g6 196 1g6 1W'0 2300 1 YEAR J F M 6 6 4 1 MONTH workers, crafts and repair workers, and profes- village of Douglas sional/technical workers. Thirty-nine percent of the Village of Saugatuck Township Douglas'labor force is employed in manufactur- Forty percent of Township residents are ing. Yet unlike the City, the service sector dom- employed in the manufacturing sector, with the inates the retail sector. Services employ 22% of next largest proportion employed in the retail Village workers, with only 15% in the retail (15%) and service sectors (16%). Construction is sector. Construction (6%) and the public sector fourth, employing 11% of Township workers- a (60/6) are the fourth largest employers of village much larger proportion than in the region and residents, and agriculture (40/6) is fifth. County. Financial/insurance/real estate ser- The highest proportion of workers in Doug- vices is fifth at 6%. Although nearly all of the las are machine operators, followed by service region's farming occurs in the Township, 1980 employment by sector shows that the proportion FIGURE 3.4 TOURISM RELATED EMPLOYMENT, 1988 ALLEGAN COUNTY .1.2 E M T P H 0.8 L 0 0 U ,0.6 S Y A 0.4 M N E D 0.2 s 0.0 T EATDFUNK RECREATION LOOGING i F M A M J J A /00, MONTH Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 3-5 FIGURE 3.5 FIGURE 3.6 REAL PROPERTY SEV (1988) REAL PROPERTY SEV (1988) CITY OF SAUGATUCK SAUGATUCK TOWNSHIP & VILLAGE OF DOUGLAS RESIDENTIAL 65% RESIDENTIAL 76% INDUSTRIAL 2% Mi- .9 DEVELOPMENTAL 1% AGRICULTURAL 5% INDUSTRIAL 2% COMMERCIAL 16% COMMERCIAL 33% of the labor force employed in agriculture (5%) nesses increased employment; a number of is low compared to the amount of agricultural small businesses and two restaurants opened; activity, and only slightly higher than the Village and perhaps most significantly, Haworth Corpo- of Douglas. Many farmers have alternative ration expanded adding two new departments. sources of income outside of farming, causing Contributing to this was the state and regional the census to count them in another employ- economic boom, and corresponding increases in ment sector. construction and spending. Figure 3.2 illus- The Township has the highest proportion of trates this trend. crafts and repair personnel in the region, repre- senting employment generated by Broward Ma- Seasonal Employment rine, inc.-a major builder of luxury boats. Local employment increases each summer Machine operators are second, and sales work- as tourists flood into the tri-community area. ers are third. The proportion of profes- Figure 3.3 reveals the impact of tourism on sional/technical and service workers is also employment in the tri-community area during high. the summer months. The high number ofJobs created during the Average Annual summer months are primarily unskilled jobs in Employment and Unemployment the service/retail sector, especially eating and Unemployment has declined dramatically drinking establishments and various other rec- with Michigan's economic growth of the late reation-oriented uses. Figure 3.4 reveals the 80's. Table 3.5 reveals average annual unem- explosion in summer employment for tourism- ployment rates in the area since the last state- related industries in Allegan County. Ibis in- wide recession. The tri-community area has a crease creates a high demand for teenage slightly higher rate of unemployment than Al- employees. Tri-community area businesses note legan County, although since 1986 the unem- the difficulty of filling these jobs, and the need ployment rate has dipped below that of the state to import seasonal labor. This is yet another revealing local or regional economic growth. Impact of the demographic make-up of the area Average annual employment in the tri-com- (i.e. the low number of teenage children). New munity area bottomed out in 1986. This re- industry and affordable housing in the area flected the loss of American Twisting, which could attract families with children who, in turn, employed about 20 people, and the burning of could staff area businesses during peak sum- Broward Marine (about 100 employees) and mer months. Brighton Metal (about 10 employees). Yet in 1987, areawide employment jumped dramati- TAX BASE cally. During that year Broward Marine re- Residential uses make up the bulk of the opened Its doors; Rich Products. Harbor Health area's tax base. Commercial uses provide 33% Facilities, Paramount Tools and other area busi- Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 3-6 of the City's real property SEV, while it provides TABLE 3.5 a much smaller proportion of the (real) property AVERAGE ANNUAL UNEMPLOYNaMiT RATE tax base for the Township and Village of Doug- las. Agriculture is the next highest SEV cate- Tri-Community County State gory, providing a 1988 SEV of $2,661,790 (see 1982 15.2 14.8 15.5 Figures 3.5 & 3.6). 1983 14.7 14.3 14.2 Figure 3.7 illustrates changes in annual 1984 10.8 10.5 11.2 real property SEV between 1980 and 1987 for 1985 11.3 10.9 9.9 the tri-community area. The sharp drop in SEV for the Township between 1984 and 1985 was 1986 6.5 7.3 8.8 caused by the incorporation of Saugatuck as a 1987 5.8 5.6 8.2 City and its subsequent removal from the 1988 5.2 5.1 7.6 Township's tax base. SEVs are also shown for Sou= MFSC, Bumau of P&9earch & Statistics, Fleld Amly- the Township minus the ViUage(s). The figure sis UrAt shows that each jurisdiction has experienced _j tax base growth since 1980. The City of ing it one of the top ten communities in terms of Saugatuck has shown strong tax base growth per capita income in Allegan County. Saugatuck and aj ump in its tax base between 1983-84 after Township rose from 7th to 6th place with a it incorporated. More complete information on 40.4% increase in per capita income. The City annual Sev's and 1988 breakdowns can be of Saugatuck occupies a strong second place found in Appendix B. with a 39.9% increase, although it has given up first place to Laketown Township. Table 3.6 INCOME shows this comparison. (Per capita income in Between 1979 and 1985, census estimates 1979 was $7,688 for the state and $6,744 for show a dramatic rise in per capita income in the the county-, in 1985 it was $10,902 for the state Village of Douglas- an increase of 47.4%- mak- and $9,346 for the county.) FIGURE 3.7 ANNUAL REAL PROPERTY SEV TRI-COMMUNITY AREA (1980-87) 70- 60- M S L 50- - Saugatuck E - Douglas VO 40- N - Township* S Township" 30. 20. 10 1A0 lAl 19'82 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 YEAR not including Village(s) including Douglas through 1987 and Saugatuck through 1984. 4 ZOOOO'@@ Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 3-7 Table 3.7 reveals selected income and pov- FIGURE 3.8 erty characteristics by jurisdiction in the tri- community area. Although the per capita income in the area has been consistently higher than that of the county, the median household income is lower. The median household income is the point at which 50% of the households earn more and 50% earn less. This figure is more PERCENT IN POVERTY BY AGE representative of local trends as it is less easily TRI-COMMUNITY AREA (19M) distorted by a few high income wage earners. 80. Poverty data correspond with median 70. TOWNSHIP household income. As median income goes up, CITY the proportion of those in poverty goes down. P VILLAGE Despite its rapid growth in per capita income, E R the Village of Douglas has the lowest median C 40. household Income and the highest percentage E of poor in the region. N 30. T Figure 3.8 reveals the proportion of those in 20. poverty by age in 1979. The poverty level used by the 1980 census in recording this data was an annual income of $3,778 for those under 65, and $3,689 for those 65 and over. It reveals that LMTHMS5 5&W AGE a high proportion of the poor are elderly, espe- cially in the Township. TABLE 3.6 PER CAPITA INCOME ($), ALLEGAN COUNTY (Top TEN) 1979 1985 Saugatuck 9031, Laketown Township 13,013 Laketown Township 8332 Saugatuck 12,631 Holland 8125 Holland 11,608 Gunplain Township 8074 Gunplain Township 10,947 Otsego Township 7437 Otsego Township 10,239 Plainwell 7396 Saugatuck Township 10,228 Saugatuck Township 7286 Douglas 10,150 Allegan Township 7170 Fillmore Township 10,120 Leighton Township 7051 Plainwell 9,886 Fillmore Township 7015 Leighton Township 9,539 Source: 1985 Per Capital Income Estimates. U.S. Census Bureau TABLE 3.7 INCOME & POVERTY CHARACTERISTICS TRI-COMMUNITY AREA (1980) TOWNSHIP cr1y VILLAGE COUNW Median HH income 16,412 15,182 14,963 17,906 % in poverty 7.1% 8.6% 11.3% 8.00/0 income 2000/6 of poverty 74% 75% 73% 71% level & above Source: 1980 Census of Population L@ 14 Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 4-1 Chapter 4 NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE ENVIRONMENT der Moraine, which is adjacent to Lake Michi- CLnVM1Z gan. and the Valparaiso Moraine, which extends Weather conditions affect the community's through the center of the county, from north to economic base. Variations in average condi- south. Oil and gas drilling in the area occurred tions, especially during the summer months, mostly during the period from late 1930's to the can cause fluctuations in tourism and outdoor early 1950's. At present, there are no producing recreation activities, upon which the local econ- wells in the tri-community area. omy is dependent. Prevailing winds detennine lakeshore and sand dune erosion patterns, which impose limitations on development along TOPOGRAPHY the Lake Michigan shore. Most of the tri-community area is relatively Below, in Table 4. 1, is relevant climatic flat, but local variations in elevation of up to 150 information for the area. These conditions gen- feet mist in some places between uplands and erally do not pose limitations on the area's the floodplain of the Kalamazoo River. There are growth. except along the Lake Michigan shore, also considerable local differences in elevation where natural forces can cause rapid and exten- in the extreme northwest portions of the Town- sive erosion of beaches and sand dunes. The ship in the sand dunes between the Kalamazoo climate is also considered favorable for growing River and Lake Michigan. The highest point in certain fruits, such as apples and blueberries. this area is Mt. Baldhead, which rises 3 10 feet above Lake Michigan. Areas of abrupt local vari- GEOLOGY ations in elevation appear as dark areas on the topographic map (Map 4. 1). The tri-community area is located on the Steep slopes present impresstve scenery Southwestern flank of the Michigan Basin, and pose increased maintenance and construc- which is a bedrock feature centered in the mid- tion costs as well as safety risks. This is espe- dle of the Lower Peninsula. The sandstone and cially true with unstable landforms such as shale bedrock is overlain by glacial deposits sand dunes. Generally, slopes exceeding 7% from 50 to 400 feet thick. There are no outcrop- should not be developed Intensively, while pings of the bedrock and the proximity of the slopes of more than 12% should not be devel- bedrock to the surface of the ground does not oped at all because of erosion and storm water impose limitations for normal excavating or con- runoff problems. struction. Glacial deposits consist primarily of sandy lakebed deposits located between two major physiographic formations: the Lake Bor- TABLE 4. IL SUMMARY OF RELEVANT CLMIATE CONDITIONS CLIMATE VARIABLES AVERAGE CONDIMON EXrREME CONDMON Coldest Months (January-February) 23.30 F - 25. 10 F -110 F - -350 F Hotest Month (July) 71.50 F 960 F - 1060 F Annual Average Temperature 48.30 F Average Rainfall 35.7 inches Average Growing Season 153 days Average Annual Snowfall 79.7 inches Elevation Above Sealevel 590 feet Prevailing Winds Westerly Source: USDA Soil Survey, Anegan County Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 4-2 FIGURE 4.1 FIDODPLAINS RIVER BASIN Areas adjacent to creeks, streams and rtv- ers are susceptible to periodic flooding that can cause extensive damage to buildings and can Lake Huron pose a substantial threat to public health and safety. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has mapped the boundaries of the 100 year flood- 04 plain in the tri-community area. Those bound- aries are denoted by the shaded areas on Map 4.3 and is the area that would be inundated during an Intermediate Regional Flood.7be Fed- eral Flood Insurance Program has established guidelines for use and development of floodplain areas. Those regulations indicate that develop- ment in floodplains should be restricted to open space, recreational or agricultural uses. Instal- lation of public utilities and permanent con- struction for residential, commercial or industrial uses should not occur in floodplain areas. WETLANDS Lake Erie There are many wetlands in the tri-commu- nity area. Most are contiguous to or hydrologi- cally connected to Lake Michigan, rivers. stream , or creeks. Wetlands are valuable In DRAINAGE storing floodwaters, recharging groundwater ' Most of the tri-community area lies within and removing sediment and other pollutants. the Kalamazoo River Basin, which begins near They are also habitat for a wide variety of plants Jackson and extends westward into the tri-com- and animals, including a large rookery of Great munity area (see Figure 4. 1). The extreme south- Blue Herons along the Kalamazoo River. western portion of the Township drains directly Because wetlands are a valuable natural into Lake Michigan. All of the watercourses resource, they are protected by Public Act 203 within the area drain into the Kalamazoo River, of 1979. PA 203 requires that permits be ac- which flows westward through the middle of the quired from the Michigan Department of Natural Township and into Lake Michigan. Tannery Resources (DNR) prior to altering or Ming a Creek, Peach Orchard Creek, Silver Creek and regulated wetLand. The Wetland Protection Act Goshorn Creek are all short-run strea that defines wetlands as 'Land characterized by the flow into the Kalamazoo River. A network of presence of water at a frequency and duration County drains facilitates the removal of runoff sufficient to support and that under nomml cir- from flat areas with poorly drained soils in the cumstances does support wetkuid vegetation or southern half of the Township. The sand and aquatic 1Te and is commonly referred to as a bog. clay bluffs along Lake Michigan in Section 20 swamp, or marsh and is contiguous to the Great are being eroded by groundwater which flows L4akes. an inland lake or pond. or a river or through the sandy topsoil and onto the less strearrL" permeable clay layer. The water flows out the Regulated wetlands include all wetland side of the bluff, undermining the sandy upper areas greater than 5 acres or those contiguous layer. A County drain has been proposed which to waterways. Wetlands which are hydrologi- would be placed parallel to the bluff and collect cally connected (i.e. via groundwater) to water- runoff for discharge at one point into Lake Mich- ways are also regulated. Activities exempted igan. Most other areas of the Township drain from the provisions of the Act include farming, fairly well. especially Saugatuck and Douglas. grazing of animals. farm or stock ponds, lum- All watercourses, including county drains, are bering. maintenance of existing nonconforming found on Map 4.2. structures, maintenance or improvement of ex- Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 4-3 TABLE 4.2 been classified into three categories, which are LAND COVER CODES FOR PROTECTED described below. VJETLANDS IN TRI-CObUdUMTY AREA - Slight: Relatively free of limitations or lim- itations are easily overcome. CODE DESCRIPTION - Moderate: Limitations need to be consid- 31 Herbaceous Rangeland* ered, but can be overcome with good man- 32 Shrub Rangeland* agement and careful design. - Severe: Limitations are severe enough to 412 Upland Hardwoods make use questionable. 414 Lowland Hardwoods 421 Upland Conifers Large areas of soils in the Township have 429 Lowland Conifers severe limitations on residential and urban de- 611 Wooded Swarips velopment. The degree of soil limitations reflects 612 Shrub Swamps the hardship and expense of developing the 621 Marshland Meadow land. Fortunately, most of the soils which are not suited for residential development are also 622 Mud Flats considered prime farmland soils by the U.S. Source: Michigan DNR Land Cover/use Classification Department of Agriculture. System * Wetlands are sometimes, but not ahvays associated with these land cover types. Basement Limitations Limitations for dwellings with basements are shown on Map 4.5. Some soils impose severe isting roads and streets within existing rights- limitations on basements because of excessive of-way, maintenance or operation of pipelines wetness, low strength, excessive slope, or less than six inches in diameter, and mainte- shrink-swell potential. These areas are found nance or operation of electric transmission and primarily in the northeast comer and in the distribution power lines. southern half of the Township. Permits will not be issued if a feasible or prudent alternative to developing a wetland ex- Septic Limitations ists in such areas. An inventory of wetlands Soils in most of the tri-community area based on the DWs land use\cover inventory Impose severe limitations on septic tank absorp- are illustrated on Map 4.4. Table 4.2 shows the tion fields for a wide variety of reasons. The land use\cover codes pertaining to regulated permeability of soils in the area ranges from very wetlands in the area. Herbaceous and shrub poorly drained to excessively drained. There are rangelands may not actually meet the statutory only a few small areas which are neither poorly definition of wetland, so on site inspections will nor excessively drained, do not have a high be necessary to establish whether a wetland water table, and are therefore well suited for indeed exists in such areas. Areas of hydric soils septic tank absorption fields. These areas are in the south-central part of the Township would located in the southeast comer of the Township be classified as wetlands if they were not in and in the Southwestern portion of Douglas. agricultural use and served by county drains. Most of the tri-community area that is likely to experience future growth has moderate to severe SOELIS limitations for on-site septic systems. Map 4.6 A modern soil survey was completed for shows the septic limitations for the area. This Allegan County by the USDA Soil Conservation map suggests the need for municipal sewers to Service in March, 1987. The soil types present accommodate new development in many areas. in the tri-community area shown on the map The degree of soil limitations reflects the and table in Appendix D. Each soil type has hardship and expense of developing that land for a particular use. Those soils classified as unique characteristics which pose opportunities .severe" have varying degrees of development for some uses and limitations for others. The potential based on the nature of the limitation. most Important characteristics making the soil Map 4.7 provides this more detailed analysis of suitable or unsuitable for development are lim- severe limitations on septic tank absorption itations on dwellings with basements, limita- fields. The "severe" soils have been categorized tions on septic tank absorption fields, and as follows: suitability for fanning. Soil limitations have T11-Community Comprehensive Plan 4-4 of the septic system and the water table. In A. Sandy, moderate to rapid permeability addition, there must be one foot between B. Rapid permeability, wetness and high the existing ground surface and the sea- water table sonal water table, and two feet between the C. Wet, ponding, heavier (clay) soils, slow existing ground surface and the clay. Spe- permeability cial permits will be considered only if the D. Very wet soils, organics, wetlands, flood- site size is at least two acres and the septic plains, unable to support septic fields. system is put on top of four feet of sand. Residential sites that fail to meet those Soils in categories B and D are not able to requirements, such as the small lots in support septic fields because of extreme wet- Felkers Subdivision, will not be issued sep- ness. Soils in category A are classified as "se- tic system permits. vere" by the Soil Conservation Service, however the Allegan County Health Department consid- All Other Residential, Plus Commercial ers them to have only moderate limitations for These fall under State guidelines of two feet septic systems. They can be made suitable for between the existing ground surface and development by increasing the distance between the water table and four feet of dry soil the septic system and the water table. Soils with between the bottom of the septic system moderate and slight limitations also appear on and the water table. No special permits are Map 4.7. Soils that are most suitable for devel- issued for these uses. Most of the land along opment, with respect to basement and septic the entire length of Blue Star Highway does limitations, are shown in Map 4.8. not meet these State standards and has Some areas of the tri-community area have been denied commercial permits (refer to been designated by the Allegan County Health Map 4.7a). Public sewers will be necessary. Department as unsuitable for new development without sewers. Among these areas are the Hydric SoMs Felkers Subdivision in Douglas, Blue Star High- Hydric soils are another limitation on devel- way from Douglas south to the freeway exit, opment. They are very poorly drained, saturate 129th Street south of Douglas, and along Old easily and retain large quantities of water. If Allegan Road in Section 10 east of Saugatuck. artificially drained, they are often suitable for Permits for commercial and single family uses farmland use. Map 4.9 shows where these soils have been denied in all of these areas due to are. In the tri-community area, most of the on-site soil conditions. The Health Department hydric soils are found near water-courses and has also outlined areas with particularly severe correspond to present or former wetlands. There limitations for septic fields. These are in Sec- is a large area of hydric soils in the southwest tions 3 and 4 of the Township and the Goshorn portion of the Township which is currently being Lake area, which have a highly permeable soils farmed. Residential, commercial and industrial and a high water table, and large portions of the development in areas containing hydric soils southern half of the Township, which have should be discouraged. heavy clay soils. Health Department officials do not recommend further development of these Prime Farmland areas without sewers. Prime farmland soil types have been identi- fied by the Soil Conservation Service as those Standardsfor Septic Systems best suited for food production: they require The Allegan County Health Department has minimal soil enhancement measures such as established certain standards for septic sys- irrigation and fertilizer. There is a very large area tems. These standards apply somewhat differ- of prime farmland soils in the south central ent site characteristics when determining the portion of the Township. These areas contribute degree of limitations for septic systems, com- significantly to the area's economic base. The pared to the Soil Conservation Service ap- loss of prime farmland to other uses results in proach, which focuses on soil types and slope. farming on marginal lands, which are more Below is a review of these standards by develop- erodible and less productive. Soils in prime ment type. farmland categories that have frequent flooding Single Family Residential or seasonal high water table, such as those in Before a permit is considered. there must the southern half of Saugatuck Township, qual- be four feet of dry soils between the bottom Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 4-5 ify as prime farmland because those limitations location of groundwater at particular points. have been overcome by drainage. Unique farm- According to well logs from Michigan Ground- lands are based on certain soil types as well as water Survey (MGS) data, well depths range other factors, such as landscape position (prox- from 29 ft. in the north central area to 360 ft. in imity to water supply, orientation to sunlight, the extreme southwest corner of the Township. slope, etc.), moisture supply and present man- Soils most vulnerable to groundwater contami- agement practices. Prime familand soils and nation are found on Map 4. 11. Well locations are unique fam-flands are shown on Map 4. 10. indicated by small triangles on Map 4.12. Unique farmland and lands enrolled in the Farmland and Open Space Preservation Pro- SPECIAL FEATURES gram (PA 116 of 1974) are depicted on Map 5.3. Lake Michigan Shoreline and Beaches The entire shoreline, from M-89 to the sand GROUNDWATER dunes, is flanked by single family homes over- Groundwater is an unseen resource and is looking sand and clay bluffs. The Lake Michigan therefore particularly vulnerable to mismanage- shoreline in Saugatuck Township Is very sus- ment and contamination. Prior to the 1980's, ceptible to wind and water erosion during little was known about groundwater contamina- storms and high lake levels due to resultant tion in Michigan, and some startling facts have wave action. The current closing of Lakeshore recently been revealed. Drive due to bluff erosion is a graphic example The leading causes of groundwater contam- of the power of wave action. These natural pro- ination in Michigan are from small businesses cesses pose hazards to public health and safety. and agriculture. More than 50% of all contami- The Shorelands Protection Act of 1970 was en- nation comes from small businesses that use acted to identify areas where hazards exist by organic solvents, such as benzene, toluene and designating them and by passage of measures xylene, and heavy metals, such as lead, chro- to minimize losses resulting from natural forces mium, and zinc. The origin of the problem stems of erosion. High risk erosion areas are defined from careless storage and handling of hazardous as areas of the shore along which bluffline re- substances. On paved surfaces where hazard- cession has proceeded at a long term average of ous materials are stored, substances can seep 1 foot or more per year. The entire Lake Michigan through or flow off the edge of the pavement. shoreline in the tri-community area has been Materials can get into floor drains which dis- designated as a high risk erosion area, with charge to soils, wetlands or watercourses. some portions eroding at a rate of 1.7 feet per At present, groundwater is the only tapped year. Within the designated area, shown on Map source of potable water for the City of 4.13, alteration of the soil, natural drainage, Saugatuck, the Village of Douglas and vegetation, fish or wildlife habitat, and any Saugatuck Township. The glacial drift aquifers placement of permanent structures, requires a in the area are especially vulnerable to contam- DNR review and permit, unless the local unit of ination because of rapid permeability and high government has an approved high risk erosion water table. In a local example, Douglas'munic- area ordinance. Saugatuck Township has such ipal water supply has been contaminated by an ordinance, while Douglas and Saugatuck do volatile organic compounds (VOC's), supposedly not. by an industrial site within the Village. Some areas without municipal sewer and water ser- Sand Dunes vice are in danger of groundwater contamination The sand dunes along Lake Michigan in the due to septic systems, intensive development northwest comer of the Township represent a and a high water table. In the Goshom Lake unique and fragile physiographic formation and area, household wells are susceptible to con- ecosystem that Is very susceptible to wind and tamination from septic systems due to intensive water erosion, and destruction due to careless development and a high water table. The Allegan use or development. The dune area which is in County Health Department recommends provi- Saugatuck Township and the City of Saugatuck sion of public water and sewer to households in has been identified by the Michigan Department that area. of Natural Resources (DNR) as a critical dune Protection of groundwater resources is area, subject to protection under the Michigan problematic because of difficulties in locating Sand Dune Protection and Management Act, PA aquifers. Well depth records indicate the relative Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 4-6 222 of 1976. The designated critical dune area is shown in the shaded region of Map 4.14. Recent legislation (PA 147 & 148 of 1989) provides for additional protection of critical dune areas. Under these Acts, all proposed com- mercial or industrial uses, multifamily uses of more than 3 acres, and any use which the local planning commission or the DNR determines would damage or destroy features of arrhaeolog- ical or historical significance must be approved by the State. Single family residential develop- nient is to be regulated at the local level. The law prohibits surface drilling operations that ex- plore for or produce hydrocarbons or natural brine as well as mining activities (except in the case of permit renewals). The legislation also imposes certain standards on construction and site design in critical dune areas. Site design and construction standards for sand dunes should be enhanced at the local level to prevent further deterioration of this frag- ile environment. Areas needing special attention in such standards are vegetation, drainage and erosion protection. WOODLANDS The wooded areas of the tri-community area are a mixture of hardwoods and conifers. Large areas of upland hardwoods are found in the sand dune areas, along Lake Michigan, and in the northeast quarter of the Township. A large area of lowland conifers exists in the southeast- ern portion of the Township east of 1- 196. Other smaller patches of upland and lowland hard- woods and conifi-trs are scattered throughout the area, as shown on Map 4.15, Mature trees rep- resent a valuable resource in maintaining the aesthetic character of the area, not to mention their overall importance to wildlife and the nat- ural environment. In particular, the wooded sand dunes along the Kalamazoo River and Lake Michigan, and those buffering adjacent uses from 1-196, are especially important. They should be managed to insure their long term existence. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan .. ........... 0 4,000 8,000 12,000 ft Scale 1" 9060 ft V ............. . ............ ........ ... . ............ CK j N MAP 4.1 TOPOGRAPHY Tri-Community Contour interval is ten feet Darker lines are 50 foot contours August 1989 DATA SOURCE: USGS Oijadrangle Maps Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, MI ;PT14 AVF- + 1."T. AV 4 2 0 134T4 0 4,000 8,000 12,OOWO ft 9 10 Scale 1 9060 ft DOW608 17 14 1, Ave .......... . 196 31 M %22 20 126T. A@1. 2 so ap. 3 -: e .%6 0 2 12814 0kVV lb % *27 26 25 29 25 4w la*T. .@C. 34! 33 35 32 36 T3N,R 16W MAP 4.2 WATERCOURSES Tri-Community Lakes, rivers and streams 7171 Drains and intermittent streams A August1989 DATA SOURCE: MDNR Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, MI + 133T- N. AV 3 2 -S-r- .A, R 5 Ir V, 0 4,000 8,000 12,000 ft A 12 a 9 10 "0 AVE. Scale 1" 9060 ft CAhOPBELL R cc@z. S -Of 17 14 130TH AVSL r ... 196 0 20 31 129@.' AV 22 23 21 2 12ST4 AV 128T. AVE. 27 26 25 127- -V 29 28 .......... 01 120'. AVE. . ........... 32 33 34 35 36 T-3N,R 16W M-89 MAP 4.3 FLOODPLAINS Tri-Community m 100 Year Flood Area 500 Year Flood Area A August1989 DATA SOURCENDISIR Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, MI 0 4,000 8,000 12,000 ft Scale 1" 9060 ft Cl IV, C3 D qv 0 - @11 13 T11-11 @z 11@@ MAP 4.4 WETLANDS Tri-Community Iffim Lowland Hardwood Shrub Swamp Marshland Meadow& Mud Flats Lowland Conff er Herbaceous Rangeland Wooded Swamp Shrub Rangeland AugustI980 DATA SOURCE: MDNR Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, MI ..... . ....... .......... ............. . ..... ........... . ..... .............. ....... ... .... ........... .......... .......... ..... .. ........ ........... ............... ..... ....... ....... ...... .............. .... ................ .. ...................... 4,000 12,000 ft ...... 0 8,000 ... ...... ...... Scale 1" 9060 ft ...................... .......... ...... ........... ............... ........... ... ......... .................. ....... .............. ................ ................... .............. .... ......... . ........... A:q ................... 7 aammmm; . .. .. . ....... ........... . . ..................... ........ ............ ........ .. ......... ............ ... ............ ..... ........... m wo .......... MAP 4.5 BASEMENT LIMITATIONS Tri-Community m Severe 0 Excavated H Moderate FA Wetland Soils A Slight Sand Dunes August1989 DATA SOURCE: USDA Soil Survey, Allegan County: Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, MI .... ... ........ ...... ............. .... . .............. ............. -------------- ...... ......... ... - .. ............... .... ....... .. ............ ... ................ 7 7 7 m : : : . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. ............................................ ................ 17 7 1: .. . . ................... ........... :::: .................. ... .. . ... ................... ...... ...... I...... .... ............ . ......................... .......... damn= ------------------------------------------------- 0 4,000 8,000 12,000 ft - ----- .. ..... ........................... ............. ..................... Scale 1 9060 ft . . . . .. . . . . ............... . ...................... -------------- --------------------------- ---- .. ................................ ................. ............ ----------- ------------------- mi ---- ----- ................... --------------- ------------------ ------------ ...... . . . ...................... . .. . .................... - ----------------- ............ ------------------ ............ ............. ................. ....................... ............... ..... ........................................ . ............... ...... . IPA- ......... .......... omm..mm@w .... -- --------- ................... ........ .......... ...... ....... ...... .............. --------------------------------- ............ ........ ........................ I ...... .... .................... ....................... ............................................ . .............. ...... ................ . - ------ ------ -- - .. ................. . ..... ........ ... ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............ ........... . ...................... ............. ............ ........... ............. ------ ...... HIT MAP 4.6 SEPTIC LIMITATIONS Tri-Community 0 Severe 0 Excavated Moderate Wetland Soils. .............. .......... L...- J. Slight Sand Dunes AugustIM DATA SOURCE: USDA Soil Survey, Allegan County: Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml 0 4,000 8,000 12,000 ft Scale 1" 9060 ft 0, ........... MAP 4.7 SEPTIC LIMITATIONS Tri-Community RE Sandy, moderate to rapid Moderate Limitations Sand Dunes permeability Rapid permeability, wetness Slight Limitations Wetland Soils of highwater table A Wet, ponding, heavier Excavated Very wet soils, organics, clay soils,slow permeability wetlands, floodplains August 1989 DATA SOURCE: USDA Soil Survey, Alleg. Cnty HIth Dept Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, MI -------------------------- us IN 3 2 46 --- --------- ----- --- ------------ -------------- DoLmm a A -------------- N - ---- -------------------- --- ---- 20 21 we L =*AS ----------------- ------------------------- -------- --- ............... 20 27 26 .25 IV a All, tw go 32 33 35 36 LEWND MAP 4.7 A Tri-Community laws p KIM mw."l ONSITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT LIMITATIONS Fa "a 2 "All 0 4,000 8,000 12,000 ft.,, Scale 1" 9060 ft -@Jj ................... MAP 4.8 MOST SUITABLE SOILS Tri-Community Nil Soils Most Suitable For Development Excavated Areas A August 1989 DATA SOURCE: USDA Soil Survey, Allegan County Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, MI 0 4,000 8,000 12,000 ft Scale 1 9060 ft n c4 C-7 Q-? MAP 4.9 HYDRIC SOILS Tri-Community 92M IS Hydric Soils 01 Wetland Soils A August 1989 DATA SOURCE: USDA Soil Survey, Allegan County Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, MI 0 4,000 8,000 12,000 ft Scale 1 9060 ft ..,....77777 ...................... .... ... ....................... MR. M -r- gww@.. ------------ MAP4.10 PRIMEFARMLANDS Tri-Community Prime Farmlands A August1989 DATA SOURCE: USDA Soil Survey, Allegan County Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, MI 0 4,000 8,000 12,000 ft Scale 1" 9060 ft MAP 4.11 GROUNDWATER VULNERABILITY Tri-Community Areas most susceptible to contamination Excavated Areas Wetland Soils A August1989 DATA SOURCE: USDA Soils Survey & Alleg. HIth Dept. Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml X 1337. N. A A 49 %,ST. C? L-JEL-JNL - 0 4,000 8,000 12,000 ft At Scale 1" 9060 ft A CAMPB"L RP- 4- C@xm WTV A LT Avc. A. 129T@ Ay 0 A L JrTK AVV 124rT. V@ A T A 127T. V :........... ................ 12STM AVC. AA ........ 44 A :4 46 MAP 4.12 WATER WELLS Tri-Community F A@ Well Location A August1989 DATA SOURCEM Groundwater Survey Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, MI N x SOT" S. 13.T" AVQ 9 0 4,000 8,000 12,000 ft 43T ts Scale 1" 9060 ft C..Poc" 46 10 31 112or. Avg 4 in 0 =Or. AVE. 127@ AVC .......... ........ r ......... 126TH M-" MAP 4.13 HIGH RISK EROSION AREAS Tri-Community Accretion Area Numbers indicate accretion/recession rate in feet per year Recession Area A August1989 DATA SOURCE: MDNR Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, MI 5T. N. AV %35T. 5, 0 0 4,000 8,000 12,000 ft . ..... 1@@O Avr. Scale 1 9060 ft 196 j 31 ....... ... 128T. 127TH A@ ................ 126T. Avc. MAP 4.14 CRITICAL DUNE AREAS Tri-Community F/71 Critical Dune Areas A August 1989 DATA SOURCE: MDNR Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, MI 0 4,000 8,000 12,000 It Scale V 9060 ft U . ............. 0 Cl rNIMM W 0 0 MAP4.15 WOODLANDS Tri-Community rry.m Lowland Hardwood Upland Conifer Upland Hardwood Wooded Swamp Lowland Conifer Shrub Swamp August1989 DATA SOURCE: MDNR Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, MI 5-1 Chapter 5 EXISTING IAND COVER AND USE LAM USE/COVER DATA SOURCES marily for crops and orchards, with some live- stock. Land cover and use refers to an inventory of eidsting vegetation, natural features, and land Prime Farmlands use over the entire tri-community area. This Prime farmland is generally concentrated in data was obtained in computerized form from the south central part of the Township. Prime the Michigan Resource Inventory System farmland is of major importance in meeting the (MIRIS) database, which is maintained by the nation's short and long term needs for food. Michigan Department of Natural Resources Prime farmlands have been identified by the (DNR). The data came from photo interpreta- U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service so that local tions of aerial infrared photos by trained inter- governments can encourage and facilitate the preters at the West Michigan Regional Planning wise use of valuable farmlands. Prime farmland Comrriission. The DNR will update this data is that which is best suited to food, feed, forage every 5 years. Land cover and use categories and oilseed crops. The soil qualities, growing included in the data are explained on the legend season and moisture supply are those needed to to Map 5. 1. The wetlands and woodlands maps economically produce a sustained high yield of in Chapter 4 were also derived from this data. crops. Prime farmlands are shown on Map 4. 10. MIRIS data was supplemented by a thor- ough land use inventory of the tri-community area conducted in the summer of 1988. The inventory was based on ownership parcels and conducted both on foot, in urbanized areas of TABLE S. IL Saugatuck and Douglas, and through a "wind- EXISTING LAND USE shield survey" of outlying areas. The existing use of every parcel was recorded and evaluated in LAND USE ACRES % combination with low-level aerial imagery avail- M"SROW* able from the Allegan County Equalization De- Residential partment and the MIRIS land cover/use map to single-family 1708 9.91% prepare the existing (parcel-based) land use map (see Map 5.2). The following description is multi-family 61 0.35 based on these maps and data sources and the mobile home 43 0.25 USDA Soil Survey of Allegan County. Commercial 196 1.14 Land use by category for the entire tri-com- Industrial 92 0.53 munity area is shown in Table 5. 1. This Infor- Institutional 317 1.84 mation was derived from the aforementioned Agricultural 3938 22.84 data sources and areas were calculated using CMAP computer mapping software. Parks 311 1.80 The predominant land use in the tri-com- Golf Courses 240 1.39 munity area is agricultural, followed by single Boat Storage & 70 0.41 family residential. Vacant land comprises forty Service four percent of the total land area (street ROWs Kalamazoo 1017 5.90 excluded). River Wetland Streets & Roads 1602 9.29 AGRICULTURAL Vacant 7637 44.30 The size of farms in Saugatuck Township Commer- fLa 0_0A ranges from over 300 acres to under 10 acres, cial/Residential with the average size being from 120-140 acres. TOTAL 17239 1000/6 Agricultural land in the Township is used pri- % of total land area minus street ROWs Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 5-2 Unique Parmlands Zakeshore Area Unique farmland is land other than prime The Lake Michigan shore is fronted by many farmland for the production of specific high- large single family homes along Lakeshore Drive value food crops, such as vegetables, and tree, for five miles from M-89 to the City of Saugatuck. vine and berry fruits. Although these areas are This area is characterized by scenic vistas of the not prime farmland, their unique quality and lake and the bluffs. Large trees line the road and value to the local economy merit special consid- many homes are on wooded lots. Lot sizes aver- eration in land use decisions. They are shown age from 5-8 acres and many of the lots are very on Map 5.3 with PA 116 lands described in the long and narrow. next section. Kalamazoo River Michigan Parmland Preservation Act Much of the area surrounding the The Michigan Farmland Preservation Act of Kalamazoo River east of Douglas is a wetland, 1974 (PA 116) allows landowner's to enter into a unsuitable for residential use. The area is also voluntary agreement with the State whereby the wooded and is habitat to many birds and other land will remain in agricultural use for at least wildlife. In some places, homes overlook the ten years. In return, the landowner Is entitled to Kalamazoo River and Silver Lake (a shallow certain tax benefits. The program has been ef- bayou connected to the Kalamazoo River). The fective in helping to ensure that suitable lands character of the Kalamazoo River area is widely are retained for fanning. There are over 1100 different from other residential areas of the acres of PA 116 lands in the Township, most of township in that there are no farms or commer- them in the southern half. cial/industrial development- aside from a ma- Most of the prime farmlands in the Town- rina in Section 23. Lot sizes in this area vary ship are not suitable for development because widely. Lots on the north side of Silver Lake tend of soil limitations. However, there are some to be very long and narrow and could pose land farmlands that are suitable for development. development problems if permitted to be subdi- Alternatives to conversion of agricultural land vided any further. should be considered when land use decisions are made. Rural Areas The rural areas of the Township are the RESIDENTLAL southern agricultural, northeast, and riverfront Residential areas in the tri-community area - dunes areas. The southern agricultural area vary widely in character between the rural areas consists of farms, orchards, and a growing num- of the Township and the urbanized areas of ber of single family homes on large lots (10+ Saugatuck and Douglas. The majority of resi- acres). Typically, these homes are located along dential development in the Township is scat- the county roads at the perimeter of the sec- tered along county roads and along the Lake tions. In addition to scattered development on Michigan Shore. Most resort-residential devel- large lots, there are several subdivisions. These opment in all three communities is located along are developments with 30 or less lots averaging the Kalamazoo River and Lake Michigan. Single approximately one acre each in size. The north- family structures are the predominant residen- east area is a mix of woodlands and farms, with tial type. The "hill" in Saugatuck and the neigh- some steep slopes. Residences are mostly on borhood surrounding the Village Center In large lots (40+ acres), with some on small lots Douglas are other distinct residential areas. within the large lots. Residences in the riverfront Most multiple family structures are concen- - dunes area north of Saugatuck are mostly on trated in Saugatuck and Douglas, with only one small lots fronting the Kalamazoo River. Most of such development in the Township (Section 3). that area is unspoi .led wetland. dunes and There are four mobile home parks in the tri-com- beaches. munity area: two in the Village of Douglas and Douglas two in the southern half of the Township. Some Approximately 25 blocks of long-estab- distinct residential areas existing within the lished neighborhoods surround the center of the three communities are described further below. Village of Douglas. These consist primarily of older homes with some homes less than 30 years old scattered throughout. Elsewhere in the Vil- Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 5-3 lage, residential development is concentrated M-89 has a rural character with a combination along Lakeshore Drive and along Campbell of wooded areas, open land, scattered residen- Road, 130th. Avenue, and Water Street. tial development, and a "you pick" blueberry farm. Some highway oriented commercial uses Saugatuck are clustered around the interchanges with I- A majority of the homes in the downtown 196. area are old and large, with some over 100 years old. These houses are increasingly expensive to Downtown Saugatuck maintain and to heat in the winter and are being Commercial uses in downtown Saugatuck adapted for profitable commercial use or for bed are primarily oriented to tourists and seasonal and breakfast establishments. Condominiums residents. Many of the businesses occupy large, line the shore of Kalamazoo Lake along Lake St. older residential structures. Others occupy the and block a scenic view of the lake. Most of the old and historic buildings lining Butler Street. City's year-round residents live above the steep This business district has few parking spaces ridge ("the hill") which separates the waterfront due to the compact arrangement of the area's area from the rest of the City. Small cottages on original design and heavy pedestrian traffic. very small lots line the west shore of Kalamazoo Parking is a seasonal problem and a permanent Lake along Park St. solution has not yet been formulated. Busi- nesses include bed and breakfasts, small and COMNERCLAL large restaurants, clothing, art galleries and numerous specialty shops, with boat service The major commercial areas in the tri-com- and marina facilities located along the water- munity area are in the northern part of the front. This commercial district has a unique Township along Blue Star Highway, downtown historic character worth preserving and further Saugatuck, the Douglas village center, and in enhancing and represents a great asset to the Douglas along Blue Star Highway. tri-community area as well as to the region and the state. Blue Star Highway The commercial areas along Blue Star High- Douglas Village Center way represent an early form of scattered com- This small retail area consists of restau- mercial strip development. Commercial strips rants, public and private offices and specialty are a haphazard form of development and often shops and is used mostly by local residents. have inconsistent setbacks, an excessive num- Uses include the Post Office, Village Hall. party ber of driveways, excessive signs, poorly con- stores, restaurants, beauty salon, police depart- trolled ingress and egress, and are poorly ment, insurance, real estate and legal services, designed with respect to the natural environ- antique shops and the public library. Parking is ment. These characteristics make the strip un- located along both sides of Center St. and is attractive, environmentally incompatible, and adequate to meet current needs. There are sev- potentially dangerous. The negative effects of eral vacant lots and buildings in this area which commercial strip development can be mitigated could be used for new retail development. by consolidation of driveways and parking facil- Ities, grouping of stores into "mini malls", and site design standards which require that natural INDUSTRIAL features be positively incorporated into new de- Industrial development is limited in the velopments, as well as minimizing "asphalt tri-community area. Less than 1% of the total landscaping". Siting new development back land area is devoted to industrial uses. Office from the highway would be a major improve- furniture manufacturing and food processing ment. Sixty five percent of the people responding are the two major industrial types in the area. to the 1988 Public Opinion Survey indicated There are also several small machine shops, and that they did not want to see future strip com- a luxury boat building establishment located mercial development in the future. near the mouth of the Kalamazoo River. A major Commercial uses along Blue Star Highway deterrent to new industries locating in the area include restaurants. gas stations, boat service, is lack of adequately sited land served with good motels, J unkyards, a campground, small offices public facilities (sewer and water). The tri-com- and a mixture of small retail establishments. munity area is located 150 miles from Detroit, Blue Star Highway from 130th. Avenue south to 180 miles from Chicago and 36 miles from Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 5-4 Grand Rapids along a major Interstate highway. Potawatonii cultures. Their exact locations have There is also a railroad within five miles. This is not been disclosed by the Bureau of History to an advantageous location for small scale, light protect them from exploitation. One of these industrial development. sites, the Hacklander Site, located in Section 23, is listed on the National Register of Historic HISTORIC & ARCHAEOLOGICAL PFATURES Places and has components representing Middle and Late Woodland periods. Recipients of Fed- The tri-community area is rich in history eral assistance must ensure that their projects and many historic and archaeological sites can avoid damage or destruction of significant his- be found throughout the area. Singapore, torical and archaeological resources. The Mich- Michigan's most famous "ghost town" and once a thriving lumber town, lies buried at the mouth of the Kalamazoo River. A plaque commemorat- TABLE 5.3 ing its existence stands in front of the Saugatuck STATE HISTORIC SITES City Hall. Historic and archaeological sites are designated by the Michigan Bureau of History. DESCRIPTION LOCA71ON Historic Buildings and Sites Saugatuck: The Michigan State Register of Historic All Saints Episcopal 252 Grand St. Sites was established in 1955 to provide official Church recognition for historic resources in Michigan. Singapore (Village Hall) Marker on Vil- Designated historic sites have unique historic, lage Hall o architectural, archaeological, engineering, or Butler St. cultural significance. There are numerous State Chpson Brewery lee House - 900 Lake St. historic sites throughout the tri-community Twin Gables Hotel (Singa- area, which are listed on Table 5.2. Old Allegan pore Country Inn Is com- Road in Saugatuck Township is currently pend- Mon name) ing official designation as a State Historic Site. Horace D. Moore House 888 Holland State historic site designation does not in- St. clude any financial or tax benefits, nor does it Warner P. Sutton House 736 Pleasant impose any restrictions upon the owner of the (Beachwood Manor) St. property. Fred Thompson-Wilffiarn 633 Pleasant Historic Districts Springer House St. The City of Saugatuck has also taken local Douglas steps to preserve its historic character. PA 169 of 1970 permits the legislattve body of a local Dutcher Lodge # 193 Hall 86 Center St. government to regulate the construction, demo- Asa Goodrich House 112 Center St. lition and modification of all structures within a Sarah Kirby House 294 W. Cen- designated historic district. The City of ter St. Saugatuck has established an historic district within the oldest part of the city. Within this Saugatuck Township district, construction, demolition and modifica- Shiver's Inn (historic name). Built in 18Ws, tion of structures must comply with require- Oxbow Inn (conurion name) originally used ments set forth in the zoning ordinance. Historic as a resort dur- districts provide a means for the community to ing lumbering protect its historic resources from development era. In 1910 pressures. Art Institute of Archaeological Sites Chicago used it Archaeological sites are of particular scien- for sununer art tific value to the fields of anthropology, ecology school and biology, and may have historic or ethnic Hacklander Site (National Section 23 significance as well. There are 120 archaeologi- Historic Site) cal sites scattered throughout the tri-commu- Source: Nfichigan Bureau of History nity area, mostly related to Ottawa and Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 5-5 igan Bureau of History reviews these projects to assess their Impact on archaeological sites. The Bureau of History also recommend that those proposing development projects in Saugatuck Township contact the State Archae- olog1st to determine if the project may affect a known archaeological site. This is particularly critical given the e@dstence of Indian Burial sites in the area. If an Important archaeological site will be affected, archaeologists will negotiate a voluntary agreement to preserve those artifacts. Th Bureau of History serves In an advisory capacity and has no legal authority to restrict development rights. Tzi-Community Comprehensive Plan MAP .5.1 LAND USE/COVER Tri-Community URBAN WATER 113 SIngle Family 52 Lakes 115 Mobile Home WETLAND 124 Neighborhood Business 611 Wooded Swamps 126 Other Institutional 612 Shrub Swamps 193 Outdoor Recreation 621 Marshland Meadow 622 Mud Flats FARMLAND Fl. "I, I 21 Cropland BEACH 22 Orchards 72 Beach At Riverbank RANGELAND 73 Dunes sm 31 Herbaceous Rangeland 32 Shrub Rangeland WOODLAND 412) 414)Broadleaf 421) 429)Conifers August 1989 DATA SOURCE: IVIDNR Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, MI Tri-Community LAND USE/COVER ...... ... .... . ........... .. .......... .......... r . . ......... ...... .. IST ... ....... .. 0 4,000 8,000 12,000 ft ....... u H -PIP Scale 1" 9060 ft .......... . ........ ............. ILI 19117 PIP AMNomet. "I is ............ ........... Is" PIP "IMM, . . . . . . . . ii"P jL . .......... f7 M PIP ......... ......... ..... ..... . ........... .............. .... I ...... IIIIIIw;:, PIP I "M .. PIP', ... ...... ... . .......... Z's, ..... . ........... @4,;; I " " " " " " " ", I ..... M IMMM, I ....... .. ... . ...... ....... . ............ ...... IMI IIPIIIII I- I M-MM""' ......... .....;...... "I I I'MMM"MI111MIM M .......... I'll M IMII "I,;;,;""";",;;;"",",;,"'I .............. 11 111;11"1;1"1;1"1;1";,;,;;;;,; ............. IM I.. .... ion-, IM"I'M1141 ....... .. M111111111111111 ....... "I'll", "Miss' PIP MAP 5.2 EXISTING LAND USE Tri-Community Single Family Residential Agricultural - Orchard Mulltiple Family Residential Recreational NpResidential/Commercial Junkyard Commercial 11 ..... Mobile Home Park ff Bid Boat Storage/Marina Vacant Industrial Wetland MR Institutional F-1 Water 9M Agricultural August 1989 SOURCE: PZC Land Use Survey Planning & Zoning Center, Inc, Lansing, MI w Cl) --- ()q c _j IF7ti I @ kl@ CO x @,!V' !r g .. tttg ......... wig; 141 . . . . . . . . . . lWL MA 0 *k' ......k 11221 ............ .......... t' . ....... ....... .. . ...... if mu .............. . ... ........... CD (0 C) C6 0 IF= n I L 0 4.000 8,000 12,000 It Mtn Scale 1" 9060 ft iLp .4itfiii FE @D TFr- E4d LL I 1 1, 11 Tr= n4 L MAP 5.3 PA 116 LANDS & Tri-Community UNIQUE FARMLANDS PA 116 Lands Unique Farmlands A August 198g, DATA SOURCE: MDNR Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, MI 6-1 Chapter 6 PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES NON-PARK PUMIC FACHXXIES seasonal and daily visitor populations. The costs of developing an independent utility system for A listing of all non-park public facilities in Saugatuck Township are not considered feasi- the tri-community area is found on Table 6 .1 . ble. The absence In all three jurisdictions of This includes police and fire stations, municipal capital Improvements plans for financing the government offices, vacant lands and other pub- needed improvements further complicates the lic: facilities. All arc shown on Map 6.6. matter. The recent decision by the Township to join the KLSWA is a step towards the obvious LrrELxnEs regional solution of the Township connecting to Sewer and Water the existing Douglas and Saugatuck system. The Saugatuck-Douglas area sewer and Water System water systems are managed by the Kalamazoo The reliability of the water system depends Lake Sewer and Water Authority, which is re- on water supply suffictent to meet peak de- sponsible for operation and maintenance and mands, storage capacity to provide fire flows for provides water production and wastewater sufficient duration. adequate water pressure treatment. Each community is responsible for and distribution system loops. The existing sys- providing and financing their own infrastruc- tem is deficient with respect to meeting peak ture. The KLSWA performs the construction demands. The water is not treated, except for work or contracts it out. chlorination and iron sequestering. Parts of the The service areas for the sewer and water current water system date back to 1907 in systems, shown on maps 6.1 and 6.2, extend Saugatuck, and to 1914 in Douglas. In addition, only for very short distances into Saugatuck the water mains are old, small and substandard, Township. The Township did not participate in leaks are a problem on older service lines, and initial construction of the water or sewer sys- there may be some unmetered taps. Growth is tems because of the disproportionate financial restricted in areas not serviced by the system impacts on the few property owners who would and is limited overall at present because of have been served. In effect, the Township is not insufficient pumping capacity. served by public sewer and water. This severely The existing water system also has many limits the growth potential for areas outside of dead end lines, which are susceptible to water Saugatuck and Douglas, due to the fact that the discoloration and development of tastes and soils are not suitable for multi-family or com- odors due to stagnation. The best arrangement mercial septic systems, and in many areas even for water mains is the gridiron svstem, where all residential development is not appropriate ex- cept at very low density. If this continues, devel- primary and secondary feeders are looped and opment in the tri-community area may be interconnected, and the small distribution brought to a standstill because of a lack of mains tie to each loop to form a complete grid. developable land. If an adequate number of valves are inserted, Numerous engineering studies have been only a small I block area will be affected in the conducted which discuss various alternatives event of a break A primary feeder from the for improvement of utilities. These include using Saugatuck wells to the system's primary 12" Lake Michigan for the municipal water supply feeder loop has been installed, and all of the and extending public utilities into the Township, primary 12" feeder loop has been completed, Proposals must take into consideration the per- including two river crossings. manent population, seasonal population, num- In 1984 and 1985. a one million gallon ber of daily visitors, and future industrial flow. above ground storage tank was constructed, Peak periods for public utilities in the tri-com- which allowed Saugatuck and Douglas to meet munity area are more pronounced than in typi- normal and fire protection demands. If cal communities due to the relatively high Saugatuck Township is included in the system, the storage tank is adequate for fire protection Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 6-2 TABLE 6.1 (NON-PARK) PUBLIC PROPERTY & PUBLIC FACILITIES HiVENTORY NAME LOCATION USE SIZE CONDITION VALUE SAUG. TWF. Township 36 Center Twp offices. 56'X120' Below aver- $175,000- Hall St., Douglas interurban of- (45x64') age $200.000 flees, Douglas police, 2 rental apart- ments Saugatuck 135th & Burial 1350'x730' Average Riverside Blue Star Cemetery Douglas 130th Burial 690'x440' Average Cemetery southside Douglas 130th Burial 330'x530' Average North annex northside cemetery SAUGATUCK City Hall 102 Butler City off 1ces, Built 1882, $475,000 council cham- remodeled bers 1989 Mainte- 3338 Wash- Public works Built 1985 $275,000 nance bldg. ffigton Rd. Sand & salt 3338 Wash- Built 1985 $25,000 storage ington Rd. Pump Maple St. Water $65,000 House # 1 Pump Maple St. Water Built 1973 $80,000 House #2 Mt. Bald- Park St. Residence Remodeled $94,000 head Park 1978 Butler St. Butler & Restrooms Built 1988 $97,000 comfort Main statoin Park St. Mt. Baldhead Restrooms, Fair $6,400 comfort sta- tion Water St. Wicks Park Restrooms Fair $13,000 comfort sta- tion Beach stor- Oval Beach Storage, Poor $4.000 age bldg. restrooms, concessison DOUGLAS Vacant lot Comer Gravel stor- 28,000 sq. ft. Dry $35,000 Ferry & Cen- age (1/2 acre+) ter Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 6-3 TABLE 6.1 (continued) (NON-PARK) PUBLIC PROPERTY & PUBLIC FACILITIES RMNTORy NAME LOCATION USE SIZE * CONDITION VALUE Library Mixer & Cen- Library 4327 sq.ft. Good $96,000 (Saugatuck- ter Sts. (1 lot-8400 Douglas) sq.ft-Y Fire barn Spring & Office, fire 2560 sq.ft. Good $100,000 Center Sts. barn (1 /4 acre- 10,000 sq.ft.) DPWbarn Water & Barn 2432 sq.ft. Poor Land is valu- Center Sts. (launch (13/4 acres- able, river ramp 80,000 sq.ft.) frontage & curently walk be con- closed) verted to park and/or marina Two DPW barn Well housing combined Good $26,000 pumphouses bldgs=360 & pumps sq.ft. (land includes DPWbarn) 1/2 vacant Gerber, None 66 sq.ft. wide Varied street ends South, on K. River Fermont, & Lake Randolph, Spencer Land = acres or square feet (Building square feet) for the near future, but additional capacity is The Health Department has also questioned the needed if service were extended to the southern usefulness and reliability of both Douglas wells portions of the Township. because well # 1, which is out of use, is contam- Recent chemical contamination of the inated, and well #2, which is used for emergency Douglas municipal water supply has led to an purposes only, may become contaminated overburdening of the City of Saugatuck water through further use. As a result, alternatives for system, which is presently serving the entire additional water sources are currently under network and is working at full capacity: 24 review. with Lake Michigan and the City of hours per day during peak months. This has led Holland water system being considered the most to restrictions on non-essential uses such as viable options. Engineering studies have indi- lawn sprinkling, car and boat washing, and has cated a cost of nearly $4.5 million for construc- reduced the minimum reserve needed for fire tion of a Lake Michigan water treatment facility protection (600,000 gallons) down to 2/3 of the which would provide a clean and abundant needed amount. A moratorium has been im- source of water. A large service area, formed by posed on new development other than one or two including large portions of Saugatuck Town- family dwellings. The pumping capacity of both ship, would reduce the per capita cost burden wells has dropped due to depletion (drawdown) on users. This facility would be capable of of groundwater. pumping 3 million gallons per day, which could Communications from the Michigan De- serve the needs of all three communities well partment of Public Health have demanded that into the future. This, combined with a desire to substantial progress be made towards a solution retain local control over the water system, 0 to the water supply problem in the near future. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 6-4 makes using Lake Michigan water the favored wastewater treatment for Saugatuck Township alternative. include extending service to the south lakeshore residential area and the area of the Township Sewer System northeast of 1- 196. They are shown in Table 6.2. Wastewater treatment Is provided at a treat- ment plant located in Saugatuck Township The treatment facility was designed for a north of the Kalamazoo River. The facility was twenty year planning period through 1998, constructed by the City of Saugatuck and the based on a population tributary of 7,695 and a Village of Douglas In 1980. The treatment sys- wastewater flow of 0.75 million gallons per day tem provides biological and clarification pro- (MGD). The treatment facility is rated at 0.8 cesses for the reduction of BOD (biochemical million gallons per day by the Michigan Depart- oxygen demand) and suspended solids, includ- ment of Natural Resources (MDNR). The facility ing chemical precipitation for the reduction of was designed for a peak flow of 2 MGD. The phosphorus from fertilizers and detergents. The present average flow is 0.4 MGD. A larger flow plant has two aerated lagoons and was designed can be accommodated by increasing hours of for incremental addition of lagoons to accommo- operation, provided that the lagoons can treat date increased wastewater flow. The facility was the sewage well enough. An engineering study designed for heavier BOD loading than other in 1987 determined that August (maximum day facilities its size, in order to accommodate a pie was Aug. 14) is the month of peak flow for factory and thus may not need more capacity of wastewater, with 0.598 MGD. Based on the that type for many years. The discharge is to the study, the treatment facility operated at 750/0 of Kalamazoo River on the north side of Saugatuck. flow capacity, 55% of BOD capacity, and 300/6 of suspended solids capacity. Fxisting effluent In 1957, many of the storm sewers in the quality and treatment efficiency was found to be City of Saugatuck were converted to sanitary excellent. Increasing the rated capacity of the sewers. This system was expanded in 1979 with facility to 1.2 MGD with two aerated lagoons PVC pipe, and some improvements were made would accommodate all three jurisdictions to the old system. The sewer system in Douglas through 2008 and possibly beyond. Pursuing was built entirely since 1978. The two jurisdic- this option would require detailed preparation tions merged their facilities in the late 1970's to of data accompanied by a formal request to the form the KLSWA. There has been some infiltra- DNR from the KLSWA. Further capacity could tion into the system from groundwater due to be obtained by adding another aerated lagoon, bad manholes, pipe, and roof drains. The im- estimated to cost $900,000 in 1987. pacts of this infiltration were most pronounced The two basic alternatives for expanding the when Lake Michigan water levels were high. The wastewater collection system in the Township capacity of the sewer systern is sufficient to meet are pressure sewers and gravity sewers. Pres- the needs of Saugatuck and Douglas until ap- sure sewers are generally used where topogra- proximately 2008. The capacity of the phy or spacing between services prohibit the use wastewater treatment facility would have to re- of gravity sewers or where high water table and rated to 1.2 MGD for the Township to use the difficult soil conditions prevail, such as in the system until 2008. Thirty year projections for tri-community area. These systems have lower construction costs and higher maintenance and TABLE 6.2 operation costs than gravity sewers. Gravity PROJECTED SAUGATUCK TOWNSHIP sewers are the most common in use due to their WASTEWATER FLOWS minimal operation and maintenance expense. However, the cost of initial construction can be AVERAGE DAY - MGD substantial for small communities, especially if PERIOD NORTH SOUM TOTAL construction costs are further aggravated by difficult topography and soil conditions. In ad- Immediate 0.07 0.05 0.13 dition, it is rare that an entire community can 10-year 0.28 0.19 0.47 be served by gravity sewers. The existing system 20-year 0.43 0.31 0.74 in Saugatuck and Douglas is a gravity system, 30-year 0.65 0.53 1.18 with local areas of pressure. Source' Wu tuck Township Area Utility Service Study, J IrI988. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 6-5 Storm Sewers igan, which are being eroded by groundwater. There are very few mapped stormwater Other County drains in the area are located in drains in the tri-community area. Drainage has the northeast comer of the Township, east of not been a significant problem in most devel- Saugatuck and south of Douglas. County drain oped areas because of sandy, high permeability names and locations are shown on Table 6.3. soils and lack of large paved areas. There are suspected to be some stormwater drains, indi- Gas, Electric and Telephone vidual residential and business gutters flowing There are no major gas or oil pipelines in into the sanitary sewer system which need to be the tri-community area. Gas service is provided removed. Efforts are currently underway to im- by Michigan Gas Utilities Company and approx- prove stormwater drainage. imate locations of gas mains are shown on Map 6.3. There is one major 760 kilovolt electric County Drains transmission line which crosses the extreme County Drains are found throughout the southeast comer of the Township. Electricity in tri-community area. but mostly in the southern the tri-community area is provided by Consum- portion of the Township. A network of drains in ers Power Company. Telephone service is pro- Sections 27, 28, 34, 35 and 36 facilitates the vided by General Telephone and Electric Co. removal of water from an area of poorly drained (GTE). soils which is used as farmland. The Allegan County Drain Commission recently added four TRANSPORTATION new drains along the Lake Michigan shore in Transportation facilities within the trt-com- Sections 20 and 29. These drains are needed to munity area include streets and roads and a stabilize sand and clay bluffs along Lake Mich- public transportation system (Interurban). The tri-community area is served by a ma@jor inter- TABLE 6.3 state highway (1- 196) and by a State highway COUNTY DRAINS (M-89). Blue Star Highway, part of the Great Lakes Circle Tour, is the other mAjor highway DRAIN NAME LOCATION serving the area. The nearest railroad is the Silver Creek Drain Sections 2, 11 Chesapeake and Ohio R.R, which runs north Ash Drain Section 12 and south one mile east of the Township bound- ary. Kent County International Airport is within Mead Drain Section 12 50 miles and is served by 3 major airlines, with Golf Drain Section 3, Saugatuck 126 flights per day. The area is also served by Falconer Drain Section 10 Greyhound Bus Lines. Transportation facilities Barr Drain Section 10 are important in stimulating growth for the tri- Terrill Drain Section 35 community area and its location is an asset for Rose Drain Section 36 attracting further economic and industrial de- Rose Marsh Drain Section 36 velopment. Wadsworth Drain Section 27 Streets and Roads Ruplow Drain Section 27 Streets and roads are classified according Nuckelbine Drain Section 27 to the amount of traffic they carry and the Hudson Drain Section 33, 34 nature of the traffic. Four common categories Kerr Drain Section 29 are local streets, collectors, local arterials, and Herring Drain Section 20, 21 regional arterials. Local streets typically provide access to residences, with speeds from 20 to 25 Jager Crane Drain Section 20, Douglas mph (Mason St.). Collectors connect local Warnock Drain Section 20, Douglas streets to arterials and speeds average 25-35 Lakeshore #1 Section 20, 29 mph. (Center St.). Local artertals facilitate larger Lakeshore #2 Section 29 volumes of traffic which originates and termi- Lakeshore #3 Section 20, Douglas nates within the tri-community area, with a trip Section 20 intercep- Section 20 length of ten miles or less and an average speed tor of 35-45 mph. (Blue Star Hwy.). Regional arte- rials are typically used for high speed through traffic, and access to the roadway is usually Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 6-6 TABLE 6.4 nity. Roads in the Township are managed by the EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS Allegan County Road Comn-iission. which also DATE LOCATION VOLUME receives PA 51 funds based on the mileage of roads in each class under its jurisdiction. 4/3/78 Blue Star & 64th 5,319 1959 & 1968 130th E & W of 368 Lakeshore Drive (same count) Blue Star Lakeshore Drive provides a scenic link be- July 1987 (2 Blue Star & 129th 10,575 tween areas along the Lake Michigan coast. High different days) 8,256 water levels on the Great Lakes, combined with 1969 Old Allegan, east 336 storms, resulted in powerful wave action which of Blue Star undermined sand and clay bluffs along the 1982 130th & 70th, east 285 shore, causing them to collapse. Because of its of Lakeshore Dr. close proximity to these bluffs, the road has - washed out in two places, one in section 20 July 1987 North 135th at 7,018 which is impassable, and one south of Douglas Blue Star (north- which has only one lane passable. School buses bound) are not allowed to travel on some segments of July 1987 129th at Blue 6,192 the road because of poor and unsafe conditions. Star (northbound) The Allegan County Road Commission allocated October 1985 Center at Blue 10,861 $260,000 to test the effects of concrete for ac- Star cretion technology along the shoreline. The ero- sion barrier was installed In two locations and is having a minimal effect on the shoreline. Cost limited (1- 196). Locations of collectors, local ar- estimates for rebuilding Lakeshore Drive are at terials and regional arterials are shown in Map approximately $3.8 million (1988). This would 6.4. Each class of street has an important func- involve relocation of portions of the road and tion in maintaining the efficient flow of traffic implementation of erosion control measures. and it is essential that adequate transportation facilities e-,dst or can be efficiently provided. Blue Star Highway Some up-to-date traffic counts for Blue Star Blue Star Highway serves as a local arterial. Highway are available. A recent count for Blue Numerous problems inhibit it from performing Star Highway at two intersections in the Town- that function effectively. ship only considers northbound traffic, missing Access to commercial and industrial estab- traffic entering Saugatuck from exit 41 on 1- 196. lishments along arterial roads should be con- Other existing traffic counts for area roads are trolled by curbing. At present, there is virtually inadequate for planning purposes. Accurate and no controlled access in these areas on Blue Star up-to-date traffic counts are needed in order to Highway, and wide driveways and open shoul- make some decisions pertaining to priorities for ders lead to an elevated risk of accidents. There road Improvements, monitoring of flows, evalu- are no designated pedestrian traffic areas or ating impacts of proposed new development, bike paths, causing pedestrians to use the and projecting future traffic conditions. Table shoulder, unsafely. Widely varying speed limits 6.4 shows what very limited information is pres- between the Kalamazoo River bridge and the exit ently available from the County Road Commis- from 1- 196 at the northern boundary of the sion. Township make it difficult for motorists to travel PA 5 1 of 195 1 provides for the classification the road without violating the speed limit. The of all public roads, streets and highways for the roadway needs to have more than two lanes, purpose of managing the motor vehicle highway especially if future development is to occur. The fund. The classifications which pertain to the Township has paved the shoulders, and these tri-community area are "County-Wide Primary are often mistaken for actual lanes, which poses Road" and "County-Wide Local Road" in a safety hazard. The possibility of creating a Saugatuck Township, and "Major Streets" and boulevard along Blue Star Highway was dis- "Local Streets" in Saugatuck and Douglas. cussed at town meetings. Variations of this con- These roadways are shown in Map 6.5. Funding cept could improve appearance, safety and is provided to cities and villages for street main- traffic control. There is no cooperative mainte- tenance and construction based on the number nance arrangement among the three Jurisdic- of miles of streets by class, within each commu- Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 6-7 tions for Blue Star Highway and the County respond upon request to calls in all three juris- Road Commission. yet the roadway needs re- dictions. The Township also has a constable who pairs and resurfacing. performs bar checks and serves zoning viola- Very little useable traffic count information tions. is available, making It difficult to assess where The Village of Douglas maintains its own needs are greatest so that improvements can be police department, which is housed adjacent to prioritized. Traffic may be higher in some seg- the Saugatuck Township hall on Spring Street. ments than in others, indicating which speed The department has one patrol car and three full limits and whether other traffic control mea- time police officers. There are also three officers sures are necessary. The intersection with Lake on reserve. The police department plans to have Street in Saugatuck is hazardous in poor two patrol cars by the summer of 1990. weather conditions and visibility or signaling The City of Saugatuck maintains its own should be improved. police department, which is housed in the City The entrances into the tri-community area Hall at 102 Butler Street. The department has from Blue Star Highway do not present visitors two patrol cars and two full time police officers, with positive first impressions. This is especially including the Police Chief. There are also five true if entering the area from the north, through part-time police officers. Extra demand for ser- section 3 of the Township. Over 600/6 of people vices occurs during the summer, particularly responding to the public opinion survey noted during festivals and holidays. that the appearance of the highway needed im- provement. Fire Saugatuck, Douglas and Saugatuck Town- Interurban ship are included in the Saugatuck Fire District. The Interurban is the area's public trans- This district is managed by a five member Fire portation system and is funded in part by a 1 Authority. Saugatuck, Douglas and Saugatuck mill. assessment. The service was started in May Township each appoint one person to the board. 1980 as a two year experimental project and was These three then appoint two other people from initially funded at 100% by the State. Following the area at large, subject to approval by the three the experimental period, some of the cost bur- communities involved. The Saugatuck Fire Dis- den was borne by the tri-communities through trict has 35 volunteer personnel, including the a the I mill assessment. The system has four fire chief There are two fire stations, one located buses and in 1988 there were approximately in downtown Douglas (47 W. Center) and an- 37,000 riders. A new maintenance facility in other in Saugatuck Township near the intersec- Douglas, to be completed in the spring of 1990, tion of Blue Star Highway and 134th Avenue. is being constructed at a cost of $2 11,000 en- The latter is a new building designed to house tirely with state and federal funds. It Is possible six vehicles, offices and a meeting room with that the Interurban could be used to shuttle 9,600 square feet. It is located adjacent to the people to Saugatuck from remote parking facil- existing Maple Street facility. itates and ease the parking burden there. The The Fire District maintains eight vehicles Interurban is governed by a board consisting of and one vessel: members from all three communities. -1975 Chevy Pumper -1981 International Pumper POLICE. FIRE AND ENERGENCY SERVICES 1968 International Pumper 1959 Ford Pumper Police 1949 Seagrave Aerial Police protection for the tri-community area 1977 GMC Step Van is provided by the Allegan County Sheriff De- 1985 FWD Tanker partment and the Michigan State Police, and by -1985 Karavan Trailer local departments In Saugatuck and Douglas. - Boston Whaler boat with pump The State Police maintains the Saugatuck Team post north of the Township on 138th. Avenue in Emergency Services Laketown Township. The facility has one lieu- Ambulance services are provided by the tenant, one sergeant, seven troopers and eight Fenriville Fire District and by Mercy Hospital in patrol cars. The Allegan County Sheriff Depart- Grand Rapids, dispatched from Holland. The ment operates a satellite post in Fennville which Saugatuck Fire District maintains a first re- serves the area. The State Police and the Sheriff Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 6-8 sponder unit with 11 volunteers because of the SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL distance from ambulance services. The first re- sponder unit appears to average about 10 calls PA 641 of 1978 requires that every county per month. prepare both a short term (5 year) and long term (20 years) solid waste management plan. The plan must be approved by the County Planning SCHOOLS Committee, the County Board of Commissioners Three school districts serve the tri-commu- and by at least 2/3 of the municipalities in the nity area; Saugatuck, Fennville, and Hamilton county. The Allegan County Solid Waste Plan school districts. (See Map 2. 1). Approximately dates from 1983 and covers a twenty year plan- half of Saugatuck Township, and all of Douglas ning period. It is presently being updated. and Saugatuck, are served by the Saugatuck The County generates about 220 tons per district, with the southern portion of the Town- day of solid waste and has to rely on landfills ship being served mostly by the Fenriville dis- outside of Allegan County. Solid waste removal trict and the extreme northeast portion of the in the tri-community area is handled entirely by Township served by the Hamilton district. The private haulers. The waste stream from the Saugatuck school system operates two facilities. County, and thus from the area, is expected to Douglas Elementary School accommodates Increase due to population and tourist increases grades K through 6. and Saugatuck High School brought about by the area's shoreline, natural accommodates grades 7 through 12. Enrollment attractions, and proximity to Grand Rapids. is approximately 550 students and has declined The Saugatuck area is defined in the Solid by 34% since 1973. The Fennville system has an Waste Plan and encompasses Saugatuck Town- elementary school (K-6) and a high school (7- ship, Saugatuck and Douglas, as well as small 12). with an enrollment of approximately 1600 portions of the adjoining communities. The students. Enrollments in the Fennvfile system Saugatuck area currently generates 11. 3 tons of are stable and range from 1550 to 1650 students solid waste per day. In some outlying rural per year, with less than 25% of the students areas, 5- 100/6 of the residential waste generated coming from Saugatuck Township. The Hamil- is disposed of or recycled on site. In urban areas, ton district operates four elementary schools approximately 5% of residential waste is being (K-6) and one high school (7-12). Enrollment is recycled or scattered by individual efforts. The near capacity, with 1900 students. The district contributors to the solid waste stream by land has been experiencing a 4-5% annual increase use are shown in Table 6.5. in enrollments in recent years. Table 6.6 shows the results of a study con- The school districts serving the area, espe- ducted by the Northeast Michigan Council of cially the Saugatuck district, appear to have Governments (NEMCOG) in the early 1980's. some capacity for accommodating increases in The study involved counties with both urban the school age population. Furthermore, the and rural characteristics, much like the tri-com- part of the tri-community area served by the munity area. Solid waste generated has been Saugatuck school district is that which is most broken down into specific categories. The num- suitable for new growth. bers probably do not match the actual break- down of solid waste components in the tri-community area, but give a rough estimate TABLE 6.5 of the components. TONS GENERATED PER DAY Per capita waste generated from various BY LAND USE land uses is shown in Table 6.7. The Allegan County Solid Waste Plan pro- SOURCE QUANTI-IY (PER DAY) jects that solid waste output for the Saugatuck Residential 6.5 area will increase by 32% by 2000 to 14.95 tons per day due to projected population increase. Commercial 2.8 The goals and objectives of the plan focus Industrial 1.8 on reducing the waste stream through separa- Other 0.7 tion and recycling, using private haulers for Not Collected -0.5 waste collection, recovering energy from the NET TOTAL IL 1.3 solid waste stream and providing the public with Source: Allegan County Solid Waste Plan opportunities to develop solutions for solid waste disposal problems. A recycling center is Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 6-9 TABLE 6.6 munity area are concerned, State regulations SOLID WASTE CONIPOSITION prohibit operation of a new landfill on: - Land considered by the DNR to be a State TWE POTSW recognized unique wildlife habitat. Combustible Wastes Percentage - Land in the 100 year floodplain. - Prime agricultural lands. Paper 44.8 - A DNR designated and officially mapped Plastics 9.2 wetland. Wood 3.5 - So close to an historic or archaeological site Yard Wastes 4.1 that it can be reasonably expected to pro- Textiles 4.2 duce unduly disturbing or blighting influ- Food Wastes 11.5 ence with permanent negative effect. - In a developed area where the density of Rubber 2.2 adjacent houses or water wells could be Misc. Organics 3.0 reasonably expected to produce undue po- TOTALS 82.5 tential for groundwater contamination. Due to the presence of many wetlands in Noncombustible Wastes the area (Map 4.4), many prime agricultural Glass 5.3 lands (Map 4.10), numerous archaeological Ferrous 6.6 sites, land in the 100 year floodplain (Map 4.3), critical dune areas (Map 4.13), and areas sus- Aluminum 0.8 ceptible to groundwater contamination (Map Other nonFerrous 0.5 4. 11), not much is left for potential landfill sites. Misc. Inorganics 4.3 Furthermore, most of those sites which may be TOTALS 17.5 environmentally suitable for landfills have al- Proportion of Total Solid Waste ready been developed. Thus it is not likely that Source: Allegan County Solid Waste Plan a landftll will be located in the area. TABLE 6.7 PER CAFITA WASTE GENERATED USE QPE * (LBS. PER DAY) Residential 2.9 Commercial 5.75 Industrial 10.6 Average Overall 4.7 * guantity Per Employee Source: Allegan County Solid Waste Plan currently in operation on Blue Star Highway adjacent to 1-196 and exit 41. The center is partially funded by Saugatuck, Douglas and Saugatuck Township and is very well used. Allegan County Resource Recovery maintains the facility, which collects newspapers, plastics, glass, aluminum and brown paper bags. Pickup of metal appliances and tires is also possible by contacting the center. The recycling center was started in 1984. The Saugatuck Township Landfill (public), located in Sections 10 and 11, was closed in 1984. As far as new landfills within the tri-com- Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan R 0 4,000 8,000 12,000 It Scale 1" - 9060 ft ..... .......... MAP 6.1 WATER SYSTEM Tri-Community Water Mains FR] Reservoir Proposed Water Intake & Treatment area 0/@ @ Existing Well Locations A @111L August 1989 DATA SOURCE: Williams & Works, Inc. Grand Rapids Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, MI -0 ---GEL Ills, is RID X I t1lix X 17 E .I lilt sit is' Ills ULUA (0 0) A ==7 1111MIZ, TFMIIIIFM ........ MAP 6.2 SEWER SYSTEM Tri-Community F-e-ANISewer Lines Discharge Line August 1989 DATA SOURCE: Williams & Works, Inc. Grand Rapids Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, IVII -wW L -@ ; 0 4,000 8,000 12,000 It Scale 1 9060 It AT @n TFFr- T- rl-j ]Hn I MAP 6.3 GAS MAINS Tri-Community fl-oel Gas Mains A AugustI989 SOURCE:Michigan Gas Utilities Company Planning & Zoning Center Inc., Lansing,M1 JL MAP6.4 STREET CLASSIFICATIONS Tri-Community Regional Arterials Local Streets Local Arterials Collectors August 1989 DATA SOURCE: PZC Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, MI 0 4,000 8,000 12,000 ft Scale V= 9060 ft 0" MAP6.5 ACT 51 ROADS Tri-Community County Local Road Major Streets County Primary Road F/---]LocalRoads State Trunkline A August 1989 DATA SOURCE: Michigan Department Of Transportation Planning & Zoning Center Inc. Lansing, IvIl N KE t 136TH N. A 4 ap WA 134TH AV 0 4,000 8,000 12,000 ft Scale 1 9060 ft A' ST 17 t 1z 8 10 jSA%O AVC. z CAMPOELL ST. KALA 00 LME 0 A. WraR 97 OAY 15 7 14 13 KALAMAZO W + 196 20 31 129TH AVI 23 21 ........... 2 1z*T" ^@C. 12fTm "V,;! 0 i 27 25 26 29 ....... za I.......... .......... 120TH -C. C' .... ........... 33 34!, 35 36 L, TAROW GATUCK TWP. SAU MAP 6.6 PUBLIC FACILITIES Tri-Community 1)2 Pumphouses 2)Vacant block 3)1/2 Vacant Street 4 & 5)Vacant Lot 6)Library 7)Fire Dist. 1 & Fire Barn 8)DPW Barn 9)Saugatuck Township Hall 1 O)Saug. Riverside Cemetry 1 I)Douglas Cemetry 12)Douglas North Cemetry 13)Saug. Town. Fire District No.2 14)Saugatuck City Hall A 15)Public Restrooms 16)Saugatuck High School 17)Waterwell August 1989 Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Ml 7-1 Chapter 7 RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE P arks, recreation, and open space are essen- two County Comn-Assioners, and five members tial to the quality of life of area residents, appointed by the County Board of Commission- and are an important component of the local ers. The Commission meets on the first Monday tourist economy. They enhance property values, of each month. It sometimes provides financial as well as physical and psychological well-being. assistance for local recreational efforts which Parks and open space define the character of advance the County Recreation Plan. each area community, create the scenic atmo- sphere which stimulates tourism, and provide AREAWIDE RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES the basis for popular local leisure activities. Recreation needs are regional in nature and Recreation can be separated into four main plans must view local recreational offerings as categories: physical, social, cognitive, and envi- part of a regional recreational system. Local romnentally related recreation. The former cat- governments, schools, private entrepreneurs, egory focuses on sports and various physical the County, and the State each have a central activities. Social recreation looks at social inter- role in serving local and regional recreational action. Cognitive recreation deals with cultural, needs. educational, creative, and aesthetic activities. Environmentally related recreation requires the natural environment as the setting or focus for ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE activity. Each of these categories in some way The City of Saugatucles parks are main- relates to the others. tained by the City through its Department of Public Works. Park planning is done by a com- Physical Recreation rnittee of three City Council members, who are Intramural athletics are popular for chil- overseen by the City Manager and the full Coun- dren and young adults in the area and are cil. offered through the summer recreation pro- Douglas parks are maintained by the gram. Activities include softball, baseball, Village's Department of Public Works under the rocket football, volleyball, bowling and others Village Council's Parks and Buildings Commit- (see Table 7. 1). The elementary school has a tee, which reports to the Village Council. newly expanded playground and Kid's Stuff The Township formed a Township Park and Park. Playgrounds are also found at River Bluff, Recreation Commission in November 1970, which is an independent governmental entity TABLE 7. IL charged with provision of parks and recreational SUMMER RECREATION PROGRAMS programs to area citizens. The Commission has six elected members, and is staffed by a part- ACrrV= 1989 time maintenance person. Representatives from PARMIPANTS both Douglas and the Township may be elected T-ball for kids 40 to sit on the Commission. The Commission com- Little League 46 pleted the Saugatuck - Douglas Area Parks and Pony League 19 Recreation Plan in February of 1985 and up- Slow-pitch softball 10-18 dates the plan periodically. Revision of the plan Fast pitch softball (girls) 27 is currently underway. Allegan County prepares and periodically Serni-competit1ve softball (boys) 15-20 updates a countywide parks and recreation Rocket football 57 plan. County parks are administered by a ten- Swimniing: beginner. advanced 66 member County Parks and Recreation Commis- beginner, intermediate, swim- sion whose members include the Chairs of the mer, basic rescue & advanced County Road Commission, the County Planning lifesaving Corrunission, the County Drain commissioner, Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 7-2 TABLE 7.2 INVENTORY OF OUTDOOR RECREATION r_ 4A 'A X 14 " W 60 1 -4 Y. ONO E Size 0 .0 'J C :3 cc W a 19U W 4J .0 4J N " r. Locat ton 4 0 14 0 0 4 r-c 0 tj m.u 44" .4 a 36 U M U (acres) A 6 W V C W I-River Bluff 27 X X X 2.Sundown .4 X X 3-Amalanchier 4 X X_ 4-Douglas Beach 1.4 X X A I X_ 5-H. Beery Field 1.2 X X X X X 6.Schultz Park 20 X X x )t XX X X X X 7-Union St. Launch - X X 8-Center St. Launch - X 10.Village Square 2.5 X X X1 I I 1XI 11.Wicks Park .5 X X 12.Willow Park - X* 13.Cook Park .5 X X 14.Spear St. Launch - X 15-Mc. Baldhead 51 _X X X X X X 16. Oval Beach 36 XX X X X 1 17. Tallmage Woods 60* X X L 18. Old "Airport" 154 X 19. Elementary Sch. 8.6 X X 20. High School X X I Ix 21. St. Peter's I Ix 22. 63rd St. Launch X 23. West Wind KOA 12 X X X X1 X I X I X ix 24. Blue Star Iliway Roadside Park X 25. Riverside Park 7 Sundown. Schultz, and Beery Parks and the the High School, the Masonic Hall, and various Douglas Village Square. Aerobic fitness classes area clubs. are offered at the High school. Walking, hiking, biking, boating, golfing, swimming, and cross Cognitive Recreation country skiing are also popular, and enjoyed by The tri-community area is rich in cognitive a wide range of age groups. recreational pursuits. Festivals, art workshops, local theater, historic districts, an archaeologi- Social Recreation cal site, summer day camp. and community Avariety of local clubs and activities provide education programs -provide cultural, educa- social recreation for people of all ages. Festivals, tional, and aesthetic enjoyment. The Saugatuck community education programs, and intramu- Women's Club, Rubenstein Music Club. the ral sports provide an opportunity to socialize. Oxbow, Douglas Garden Club, and the Douglas Senior citizens activities are organized through Art Club are among the local clubs which orga- the New Day Senior Citizens Club of Douglas, nize cultural activities. @__- @X X X Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 7-3 Environmentally Related Recreation area. Those recommended for Saugatuck are Area lakes. the Kalamazoo River, and state shown below in order of priority: and local parks provide area citizens with - Park Streets from Campbell to Perryman. unique outdoor recreation opportunities. They - Oval Beach road. provide a location for a variety of outdoor activ- Those recommended for Douglas are shown ities including boating, fishing, swimming, na- below in order of priority: ture study, camping, hiking, cross country - Center Street from Tara to Lake Shore skiing, and nature walks. These areas also serve Drive. the cognitive needs of area citizens and tourists - Ferry Street from Center to Campbell Road. by their scenic beauty and relaxing affect. In - Lake Shore Drive from Campbell Road to fact, the most valued attribute of area water the Village limits. bodies and open space to area citizens, as iden- A path on Blue Star Highway from the tified in the 1988 Public Opinion Survey, is not bridge to Center Street, which was the Village's physical recreation, but the scenic view they first priority, has already been completed. provide. Those bike paths recommended in order of priority for Saugatuck Township are: - Lake Shore Drive from 130th Avenue to RECREATION INVENTORY M-89. Map 7.1 identifies parks and recreational - Holland Streets from Saugatuck to the Y. facilities in the tri-community area. Table 7.2 - Old Allegan Road from Blue Star Highway contains an inventory of outdoor recreation fa- to 60th St. cilities in the tri-community area. There are also - Blue Star Highway from 129th Ave. to M- two eighteen hole and one nine hole golf courses 89. in the area. This is much higher than typical for The regional bike path system would con- such a small population (the standard is 1 golf nect with Saugatuck@s chain link ferry to afford course per 50,000 people), and reflects the im- bicyclists cast/west access. This connection pact of tourism on local recreational facilities. A runs down Holland Street and across Francis discussion of the size, condition, and planned Street to the waterfront and will be served by improvements for selected area parks is shown inner city streets, without the need for addi- in Table 7.3. Table 7.4 includes a schedule of tional right of way. At this juncture, bicyclists planned park and open space acquisitions and may ride the chain link ferry to Saugatuck's improvements. Proposed recreation projects eastern border. Once on Saugatucks eastern contained in the Saugatuck - Douglas Recre- side, bicyclists could follow Saugatuck7s pro- ation Plan are listed in Table 7.5. posed bike path system down through Douglas and south out of the Township. Bike path right RECREATIONAL NEEDS AND USAGE of way would also extend north to Goshorn Lake The 1988 Public Opinion Survey high- along Washington Road, thereby connecting lighted those recreational facilities which resi- with Laketown Township. Another future exten- dents feel are inadequate in the tri-community sion could extend the system east along Old area. Table 7.6 lists these byJurisdiction. Allegan Road into Manlius Township. This is a scenic route, although somewhat hilly. Non-Motorized Trails and Bike Paths Bicyclists wishing to pass through Saugatuck and on south through Douglas Residents placed highest priority on addi- would need additional right of way from Lake tional bike paths, cross country skiing routes, Street to the bridge, thereby connecting with the and hiking trails. These needs are currently Douglas bike path network. Douglas in turn served by non-motorized trails in the Oval would extend its bike path south on Blue Star Beach/Mt. Baldhead area. The 1985 Saugatuck Highway to connect with the Township system. - Douglas Parks and Recreation Plan, identified Map 7.2 shows this proposed regional bike bicycle trails as a high priority and prepared a path network. schedule of capital improvements to achieve this objective. These improvements have not been Water implemented to date. firont Open Space In 1984, the Saugatuck Township Park and A survey *of waterfront usage revealed that Recreation Commission developed a list of rec- the most popular waterfront activity is viewing. ornmended. bike paths in the tri-community The second most popular use varied by water- body. Swimming was the primary use of Lake Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 7-4 TABLE 7.3 FARIL MVENTORY PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS NAME OF PARK LOCATION USES SIZE CONDITION TYPE/YEAR Douglas Beery Field Center & Main baseball. play- pressbox-220 pressbox & wash- None Sts. ground, picnic s.fL. dugouts- m p , other- roo oor 350 sqfL, land- wise good 52, 000 sq.ft, I acre Douglas Beach Lakeshore Dr. public beach & beach-36,400 Fair None picnic sft. nearly I acre, bathhouse- 280 s.fL Schultz 130th & softball, picnic, pavillion-1326 Good Acquisitton/'89 Kalamazoo River playground, sqfL, land- 20 launch ramp acres Union St. Union St. at Kal. launch ramp, 66x 120' Good None Launch Ramp River picnic area Saug. 7wp. River Bluff Kal. River above hiking, picnic, 27 acres newly installed pad for 1- 196 bridge; ac- boaters stop, na- entry road & pic- dumpster/'89, cess from Old Al- ture study, swing- nic area. New more flowers/89, legan Rd. ing & sandbox dock & picnic todet improve- shelter ments/1990-92 Sundown Lake MI Bluff at picnics, watch- 66'xI50' Very poor new fence: needs 126th Ave. ing lakes & sun- lanClscal)_ sets, scenic ing/1989-1992 tumout Blue Star Blue Star Hwy. picnics, resting 30'x200' new flovxrs; fence work/ 1989, south of Skyline for travelers needs new bol- boRards/1989-90 Restaurant lards & fence re- pairs Center St. Park Eastem end of canoe launching, 3 acres Poor additional dock- Center at picnics, scenic Ing, public Kalamazoo River viewing restrooms, gazebo Saugatuck Village Square Butler & Main tennis courts, 2.5 acres Good Streets drinking fountain, playground, benches, restrooms Wicks Park Waterfront be- bandstand, 1/2 acre Good tween Main & boardwalk, approx. Mary Streets benches.ftsh- ing, restrooms Willow Park Waterfront at viewing area, 132 ft Good Butler & Lucy benches Cook Park Waterft*ont on picnic tables 132 ft. Good Water Street Boat Ramp Spear Street boat launch 66 ft. Good streetend Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 7-5 TABLE 7.3 (continued) PARELANDU4VENTORY PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS NAME OF PARK LOCA71ON USES SIZE CONDITION TYPENEAR Mt. Baldhead Park Street picnic shelter, ta- 51 acres Good Park bles, restroorns, hiking trails, park- ing, stairway to observation deck on top of dune, two observation decks on rtver Oval Beach Lake Michigan beach house, con- 36 acres Good new concession Park cession stand, stand & parking, picnic restroorns/1990 area, BBQ grills, vie%ving deck stairs to beach. observation deck, nature trails Tallmadge current use re- 100 acres Good Woods stricted Michigan, powerboating for Lake Kalamazoo Beery park are more frequently used by City and and Silver Lake (which also is popular for ftsh- Village residents, than those in the Township. ing), and nature study was the most popular for It is important to note that survey re- Kalamazoo River due to its large connecting sponses reflect the usage characteristics of older wetlands and wide array of wildlife- including a adults. The average age of survey respondents large population of Great Blue Herons which was 54 to 56 years old. As the age of respondents have established a rookery in the area. increases, park usage tends to decrease- espe- In accordance with usage, the overwhelm- cially for parks which specialize in acttve sports. ing majority of residents in each jurisdiction This reveals the need to orient recreation plans cited preservation of existing waterfront open to the recreational needs of older adults. Thus, space and increased access to the waterfront as bike paths, waterfront open space/access, hik- their highest waterfront need. Acquisition of ing trails, and cross country ski trails should land and provision of access to Lake Michigan probably receive precedence in future recreation was given highest priority for the waterfront. enhancement projects, over more active park Open space along Lake Kalamazoo and the facilities like ball diamonds. Kalamazoo River were also given high prior" by the majority of respondents, although the re- Senior Citizens Center sponse was higher in the Village (64-69%) and Senior citizens in the area have been lobby- Township (62%) than in the City of Saugatuck ing for a senior citizens center to serve the social (48-50%). A large number of respondents also and recreational needs of the area's elderly pop- called for additional boat launching facilities. ulation. The survey results reflect some support for a senior center. Fifty-three percent of Town- Parks ship respondents and 45% of Village respon- Respondents were asked how frequently dents felt that a senior center deserved high they used various local parks and the over- priority. However, only 25% of City residents whelming majority responded "never". Oval called for a senior center- surprising, given the Beach is used most frequently of the area parks high proportion of seniors in the City's resident by residents of each jurisdiction, and is used population. most heavily by City residents. Douglas Beach is also frequently used. Wicks, Schultz, and Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 7-6 TABLE 7.4 PROPOSED RECREATION PROJECTS TRI-COADdUNITY AREA PROPOSED PROJECT LOCA71ON VERY HIGH PRIORITY Willow Park preservation and improvement Downtown Saugatuck on the rtver Acquire extensive land areas Lake Michigan Shoreline New dug outs - football field Saugatuck High School Renovation of playground equipment Douglas Elementary School Convert weight room to storage & coach's offices Saugatuck High School Remodel Wicks Park restrooms On rtver in Saugatuck Acquire land to access to Oxbow Lagoon North of Oval Beach Park HIGH PRIORITY Acquire and improve land for marina and park Douglas rtverfront near bridge Boat launching facility City of Saugatuck Develop bicycle trails Entire area Purchase park parcel on hill In Saugatuck Acquire additional land for River Bluff Park Adjacent to River Bluff in Township Construct additional public restrooms Downtown Saugatuck Clear and develop Moore's Creek Near Amalanchier Park in Saugatuck Township Rehabilitate tennis courts Village Square Park - Saugatuck Update Village Square Park Village Square Park - Saugatuck Expand and improve Howard Schultz Park Village of Douglas Riverside Park equipment & improvements Village of Douglas MEDIUM Expand underground sprinkling system Village Square Park - Saugatuck Acquire land and develop tot lots All areas Develop archery range River Bluff Park - Township Beach House rehabilitation Saugatuck Oval Beach Acquire land for neighborhood park Campbell Road area - Saugatuck & Douglas Construct concession stand Saugatuck High School Athletic Field LOW Teen Recreation Center Downtown Saugatuck Install lighting for tennis courts Schultz Park Develop non-motorized trail Schultz Park Lighting for tennis courts Village Square Park - Saugatuck Construct additional locker rooms Saugatuck High School Source: Saugatuck - Douglas Area Parks and Recreation Plan, Feb. 1985. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 7-7 priority in all three communities, despite the RECREATION AND LOCAL SPENDING high average age of respondents. In terms of priorities for spending current Although they would like to have them, tax dollars, 42-48% of respondents in the tri- most respondents would not support a commu- community area felt that parks and recreation nity recreation center, a senior center, or a are a high priority. Waterfront improvement was community pool if it meant an increase in gen- rated high by City and Village respondents. eral property taxes. Senior programs were given low local spending TABLE 7.5 PLANNED ACQUISITIONS/11"ROVEMENTS TO PARKS AND OPEN SPACES ACQUISMON lMPROVEMENr NAME LOCATION USE SIZE COND17ION COST ($) FINANCING Esther McSic East side Public open 124,000 sq.ft Marshy 185,000 DNR Land property Union St. - space (portion under Trust Kal. Lake, wateri vacant North of Blue Star (Douglas) Ruth McNa- Landlocked Park 132,000 Dry NA NA mara property end of Schultz sq.ft. (vacant) Park (Douglas) Vacant Lot Blue Star & Future park land 18,000 Dry 65,000 NA Main St. sqfL; nearty (Douglas) 1/2 acres Old SE 1/4 Sec- Currently for- 154 acres Saugatuck tion 2 estry manage- Airport (Saugatuck) ment, possible future recre- ation TABLE 7.6 RECREATION NEEDS IN THE TRI-COAEMUNITY AREA 1988 PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY Criy VILLAGE TOWNSHIP Bike paths (68%) Lake MI open space (70%) Lake MI open space (67%) Hiking trails (62%) Lake Kal. open space (69%) Bike paths (64%) Cross-country ski trails (62%) Bike paths (67%) Lake Kal. open space (62%) Lake MI open space (61%) Kal. River open space (64%) Kal. River open space (62%) Lake Kal. open space (500/6) Parks (50%) Cross-country ski trails (600/6) Kal. River open space (49%) Boat launching ramps (46%) Boat launching ramps (59%) Boat launching ramps (45%) Senior Center (45%) Senior Center (53%) Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan I 04TH AVE. bAUG-A7UC1k1' t36TH H. A, 3 2 FA 17 15 ...... 0 4.000 8" 12,000 It 8 mv 9 10 ISAWD AVE. Scale 1" 9060 It 0 0 KALAL"200 LAKE CAMPBELL 3@7.. DAY 15 14 13 T AVE KALAMAZO In A 196 it %' 3 I 20 128TH AVI 2 2 21 23 x z 2 0 ....... . 27 25 29 28 26 ........... ........ A USTM AVE. 33 34! 32 35 36 SAUGATUCK TWF. MAP 7.1 OUTDOOR RECREATION SITES Tri-Community 1) - 25) See Chapter 7, Table 7.2 26) West Shore Golf Course 27) Clearbook Golf Course 28) Mi-Ro Golfcourse 29) Cerder Street A August 1989 DATA SOURCE:Saug. - Doug. Parks & Rec. Plan, 1985 Planning & Zoning Center Inc. Lansing, MI 0 4,000 8,000 12,000 ft Scale 1 9060 ft 0 C3 LIDO MAP 7.2 PROPOSED BIKE PATHS Tri-Community 1@181 Bike Paths F*-] Chain Link Ferry A AugustI989 DATA SOURCE: Saugatuck Township Park and Recreation Commission Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, MI Chapter 8 WATERFRONT S augatuck was the first settlement in Allegan and necessary. However, such development County. Its natural protected harbor along must be undertaken carefully to maintain the the Kalamazoo River and proximity to Lake delicate balance between economic development Michigan gave it a ready means of water trans- and environmental protection. port- essential to the commerce of the day. It is both necessary and possible to manage Throughout its history, land use activities along the waterfront for a variety of purposes. Yet it is the Lake Michigan shoreline and the riverfront always difficult to manage for multiple uses. have continued to dominate the economic life of Some individuals value land management to the tri-community area. Lumbering, boat build- retain the necessary habitat for birds, fish and ing, basket making, fruit transport, and even wildlife. Others feel it should be managed to large Great Lakes passenger boats have, at dif- maximize surface water use, or for intensive ferent times, relied upon the River connection. waterfront dependent activities like ship build- Tourists have always been attracted to the area, ing or power generation. Based on some of the but tourism is now the number one economic technical data presented below, eidsting use activity. Today's waterfront activities are domi- information, citizen opinions, and the goals and nated by tourist and pleasure craft needs, espe- objectives presented at the beginning of this cially sailboats, powerboats, charter fishing Plan, the waterfront in the tri-community area boats and other tourist boats. Consequently, can, and should, be managed to accommodate how the waterfront is used will be of crucial a wide range of land uses and activities. importance to the future of the tri-community This Plan seeks to define a balance between area. competing uses. It places protection of the nat- The primary issues concerning proper fu- ural environment as first and foremost in mak- ture use of the waterfront involve competition ing future land use decisions along the Lake between economic development and environ- Michigan and Kalamazoo River waterfronts. The mental protection. Waterfront lands represent ultimate goal is to minimize disruption of the the highest value lands in the tri-community natural environment so that new development area, and local officials are therefore concerned is in harmony with the environment, rather than about the potential tax base associated with use in conflict with it. Some destruction of the hm- of waterfront lands. In order to finance the ited remaining wetland areas along Lake service needs of local residents, the tri-commu- Kalamazoo is only justified where the public nities must balance taxable and nontaxable benefits of particular projects are very great (e.g. land uses. This presents a dilemma. Although a public marina or additional public access to waterfront lands have high revenue generating the waterfront). potential, a major attraction of both the Lake Michigan and Kalamazoo River waterfronts is Watersheds of the Kahmazoo River Basin their scenic, natural shorelines composed of forested sand dunes and large wetland areas. The Kalamazoo River extends from south of Should these natural areas be greatly damaged Homer in Hillsdale and Jackson Counties to its or destroyed through inappropriate develop- outlet at Lake Michigan in Saugatuck Township ment, then the "goose that laid the golden egg" (see Figure 4. 1). With the exception of lands will be dead. adjoining Lake Michigan (which drain directly It is essential that the natural beauty of the into the Lake) and a small area in the southeast waterfront be maintained along the Lake Mich- corner of Saugatuck Township, all land in the igan shoreline, the Kalamazoo River from the tri-community area is part of the Kalamazoo channel to Saugatuck, and from the Blue Star River Basin. Highway bridge inland. Limited additional de- Eight small watershed areas lie within the velopment along the waterfront on Lake tri-community area and discharge into Lake Kalamazoo and the Douglas side of the bayou Michigan via the Kalamazoo River (see Map 8. 1). east of Blue Star Highway may be both desirable These include Goshorn, Peach Orr-hard, Tan- Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 8-2 nery, Silver and 'Cemetery" Creeks, as well as during April. Corresponding estimates for the the Morrison Bayou at the eastern end of the mouth of the Kalamazoo River ranged from 1070 Kalamazoo River as it enters the Township. Most cfs during the summer months to 2510 cfs of Douglas and Saugatuck also drain separately during April. into the Kalamazoo River and Lake Kalamazoo. The 100 year discharge is estimated at Slopes in the area are generally less than 10 15,400 cfs at the mouth of the Kalamazoo River, percent though locally they may be in excess of and 12,500 cis at the Fennville gage. 20 percent. Runoff erosion is taking place in the highlands, contributing sediment to back- PRMLARY ECOSYSTEMS swamp areas and Lake Michigan. Monthly (exceedance) flows for the The tri-community area has three basic Kalamazoo River, based on a 1649 square mile ecosystems, two of which parallel the water- drainage area near Fennville (#041OB500, T2n, front. The first ecosystem is comprised of hard- R14W, NE 1/4 Sec 5), were averaged from mea- woods holding the sand dunes in place along the surements taken between 1929 to 1985 by the Lake Michigan shoreline. These woodlots are Hydrologic Engineering Section, Land and inhabited by small game such as fox squirrels, Water Management Division, MDNR. Estimates rabbits, raccoons, deer, wild turkey, and opos- based on these measurements were then pre- sums. This ecosystem is comprised of fauna pared for the larger drainage area of 2060 square common to most of Michigan, but its balance is miles at the mouth of the Kalamazoo River (T3N, easily upset by the disruption of its shallow R1 6W, Sec 4. Saugatuck Township). organic soils. Any ground cover that is damaged Ninety-five percent and fifty percent exceed- or removed should be quickly replaced with ance flows are shown in Table 8. 1. These are cover that will hold and prevent sand from blow- flows exceeded 95% or 50% of the time. The ing or rapid wind erosion may occur. Michigarfs lowest 95% exceedance flow in Penriville (nearly most famous ghost town, Singapore, once a drought level) was measured during August at thriving lumber town, lies beneath these shifting 410 cfs, and is estimated to be 520 cfs at the sands near the mouth of the channel. mouth of the Kalamazoo River. The 50% exceed- The second ecosystem is the marsh-wet- ance flow in Fennville ranged from a low of 860 land ecosystem that covers the area along the cfs during the summer months to 2010 efs Kalamazoo River, Silver Lake and Goshom Lake, and the connecting tributaries. This area is TABLE 8. 1 covered with marsh grasses, low shrubs, poplar KALAMAZOO RrVER trees, spruces, some white pine, and other soft- EXCEEDANCE FLOWS (1929-85) woods. The cover is inhabited by common Mich- MONTHLY AVERAGE igan marsh dwellers such as frogs, turtles, CUBIC FT/SECOND ducks, blackbirds, and snakes. The marsh eco- system is also populated by muskrat, mink, FENNVILLE RIVER MOUTH mallard duck, black duck, teal, wood duck, blue 50% 95% 50% 95% heron, Canadian geese, and mute swans. January 1350 710 1690 890 Golden eagle and osprey used to frequent the February 1400 790 1750 990 area. The marsh ecosystem is very sensitive to March 1950 1010 2430 1260 changes in water quality and disruption of veg- April 2010 1040 2510 1300 etation. Great care must be taken to limit silt- ation and disruption to vegetation when working May 1600 830 2000 1040 in this ecosystem. June 1250 630 1560 790 The third ecosystem covers the rest of the July 970 480 1210 600 Township and is predominantly agricul- August 860 410 1070 520 tural/forest with birds and wildlife common to September 860 480 1070 600 this dominant ecosystem in Michigan. October 980 520 1220 650 The entire Saugatuck/Douglas area is des- ignated as an area of particular concern by the November 1210 650 1510 810 DNR_ Areas of particular concern are those hav- December 1300 750 1620 940 ing scarce resources, unusual scenic beauty, W%u t@- r "Hy=lo EnkInecring Section, Land and unusual economic value, recreational attrac- Mcivislon, Michigan Depaftment of Natural Resources. tions, or some combination of the above. They are only located in coastal areas. Altering the Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 8-3 environment in an area of "particular concern" for cold water anadromus f1sh species (trout and could have a significant impact on the quality of salmon). Kalamazoo Lake and Goshom Lake are coastal and Great Lakes waters. designated to be protected for recreation (total body contact), and intolerant fish (warm water WATER QUALITY species). These water management objectives are nearly ten years old, but there have been no The Kalamazoo River watershed includes concerted efforts to update them and carry them many types of land uses and the River flows out. A push to revise the objectives is underway through several large developed urban areas statewide, but it could be years before any action including Kalamazoo and Battle Creek. When it plans are carried out for the Kalamazoo River. reaches the tri-community area, the quality of 1988 Public Opinion Survey results reveal this water is not good. Despite the water quality that citizens in the tri-community area feel that problem, the River from about one-half mile the water quality of the Kalamazoo River and downstream from the Hacklander Public Access Lake is poor to very poor (58%-70%). Lake Mich- Site (in Section 23), has been designated as a igan is rated fair to good (31-50%). and most "wild-scenic river" under Michigan's Natural respondents familiar with the water quality of River Act, Public Act 231 of 1970. Land use Silver Lake felt that it was fair. The majority of restrictions have been imposed to retain its respondents who are familiar with these water natural character within 300 feet of the River's bodies, feel that the water quality of Lake Mich- edge. igan and Silver Lake has deteriorated slightly in The basic water management goal is the recent years, and Kalamazoo River and elimination of the pollution threat to surface and Kalamazoo Lake has deteriorated slightly to groundwater resources. The Kalamazoo River is greatly. Most respondents who reside in designated by the DNR to be protected for rec- Saugatuck, however, felt that the water quality reation (partial body contact), intolerant fish has stayed about the same. (warrn water species), industrial water supply, Basic water quality data on the River ap- agricultural and commercial uses. Downstream pears in Table 8.2 for selected months in 1978, from the Kalamazoo Lake, the river is protected TABLE 8.2 KALAMAZOO RIVER WATER QUALITY FECAL PHOSPHOROUS NITROGEN SEDIMENTS HEAW MEIALS C011FIORM TOTAL ORIHO N02 N03 LEAD MERCURY' PER 100 ML MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L TONS/DAY MG/L MG/L FennviHe 1/27/88 - .05 .01 1.4 5 29 - 5/18/88 - .04 <01 0.5 26 102 <5 < 1 7/28/88 28 .08 <01 0.67 17 30 - 0/21/88 96 .07 .02 0.64 39 202 <5 < I Saugatuck 3/19/86 - .08 .02 1.6 21 161 <5 6/25/86 200 .11 .02 0.88 13 102 - 9/11/86 200 .14 .01 0.39 21 103 <5 < I Saugatuck 1/10/78 120 .07 NR 1.7 9 27 - <5 5/l/78 - .12 NR 0.34 20 123 20 <5 7/20/78 69 .12 NR 0.54 15 26 10 .5 9/11/78 - .15 NR 0.00 28 72 - - NR - Not Reported Source: USGS Water Resource Data For Michigan, Water Resources Division, U.S. Geologic Survey. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 8-4 1986, and 1988. The sampling point was moved with private parties at two other sites (see from Saugatuck to Fennville in 1987. This data MNSMP, November 7, 1988, p. 328). reveals an increase in sedimentation and a de- Efforts initiated in the '70's to identify and cline in heavy metals. It also shows an increase require extensive treatment of pollutants prior in fecal coliform (intestinal bacteria) levels to to their dumping into the River will continue to 200/100 ml at the former testing site In slowly improve the quality of the water. As the Saugatuck- the maximum level permitted nutrients like phosphorus and nitrogen are re- under rule 62 of the MDNR Water Resources moved from wastewater entering the River, less Commission General Rules of 1986. Phospho- new plant life will be stimulated and more oxy- rous and certain nitrogen levels have not gen will be available for fish. changed appreciably in the past ten years. One of these efforts is the Michigan Water The Kalamazoo River between Calkins Dam Resources Commission Act, which requires all and Lake Michigan has been designated an Area discharges into the water to have discharge of Concern in the 1988 Michigan Nonpoint permits. In addition, the Federal Water Pollution Source Management Plan (MNSMP), due to con- Control Act established the National Pollutant tamination of fish from PCB's. The primary Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit source of contamination was identified as PCB program. Under these laws, any public or pri- contaminated sediments upstream in the vate facility which will emit any point-source Kalamazoo River and Portage Creek. These sed- discharge into the water must first receive a Iments continue to erode, resuspend, and dis- NPDES discharge permit. The permit program solve PCB's into the water column where they sets forth limitations and monitoring require- are transported downstream. ments to protect water quality and meet treat- Due to the presence of PCB's, advisories are ment standards, and establishes strong in effect for consumption of fish caught in the enforcement actions for violations. The Surface Kalamazoo River or Lake Michigan. The advisory Water Quality Division, MDNIR, administers warns against any consumption of carp, suck- NPDES permits. NPDES permits issued in the ers, catfish, and largemouth bass taken from the tri-community area are shown on Table 8.3. Kalamazoo River downstream from the Morrow However, sedimentation and nonpoint Pond Dam to Lake Michigan and Portage Creek sources of pollution will remain a problem. In downstream from Monarch Millpond. Limited contrast to pipes that discharge directly into a consumption of other species (no more than one waterbody, nonpoint sources of pollution in- meal per week) is considered safe for all except clude those pollutants that do not originate from nursing mothers, pregnant women, women who a single point- such as fertilizer and pesticide intend to have children, and children age 15 and runoff from farmers fields, and petroleum based under. pollutants that wash off parking lots and road- In Lake Michigan limited consumption of ways. The most obvious pollutants are the phys- Lake Trout 20-23", Coho Salmon over 26", Ical litter and debris that are carelessly dumped Chinook Salmon 21-32", and Brown Trout up to into the River or Lake and which typically wash 23" is considered safe for all except nursing up along the shore. mothers, pregnant women. women who intend Michigan's 1988 Nonpoint Pollution As- to have children, and children age 15 and under. sessment Report concluded that 99% of Individuals should not consume carp, catfish, Michigan's watersheds have at least one water- or Lake Trout, Brown Trout, or Chinook which body with a non-point source pollution problem. fall outside of the acceptable size for limited In-place contamination and atmospheric depo- consumption. sition were listed as the primary non-point To address the PCB problem, the MNSMP sources of pollution for the Kalamazoo River. has devised a Remedial Action Plan with the goal Stronger efforts to improve water quality of reducing human exposure to acceptable levels will have a positive affect on tourism. recreation. (1: 100,000) and thus reducing fish tissue con- and future growth and development of the tri- centration to a maximum .05 mg/kg and reduc- community area. All sources of pollution affect ing water column levels to .02 ng/l. Actions water quality, and hence the utility of the water taken to address the problem include: strict resource. While the tri-community area must controls on direct discharges of PCB's; a feast- rely on outside agencies to enforce pollution bility study of remedial alternatives; funding control laws upstream, some e5orts, can be un- through State Act 307 to take remedial action at dertaken by Saugatuck, Douglas and three sites; and legal action and negotiations Saugatuck Township to improve water quality Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan TABLE 8.3 NPDES PERMITS ISSUED IN THE TRI-COA961UNITY AREA PERMIT RECIPIENT ADDRESS DISCHARGE LOCATION EXPIRAnON DAIM Culligan 201 Culver St.. processed Kalamazoo Lake 1991 Saugatuck wastewater via storm sewers Kal. Lake Water & 340 Culver St., treated municipal Kalamazoo River 1990 Sewer Authority Saugatuck waste outm 00 1 Kalamazoo Lake 6449 Old Allegan 900,000 gal/day Kalamazoo Rtver 1993 Groundwater Rd., Saugatuck purged groundwa- outfa 001 Purge Twp. ter, purgable halo- carbons Rich Products 350 Culver St., 12,000 gal/day Kalamazoo Rtver 1990 Saugatuck non-contact cool- via storm sewer ing water & cooling tower blowdown Source: MDNR Surface Water Quality Division TABLE 8.4 LAKE MICHIGAN LAKE LEVELS YEAR LOWEST EL MONTH HIGHEST EL MONTH DIFFERENCE DIFFERENCE FEET A.S.L. FEET A.S. L. IN FEET IN INCHES 1977 578.00 February 578.57 July .57 6.84 1978 578.12 March 579.01 October .89 10.68 1979 578.31 February 580.02 April 1.75 20.52 1980 578.92 December 579.77 July .85 10.20 1981 578.51 February 579.43 July .92 11.04 1982 578.17 March 579.02 April '85 10.20 1983 578.85 February 580.08 July 1.25 15.00 1984 579.02 February 580.23 July 1.21 14.52 1985 579.57 February 580.84 June 1.27 15.24 1986 580.36 February 581.62 October 1.26 15.12 1987 578.96 December 580.65 January 1.69 20.28 1988 578.10 December 579.04 May .94 11.28 Source: The Afichigan Rlpaflan, May 1989 and prevent further pollution within the tri- The Kalamazoo River, Kalamazoo Lake and community area. These will be discussed further Lake Michigan are interconnected. Thus, water later in this Chapter. levels on the River and Lake Kalamazoo are largely dependent on Lake Michigan water lev- LAKE LEVELS els. Consequently, land uses adjoining the wa- terfront should be based on the vagaries of The natural level of the Great Lakes goes fluctuating Lake Michigan water levels. This has through periodic changes that are based pre- not always been done as was evident by exten- dominantly on rainfall and evaporation within sive shore erosion and flooding during the last the entire Great Lakes Basin. Since a century high water period. peak in 1986, Lake Michigan has steadily fallen When water levels are high "no-wake" to its current level of around 578 feet (see Table zones, which are always in effect from the chan- 0 8.4). nel to Mason Street in Saugatuck, are extended Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 8-6 to cover all of the Kalamazoo Lake shoreline and require a marina permit if they are rented. Per- parts of the River east of Blue Star Highway (see mits arc issued for a three year period by the Map 8.2). When a "no-wake" speed is in effect, DNR On peak summer weekends the number then all motor boats and vessels must limit of boats on the lake could be twice to thrice the speed to a slow no-wake speed when within 100 normal level. This presents one of the most feet of- serious problems jointly facing the tri-commu- � rafts, except for skijumps and ski landing nity area- how to deal with surface water use floats: conflicts. � docks; The Lake has a total surface water area of � launching ramps; 184 acres. Acreage available for recreational � swinuners: boating is dramatically reduced by the dockage � anchored, moored or drifting boats; and which extends into the Lake hundreds of feet � designated no-wake zones. and by the shallow water at the edge to about This means a speed slow enough that the 133 acres. Yet. on summer weekends the River wake or wash of the boat creates a minimum is a constant highway of boats moving in and disturbance. Owners and operators are respon- out of the Lake. Recreational sailing, fishing, sible for damage caused by wakes. swimming, sailboarding and water skiing are limited by all of the motorboat traffic. However, HARBOR during the week, other water surface activities Map 8.3 is the eidsting harbor map (June can go on without much interference. 1987) distributed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It depicts water 31ARUM SAFETY depth for the shoreline along Lake Michigan, The Allegan County Sheriffs Department, and the River through Kalamazoo Lake. Chan- Marine Safety Division, maintains strict control nel depth is maintained by periodic dredging to of the waterways. The Department has 8 marine a depth of 13 feet to Main Street in Saugatuck. officers. Normally, two officers patrol by boat, (Dredging at the mouth of the channel is to begin but three to four officers patrol during holidays in July 1990 and be completed in the Fall of and special events. Officers patrol in a 27 foot 1990.) The depth then drops to 20-27 feet for the Boston Whaler with two 150 horsepower out- next 500 feet. Between that point and Tower board motors. This boat is equipped for Lake Marine, the water depth is about 7 feet. Most of Michigan rescue, and has a noise meter which the rest of Lake Kalamazoo varies between 1 and monitors the 86 decibel noise limit. 4 feet in depth with not more than 2 feet being From Memorial Day to Labor Day officers the most common. The Douglas shoreline, east put in 635 hours of patrol duty on Kalamazoo of Blue Star Highway is only 1-2 feet in depth River and Kalamazoo Lake. One hundred and except for a small area running NW-SE from the ten hours were spent patrolling Lake Michigan. center of the bridge and connecting to the Point Most patrols occur between Friday and Sunday, Pleasant Yacht Club. and about half of the Department's budget goes This natural harbor is the principal attrac- to patrolling the Saugatuck area. tion for nautical tourists which flock to the area In the summer of 1989, 189 tickets were during summer months when the marinas are issued on Kalamazoo River and Kalamazoo used to capacity. Hundreds rent dockage by the Lake, 11 were issued on Lake Michigan, 276 season. Many live on their boats for weeks on warnings were issued, 10 complaints were re- end. The demand for dockage appears to be ceived, and 6 boating accidents occurred. The greater than the supply, despite the huge num- Department also conducted 378 safety Inspec- ber of slips available (see Map 8.4). In 1976 there tions. The most common violations are inade- were 8 marinas with approximately 800 slips. In quate life preservers on board and lack of 1989, there are 26 legally operating marinas current registration. with 966 slips. There are about half dozen ma- The Department notes that slow/no wake, rinas without current permits and these contain and hazardous violations were down in the sum- over 30 more slips. There are also a number of mer of 1989. The most common surface water slips maintained by private residences for their use conflicts identified by the Sheriffs Depart- own personal use. ment include sailboat and motorboat conflicts Marina permits are required for any com- and complaints over the noise and attitude ofjet mercial activity, so as few as two slips could Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 8-7 skiers. Conflicts between sailboats and motor- waterfront, but there are few public access sites boats are most common on Saturday. and, except for Shultz Park, these provide little space for transient parking. E=TING LAND USE Existing land use is described in detail In C0NFLICTS/PR0BLEb23 Chapter 5. All land uses along the waterfront are At an interjurisdictional meeting on water oriented to the water. The bulk of the waterfront front issues on November 1986, five key issues in the Township from the channel to the City is were identified: developed as single family residential. The City - high water and its impacts and Village waterfronts are predominantly resi- - development and acquisition of public dential and marina. The balance of the water- lands along the waterfront; front, which lies in the Township, is in a natural - limiting the intensity of shoreline develop- state with some areas of residential development ment. (such as along Silver Lake). Many commercial - preserving the scenic character of the establishments (mostly motels and restaurants) shoreline environment retaining visual ac- are also located here. Except for the Broward cess to, of the Boat Company near the channel, there are no - surface water use conflicts. industrial activities along the waterfront. A Each of these remain important issues as number of small parks are located along the shown in the 1988 Public Opinion Survey. FIGURE 8.1 LU4KAGE PLAN R-2 21t R-1 R-2 wetland ev rgr 1) slop#-,:, (commercial) ever; g R.4 ree wetland I- d lain lakes LINK rdwood slop slope :4 lie lakes tg wetland f lood lain R 1 hardwoods her lope AG. G. schu I Source: Conserve Oakland County's Natural Resources: A Manual for Planning & Implementation. Department of Public Works, Oakland County, M1, September 1980. @ k. eve nj@7ales @s Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 8-8 High Water tenance across more taxpayers. This would also When Great Lakes water levels are high, make it more feasible to acquire additional park erosion along the Lake Michigan shoreline in- space as needed. Because residents of three creases. The impacts of erosion are clear along jurisdictions would benefit, grant requests Lakeshore Drive, where part of the road has would probably be more favorably reviewed. been washed away. Many high value homes will Public marina space is also needed as there be threatened by additional erosion in this area. are only three public access sites along Lake Erosion along the River and Lake Kalamazoo and the River presently, and two are Kalamazoo also increases with higher Lake too far inland for most daily boaters. The third Michigan water levels. Many bulkheads and Is a street end in Saugatuck and has no adjacent similar shore protection devices were installed parking. Private marinas provide transient to nAnimize the effects of the most recent high berthing opportunities, but there is consider- water level. Raising some of the land and struc- able demand for more. By having a facility to tures would be necessary if lake levels remained attract more transient boaters. the three com- high for lengthy periods. On the positive side, munities would be gaining additional tourist the south shore of Lake Kalamazoo becomes income. more attractive to marina development when The three most logical places for such a water levels are high since it is very shallow in facility are: 1) immediately adjacent to the Blue this area. Likewise, when water levels are below Star Highway bridge in Douglas and extending average. some existing dockage is unusable. to the existing launch facility adjacent to the Fluctuating lake levels are part of a natural Kewatin, 2) converting the Center Street main- system. The costs and implications of trying to tenance facility in Douglas to a public marina, artificially manage the entire Great Lakes Basin 3) at some distant time (or if the opportunity to maintain even Lake levels is not known, but arose) by replacing the Rich Products office waterfront land use decisions in the tri-commu- building in Saugatuck with a public marina and nity area should be made based on the assump- accompanying parking. Alternatively, If adj a- tion that Lake Michigan water levels cannot be cent parking could be secured, the street end artificially maintained. next to Gleasons in Saugatuck could be a good public access point. Acquisition and Development While the public opinion survey did not of Public Lands Along the Waterfront reflect overwhelming support for a public ma- Two types of public lands are needed along rina, there appears to be demand for such a the waterfront. One is parkland/ open space and facility from persons outside the trt-community the other is a public marina. Existing open space area. Its long term economic benefits may well along the waterfront should be preserved (see justify its cost. especially if state or federal funds Map 8.5). Several street ends provide needed could be secured to help pay for it. relief from structures along the shoreline. These Limiting the Jrntensity of Development public open spaces are generally well managed, and efforts should be initiated to ensure that The primary future development of water- they are not lost. Existing parks along the shore- front lands in the City will be redevelopment of line should also be linked together, and with existing parcels. In the Village it will focus on other inland parks, by pedestrian and bicycle further development along the South Shore of paths whenever the opportunity arises (see Fig- Lake Kalamazoo. In both areas it will be critical ure 8. 1). that new development is neither so dense, nor The lack of parkland along the Lake Michi- so high as to block eidsting public views of the gan shoreline is most acute for Township resi- waterfront or further 'wall" the Lake with struc- dents, and somewhat less severe for Village tures. Recommendations to prevent this are residents. Outside of purchasing and developing included in Chapter 10. It will be critical that all new land for parks, the tri-communities should three communities agree to a common approach consider establishing a separate park and rec- to waterfront development. embody that in land reation authority responsible for maintaining all use plans, and then implement those plans. To parks presently owned by the three communi- some extent, uniform densities, setbacks, and ties. The benefit would be providing access to height regulations will be valuable, especially Oval Beach by Village and Township residents around Lake Kalamazoo. and spreading the fiscal responsibility for main- Additional development around Silver Lake needs to remain at a very low density in keeping TH-Community Comprehensive Plan 8-9 with the septic limitations of the land and the Surface Water Use Cortflicts limited recreational value of this shallow water- Resolution of surface water use conflicts body. The eastern end of the Kalamazoo River will require more planning and a uniform ap- should likewise receive little new development proach to regulation. Most Important is estab- in keeping with its Natural River designation. lishing the carrying capacity of Lake Kalamazoo and the River to the channel mouth. Carrying Retaining Visual Access, Aesthetics capacity refers to the physical capacity and and the Character of the Area intrinsic suitability of lands (and water) to ab- As has been emphasized throughout this sorb and support various types of development Plan, the natural beauty of the waterfront has (or use). Such an analysis is typically performed much to do with the attraction of the tri-com- by an inventory of existing surface water use munity area. Local development regulations during weekdays and peak weekends. Data is should be reviewed and revised if necessary, to then examined in terms of the size of the water- insure that new development complements, body and its capacity to assimilate various rather than detracts from this natural beauty. mixes of use. Such an analysis would probably Old vessels should not be permitted to lie reveal some, but not much excess capacity for beached along the shoreline, because this also new boat slips, because any number of boaters detracts from the beauty and character of the can access Kalamazoo Lake from Lake Michi- waterfront. gan. Several vistas have public values that de- Without an analysis of carrying capacity, serve protection. These include the entry into the amount of new boat slip development and and exit from Lake Michigan on the Kalamazoo related surface water use conflicts are difficult River, the view from Mount Baldhead, the view to evaluate. Some time or surface zoning could of Kalamazoo Lake from both ends, and ap- be established in conjunction with the DNR if proaches to the Kalamazoo River Bridge. The desired. For example, water skiing, jet skiing, public opinion survey strongly supports the pro- fishing, sailing, etc, could be limited to particu- vision of additional open space along Lake lar parts of Lake Kalamazoo or Silver Lake or to Kalamazoo and the Kalamazoo River and dem- particular times of the day. Another option could onstrates that the primary use of the area's be a harbor patrol paid for by all three govern- water bodies is viewing. Yet, recent development mental units. More information is necessary to pressures have led to overbuilding of condomin- establish the need for regulation. If surface iums along the waterfront, shutting off all public water use is regulated, each unit of government viewing of the lake from existing rights-of-way. would need to agree to a common regulatory Any future development along the channel approach. should be set back sufficiently to maintain the Surface water use conflicts will grow more broad open views that are presented to boat acute on Lake Kalamazoo If existing dockage is travelers entering or leaving the Kalamazoo extended much further into the Lake. Such River. The view from the top of Mount Baldhead extensions should not be permitted as the sur- sho ,uld be improved by careful selective pruning face area available for various recreational uses of dead or dying trees blocking good views of will be too drastically reduced. Existing no-wake Saugatuck and Lake Kalamazoo. The curve zones should also be more rigorously enforced. going northbound on Blue Star Highway in Douglas just before crossing the bridge is the RECONUMEMAIIONS TO GUME FUTURE LTSE only good panorama of Kalamazoo Lake. A pub- In seeking to balance economic develop- lic turnoff, the acquisition of a scenic easement, ment with environmental protection, the con- or the concentration of new development on the cept of carrying capacity should be a major western portion of those undeveloped Lands consider-ation. If the carrying capacity of land or should be initiated to protect that important water is exceeded, then activities cannot be view. In addition, the land adjacent to the west undertaken without unacceptable Impacts on side of the bridge in Douglas should be selec- users, the environment, or both. Impacts can tively pruned to improve the view to travelers include increased trip times, decreased safety, crossing the bridge (northbound) until a public pollution, loss of open space, and marry other marina could be established there. considerations. The key is prevention of overuse by limiting intensity of use on adjoining lands and regulating surface water use. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 8-10 Environmental protection must be a lead- spectj urisdiction boundaries. Their future qual- ing principle in making future land use deci- ity and desirability depends on all governmental sions along the waterfront. Environmentally units through which they flow playing an active sensitive areas such as sand dunes. wetlands, and supportive role in protecting and improving high risk erosion areas, floodplains, and key water quality. To advance this goal. the jointly woodlands should be protected from unneces- appointed waterfront committee should be rein- sary destruction. Development should comple- stituted or its responsibilities shifted to the Joint ment rather than destroy these areas and their Planning Committee which helped fashion this values. By doing so the environmental quality of Plan. the air and water will be Improved, wildlife hab- itat will be preserved. scenic values will be pro- tected, and the character of the area will be maintained. Some new intensive shoreline de- velopment will be desirable and necessary, but the balance should not be disproportionately on the side of new tax base as it has been for the past decade. Opportunities to enhance the waterfront should be seized. Parks and open spaces should eventually be linked with other public places. Additional access to the waterfront should be acquired when available, and e-idsting access via street ends and parks should not be lost through neglect or inaction. A new public marina should be constructed If resources are available and the cost could be spread among local citizens and other users (such as through grants or user fees). Visual access from public thoroughfares and walkways should be maintained in all new waterfront development. Protection mechanisms, like the Natural River designation, should be recognized for the ancillary benefits they bring to the community. A local 'Friends of the River" organization could be instituted to annually adopt and clean up the shoreline to remove floating debris, other waste, and downed timber that become lodged there. A special effort to maintain the character of Lakeshore Drive along the Lake Michigan shore- line should also be initiated. A comprehensive stormwater management plan and wetlands protection plan should be instituted as part of a broad water quality pro- tection program that is based on the small wa- tersheds that feed the Kalamazoo River Basin. The Soil Conservation Service should be asked to assist in preparing nonpoint pollution guide- lines to help guide farmers in land management practices that help keep the River clean. NEED FOR V?IXRGOVERNAWff rAL COOPERATION Each of these recommendations requires a strong degree of intergovernmental cooperation. Watercourses, like the environment, do not re- Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 't -.41L. SALAN goo 1D. its. 20 2 27 i2jW i __12V t- 01V %p. IN L SY. I RL MAP8.1 WATERSHEDS Tri-Community Kalamazoo River Basin Boundary Creeks & Drains F/ Small Watershed Areas: sh Drain 1) Douglas 2) Tannery Creek 3) Peach Orchard Creek 4) Kalamazoo/Morrison Bayou 5) A 6) Silver Lake Creek 7) Goshorn Creek 8) "Cemetery" Creek 9) River Bluff -Indian Creek I O)Saugatuck August 1989 DATA SOURCE:Allegan County Drain Commission Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, MI MAP 8.2 NO-WAKE Tri-Community No-Wake Area Additional No-wake Area During Periods Of High Water A August1989 DATA SOURCE: Tri-Community Waterfront Committee Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, MI J@ 31 2715 21 16,b@124 2' 25 9 a 4 .20 5 30 7 3 32 27 14 33 31 263'9 17 2. 29 252 5.63tM 37 3' '1 25 20 ? 30 37 29 0 20 2 30 23 1 19 92 33 29 20 5 13 72 29 25 7 7 16 27 24 19 1.5 (Zo ,7 71 732 12 @52 chwnsi Imft @y 2@62 23 31 26 2 27 28 25 21 POW '"m 23 2 10 14 97 26 24 12 28C %@,: I f3 26 24 0 q 22 @9613 6 6 4 lop 6 20 13 12 12 c 10 1917 6 9, u's s 19 22 20 9 SAUG u c 3V- 27 L 14 12 13 I 1 9 13 9 R 2V is2 7 7 19 14 7 5 3 Wd, Is 2 a it ckb 67 MA Am'l`*'@Oo LAXE2 3 -Z'39 6 4 3 ,kj S 01*1 1. 4ft 2 VbI rl SAUGATUCK HARBOR 2 DOUGLA MICHIGAN 1.15M) SOUNDINGS IN FM cl raw 116-13' IT I @., /26 @4 MAP 8.3 SAUGATUCK HARBOR MAP 8.4 MARINAS Tri-Community 1 . Ship & Shore Motel/Boatel (0) 2. East Shore Harbor Club (64) 3. Pointe Pleasant Yacht Club (14) 4. Sergeant Marina (63) 5. Tower Marina (322) 6. Skippers Cove (12) 7. Water Side Condo (12) 8. Naughtins Marina (37) 9. Saugatuck Yacht Club (16) 10. Deep Harbor Deve, Inc. (46) 11. South Side Marina (24) 12. Casa Loma (11) 13. Gleasons Marina (9) 14. Saugatuck Yacht Co. (81) 15. Walkers Landing (22) 16. Windjammer Condo Association (12) 17. Sch ippas Marina (10) 18. Singapore Yacht Club (50) 19. West Shore Marine Inc. (57) 20. Bridges Of Saugatuck (8) 21. Coral Gables (50)) 22. V & L Properties (10) 23. Back Bay Marina (12) 24. Southside Marina (24) Total Number Of Permitted Marina Boat Slips In Area ......... 966 August 1989 DATA SOURCE:DNR Planning & Zoning Center, Inc, Lansing, Ml L=LLLL-l' 'COO L-LLL-i EB ED RHO U6&.R.LA-.&- V I t I z PA rT M@ R [I]=] PA D H HID R P@ F F9 F@ P P PP MAP8.5 STREETENDS/ PARKS Tri-Community Fel Street/Road Ends F1 Parks FF-A I Public Access 1) Oval Beach 2) Mount Baldhead 3) Chain Link Ferry 4) Douglas Beach A August 19M DATA SOURCE: Planning & Zoning Cantor Inc, Lansing, MI See Preceding Map For Information Regarding This Area D MAP 8.5 A STREET ENDS/ PARKS Tri-Community r;1 StreeVRoad Ends F*1 Parks 1) Shultz Park 2) River Bluff Park FPA] Public Access 3) Sundown Park A August 1989 DAT A SOURCE: Planning & Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, MI 9-1 Chapter 9 GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT TRENDS Growth and development trends reflect past The City's slower growth rate Is due in part settlement patterns in a community and provide to a shrinking supply of vacant or developable a basis for estimating future development pat- land and in part to a higher proportion of sea- terns. Growth rates are one aspect of change. sonal residents and elderly in small households. These show which areas are growing at a faster The Township's large supply of land has trans- rate. Residential construction permits show lated into high growth rates. The Village contin- where most of this residential development is ues to have a high rate of growth, and while this taking place and provide insight into residential has declined from the higher growth rates expe- preferences. rienced during the past two decades, it is in- Land subdivision trends show the rate at creasing again in this decade. In terms of actual which small lots are created. Rapid land subdi- numbers, the areawide population nearly dou- vision carves up agricultural land and other bled between 1950 and 1980, when it reached a open spaces for residential use and thus perma- total of 3,780 people. The Township gained over nently transforms the rural character of an area. half of these new residents. inefficient land subdivision takes large amounts of potentially developable land out of use as long ESEDENTIAL CONSTRUMON "bowling alley" lots or "flag" lots are created. Population trends may be used to project Building permit data reveal development future population, which is used to estimate trends in each community since 1980. Most of future land use needs and settlement patterns Saugatuck!s growth has taken place along the in a community. And finally, a "build out" sce- lakeshore in the form of multiple family condo- nario may be created based upon the vacant or miniums. The City has seen the development of buildable sites in an area to get an idea what the eight condominium projects containing 127 in- area might look like if it were developed accord- dividual units since 1980. Single family residen- ing to current zoning and use requirements. A tial building permits show that only 65 single more complete discussion of these issues is family units were built in the City between 1970 included below. and 1984 (after 1984 the census quit recording local construction data for Saugatuck). Development in the Township has followed GROWTH RATES an opposite path. Since 1970 about 280 single During the past decade, the Township's family homes have been constructed in the population growth rate hit 40%, up from only Township and only 8 multiple family units. This 11% between 1960 and 1970. The growth rate residential development has been focused in in the Village declined from 35% to 17% over the three areas: along Lakeshore Drive: in the area same period, and the City went from a 19% west of 1-96, north of 134th Street, and east of growth rate in the 60's to only 6% in the 70's 64th Street; and around Silver Lake. The Village (see Table 9. 1). has also attracted multiple family housing de- velopment. Approximately 46 single family homes and 73 units of multiple family housing TABLE 9.1. have been constructed in the Village since 1980, RATE OF POPULATION CHANGE with most construction occurring south of Cen- ter Street along Lakeshore Drive; In the north- COMMUNrrY 1950-60 1960-70 1970-80 west comer of the Township: and north of Saugatuck 20% 10% 6% Westshore St. and east of Ferry St. SaugatuckTwp. 34% 11% 40% Aside from new construction, the number of additions, extensions, and other improve- Douglas 35% 35% 17% ments was high In each community. AREAWIDE 29% 16% 22% Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 9-2 FIGURE 9.1 created an "overflow" effect. If the rapid subdivi- sion of rural land continues unchecked. it Will SUBDIVISION TRENDS threaten the viability of the Township's agricul- CHANGES FROM 104 TO 19U tural base and increases demand for public P 2.5. services, especially sewer and water. Unfortu- E 2.0. nately, the areas involved and the lots created T are so large that it will not be cost effective to R H C 0 1.5. provide any new public services in these areas E U for many years. S N A T N A D AGGRAMN G S 0.0 Migration is a strong component of popula- E -0,5 tion growth throughout the County. Allegan 70+ 40-69 16-39 10-15 5-9 2-4 1 OR LESS County experienced net in-migration of 3.03% LOT SIZE (ACRES) between 1983 and 1987- the eighteenth high- j est rate of in-migration in the state. Many of LAND SUBDIMON TRENDS these immigrants are retirees. Figure 9.2 reveals migration patterns of senior citizens in the re- Land subdivision trends in the area are gion over the past three decades. It reveals an startling. Between 1954 and 1984, the number explosion of retiree migration into Allegan of lots in Saugatuck Township increased by County since 1970. nearly 60%. as large rural or agricultural parcels Between 1980 and 1985. the rate of retiree were carved into smaller lots. In 1954 the ma- migration into the County continued to climb, j ority of lots were 20 acres or more, while in 1984 reaching 2.17 compared to -0.26 for the state as most lots fell into the 1-4 acre category (see a whole. Figure 9. 1). Rapid subdivision of the Township's large rural parcels was stimulated by increasing demand for scenic rural living, along with the decreasing supply of land in the City which FIGURE 9.2 KENT TT A -767 .54 -1148 501 771", -247 RETIREE MIGRATION TRENDS -457 SOUTHWESTERN MICHIGAN i412 150 *iLLEdA; BIRIty EA ON -173 -5 -158 12 121 -.142 Net Migration of The Population 65+ 1040 132 804 1950-60 - - - . J_ 1960-70 VAN BUREN KALAMAZOO CALHOUN 1970-80 -13 -447 -1196 284 - 1651 -1137 1039 -1729 -592 b CAS ST.JWPH BRANCH 390 1 130 36 -140 5 85 -33 -125 78 log 58o -181 T LM Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 9-3 POPULA17ON PROJECTIONS FIGURE 9.3 Future population for the tri-community POPULATION TREND area was projected based on the 1970 to 1980 SAUGATUCK TWP. population trend, rather than long term trends, 3.0. due to the recent changes in the rate of popula- P TWONLY tion growth described above. A composite 0 2.5- P T .. SAUGATUCK straight-line trend can be projected by applying H 2.0. DOUGLAS logarithms to determine the ratio of change U 0 based on the 1970 to 1980 trend. Table 9.2 L us below illustrates these results: A A .. .... .. T N 1.0. Thus if current trends continue, the area i D can expect about 1800 more people in 20 10 than 0 s 0.5. in 1980. Sixty-four percent of this growth is N expected to occur in the Township, with 2 1% in 0. the Village, and 15% in the City. Due to the 1 NO 4W I i7O 4W 1 M' 2= 2010 greater availability of land in the Village, it Will YEAR eventually overtake the City in terms of overall population growth, as seen in Figure 9.3. Future demand for land by these new households may be estimated by looking at land PROJECTED LAND USE NEEDS: 2010 subdivision trends and current settlement pat- terns or zoned densities. To determine the impact of this population While most residential development in the growth on residential land use, future popula- Township will fall into the low density category tion is translated Into new households. This is (2 units per acre), residential land in the Village done by applying the average household size for is zoned predominantly for medium density res- each community to the projected population in idential development (4 to 5 units per acre). The 2010 and then subtracting 1980 households. City's development patterns are dense due to The result is an estimated 739 new households land scarcity, although zoned densities are in the tri-community area by 2010. These re- roughly equivalent to those of the Village. sults are shown in Table 9.3. If present trends continue, over half of the 739 new households will settle in low density TABLE 9.2 PROJECTED POPULATION 1970-1980 TREND COMMUNrlY 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Saugatuck 1,022 1,079 1,163 1,254 1,352 Saugatuck Township 1,254 1,753 2,074 2,454 2,904 Douglas 813 948 1,061 1,187 1,328 AREAWIDE 3,089 3.780 4,298 4,895 5,584 TABLE 9.3 PROJECTED NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS COMMUN]TY POP. 2010 HH SIZE HHs 1980 HHs NEW HHs Saugatuck 1,352 2.00 676 537 139 Saugatuck Township 2,904 2.69 1,080 633 447 Douglas 1,328 2.44 544 391 153 AREAWIDE 5,584 2,300 1,561 739 Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 9-4 TABLE 9.4 TABLE 9.5 PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION NEW HOUSEHOLDS BY DENSITY TYPE BY DENSITY TYPE COMMUNITY LOW MEDIUM HIGH HOUSEHOLDS Saugatuck Twp. 80% 100/0 100/6 COMMUNITY LOW MED. HIGH TOrrAL Saugatuck 40% 40% 200/6 Saugatuck 56 56 28 139 Douglas 5% 700/6 25% Douglas 8 107 38 153 SaugatuckTwp. 358 45 45 447 AREAWIDE 421 207 111 739 Totals are based on unrounded figures. TABLE 9.6 TABLE 9.7 FUTURE RESIDENTIAL LAND NEEDS AVAIIABLE ACREAGE BY LAND USE TYPE ACREAGE* ACREAGE COMMUNITY LOW MED. HIGH TOTAL COMMUNITY comm. IND. RES. Saugatuck 24 14 3 41 Saugatuck 3 0 135 Douglas 4 26 4 34 Douglas 33 49 197 Saugatuck 205 13 10 228 Saugabi&TWP. 155 22 5.950 Twp. TOTALACRES 191 71 6,282 AREAWIDE 234 53 17 303 *times 1.25 (20% allowance for rights-of-way) Totals are based on unrounded figures. TABLE 9.8 POPULATION 2010: BUILD OUT SCENARIO UNDER ZONING IN EFFECT ADD17TONAL AVERAGE ADDITIONAL PRESENT7 TOTAL COMMUNITY HOUSEHOLDS HH SIZE POPULAMON POPULATION POPULATION Saugatuck 330 2.00 660 1,079 1,739 Douglas 1,139 2.44 2,779 948 3,727 SaugatucklWD. 16,413 2.69 44,151 1,753 45,904 AREAWIDE 17,882 47,590 3,780 51,370 residential areas, translating into the conver- grow, fostering greater in-migration of retirees sion of 234 acres of land. Fifty-three acres would and others searching for an alternative lifestyle. be transformed into medium density residential If the area were developed to its full capac- use, and about 17 acres would be developed at ity, what would it look like? This exercise, called higher densities as apartments of clustered a "build out" scenario, provides an estimate of units. Tables 9.4 to 9.6 show this projection of the buildable capacity of the City and Village current trends. under currently zoned densities, with a rough estimate for the Township. Acres were estimated BUILD OUT SCENARIO based on vacant or developable land (not includ- ing misting agricultural areas) in each commu- The projections shown above are only esti- nity by zoned use and density/minimum lot mates based on current trends. Yet any number size. These results are shown in Table 9.7. of events could alter these trends. For example, This information can be translated into a provision of sewer and water service in to the population estimate by first dividing the devel- Township could intensify the type, density, and opable acres by the minimum lot size in that rate of growth that occurs there. The location of zoning district to determine the number of a new industry in the Village could attract new households which could occupy the parcel(s). families into the area. And Saugatucks attrac- This reveals the area capacity for about 17,882 tion as a center for tourism could continue to Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 9-5 new households. The new households are then multiplied by the average household size for that community to derive a population estimate. Thus, under a build out scenario, the area could accommodate about 47,590 new resi- dents, bringing the total tri-community area population to over 50,000 people (see Table 9.8). If land currently being farmed were added to these estimates, the total would be considerably higher. POLICY MIPLICATIONS If development were to proceed under exist- ing zoning, as reflected in the build out scenario, then the tri-community area would gradually turn into a suburban enclave, complete with a long commercial strip from one end of Blue Star Highway to another. This is problematic in light of the 1988 Public Opinion Survey which re- vealed the vast majority of respondents have the following preferences: � maintain the scenic, small town/rural character of the area: � no strip commercial development; � small commercial shopping centers off of major roads: � preserve open space along the waterfront; - protect the environment by prohibiting de- velopment of dunes and wetlands. These results suggest the need to reevalu- ate current zoning and regulatory policy. Poli- cies to achieve the public*s development objectives are included in Chapter 1, and the Future Land Use Plan in Chapter 10. Regulatory tools, such as zoning, subdivision regulations, and site plan review will be amended to insure consistency with this plan and the comprehen- sive plan of each jurisdiction. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 10-1 Chapter 10 ]FUTURE LAND USE G ood land use planning is essential to the updated at least once each five years to insure future quality of life of the tri-community Its continued relevance in planning for future area. Future land use arrangements are difficult land use needs. to predict and guide to achieve desired results. A future land use map and plan embodies local PLANNING AND DESIGN PRINCIPUES land use goals, objectives, and policies and pro- vides one land use scenario which a community Future land use arrangements were deter- may use as a physical guide. Goals and policies, mined based on compatibility with surrounding in turn, provide the policy guide for land use and land uses, natural capacity of the land for par- development decisions. ticular uses, and necessary infrastructure im- The future land use map accompanying this provements. These land use arrangements can chapter is the composite of future land use maps and should be refined into timed and sequenced in the Saugatuck, Douglas, and Saugatuck development areas, once some key decisions Township Comprehensive Plans (see Map 10. 1). concerning the provision of sewer and water It seeks to anticipate community land use needs services are made. for 20-30 years. These future land use arrange- The following planning and design princi- ments are based on information in this plan and ples are the technical foundation (or rationale) the individual community plans, with an em- in support of the proposed land use arrange- phasis on border issues. Proposed future land ments graphically depicted on Map 10. 1. Map use is based on analysis of eidsting land use, 10. 1 depicts generalized land use, which is car- impacts of area trends, projected future land ried out through mapping of zoning districts. uses needs if current trends continue, and the The planning principles listed above are imple- relationship of land use activities to the natural mented primarily through zoning regulations resource base. M proposals are intended to be and applied during the site plan review process. consistent with the goals, objectives, and poh- These principles are consistent with the goals, cies presented in Chapter 1 (which were created objectives, and policies in Chapter 1 and should with substantial public input). remain the basis for reviewing any subsequent Many factors could intervene that would changes to the proposed Future Land Use Map. require reevaluation of certain arrangements or the entire plan. For example, if a large mixed use These planning principles are: development (e.g. 1000 single family units plus - Protection of Public Health and Safety some commercial) were built or if a large single - Conservation of Natural Resources employer would enter the scene (e.g. an auto - Environmental Protection manufacturing facility) then land use arrange- - Minimizing Public Service Costs ments in this plan must be reexamined. - Efficiency and Convenience in Meeting A few key planning and design principles Land Use Needs were used to evaluate alternative land use ar- - Insuring Compatibility Between Land Uses rangements. With slightly different trends and (Nuisance Prevention) projections, application of the same principles Often a land use decision based on one could lead to different conclusions and different principle also advances another. For example, land use arrangements. However, these differ- prevention of filling or construction on flood- ences would be related to the amount of partic- plains protects public health and safety, con- ular land uses more than their location or serves natural resources, protects the relative relationships to adjoining uses. Like- environment, and minimizes public service wise. there are many areas in which alternative costs (especially for relief efforts). It may also land use arrangements would be satisfactory create a valuable buffer or open space between providing they remained in keeping with these uses and hence help insure compatibility. basic planning principles. Consequently, it is crucial that this plan be regularly reviewed and Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 10-2 Protection of Public Health and Sqfety Minimizing Public Service Costs Key situations in which this principle is Public service costs may be minimized by applied Include: encouraging new land uses where existing infra- � avoiding construction in areas which pres- structure is not used to capacity and where ent natural hazards. In the tri-community expansion can be most economically supplied. area these include areas too close to the This also results in compact settlement pat- Lake Michigan shoreline at high risk from terns, prevents sprawl, and if favored by taxpay- erosion from coastal wave action; flood- ers because it results in the lowest public service plains; saturated soils and wetlands; soils costs both for construction and maintenance. not well suited for support of foundations or safe disposal of septic wastes; and steep Efficiency and Convenience in Meeting slopes. Land Use Needs � avoiding construction where an intensive To be efficient in meeting future land use land use activity is not adequately serviced needs communities must make better use of by all weather public access; existing infrastructure and plan for infrastruc- � avoiding construction in areas with soils ture expansion in a manner which keeps the contaminated by hazardous and/or toxic costs low and does not create huge areas where waste. infrastructure will not be fully used for many years. It also means locating future land uses so Conservation of Natural Resources that travel between activity centers is mini- Failure to consciously protect nonrenew- mized. For example: building schools, neighbor- able natural resources exposes a community to hood commercial activities, day care facilities, unbridled destruction of those resources which fire and police protection, etc. near the residen- are the foundation for an area's character and tial areas they serve. Ibis saves municipal costs quality of life. Conservation of natural resources on initial road construction and future mainte- usually focuses on: land, water, minerals, cer- nance, reduces everyone's gasoline expendi- tain soils (such as prime farmland), wetlands, tures, and conserves fossil fuel supplies for sand dunes, areas supporting an abundance future use. and diversity of wildlife, and unique forested lands. Areas where the land and the water meet Insuring Compatibility Between Land Uses are the most important. Indiscriminate land A central ob ective of land use planning is subdivision frequently reduces the size or alters to locate future Jland uses so that they are the shape of land, thereby compromising the compatible with one another. This prevents fu- resource value and production potential of those ture nuisance situations between adjacent land lands. This occurs frequently in prime agricul- uses, such as loud sound, ground vibrations, tural areas and once lost, these lands may never dust, bright lights, restricted air flow, shadows, be reclaimed for food production purposes. odors, trafric, and similar impacts. A few obvious If widespread, such losses can dramatically examples of incompatible land uses include fac- alter the character of an area. These changes tories, drive-in establishments, or auto repair reflect lost opportunities- usually higher public facilities adjacent to single family homes. With service costs and gradual degradation of an proper planning, land uses can be tiered to area's tourism potential. buffer impacts and orderly development can occur. Examples include: commercial service Environmental Protection establishments on highway frontage with back- This principle aims at preventing pollution, lot wholesale, storage. or office uses abutting a impairment, or destruction of the environment. residential area; or single family residential uses While there is considerable overlap with natural adjacent to park and recreation areas. resource conservation issues, environmental protection measures focus primarily on air and water quality, and the impact of activities where DEVEL4DPhV2qT AND CONSERVATION AREAS the water meets the land. Enviromnental quality The future land use map for the tri-commu- is best preserved by planning for appropriate nity area was prepared by first identifying con- land use activities in and near sensitive environ- servation areas and then examining the mental areas, and managing development ac- suitability of remaining lands for various devel- cordingly. opment purposes. Conservation areas fall into Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 10-3 two basic types: agricultural resources and - from 1-196 at Blue Star Highway (south other natural resources. Nonrenewable agricul- end of DouglasJust south of 129th St.) tural resources are limited to prime agricultural At the present time, only the entry points soils which are uniquely suited for crop produc- flanking the Kalamazoo River Bridge on Blue tion and require the least expenditure of energy Star Highway and the entry from Lake Michigan and chemicals per acre of crop produced. Prime provide an aesthetic and inviting entry into the farn-Aand may not be artificially created and is a tri-comniunity area. The entry along North Blue rapidly diminishing natural resource. While Star Highway is especially bad. Incompatible Michigan has an abundance of farmland, prime land uses, poorly maintained properties, build- farmland is in much shorter supply. Therefore. ings too close to the road, poorly marked ingress this plan recommends preservation of prime and egress to commercial establishments, poor agricultural lands for agricultural production road conditions, a proliferation of off-premises purposes. advertising signs, and an unattractive Other natural resource areas were used as Saugatuck entry sign and intersection greet the the basis for establishing conservation areas. newcomer or tourist. Less severe characteristics These include sand dunes, wetlands, flood- surround the southern entry to Douglas from plains, streams, creeks and drains, the 1- 196. The remaining entry points dont leave a Kalamazoo River, Lake Kalamazoo, and areas at bad impression, they simply leave no impression high risk of erosion along Lake Michigan. These at all. The public opinion surveys also reflected areas are proposed for very limited future devel- citizen concern about the appearance of proper- opment in keeping with their fragility and im- ties along Blue Star Highway. The situation is portance in buffering Lake Michigan storms, further harmed by signs along 1- 196 which fail filtering and storing water during periods of to inform southbound travelers at eidt # 41 that flooding, draining stormwater from land, provid- they can access Douglas (only Saugatuck is ing habitat for a wide range of plants and ani- mentioned) or along northbound 1- 196 at exit # mals, and for their wide ranging open space 36 which tell travelers that they can access values. Destroying these resources would de- Ganges, but not Saugatuck and Douglas. stroy the essential qualities which continue to If left unresolved could have severe conse- attract residents and tourists to the area. If quences for the area's competitiveness with conserved and wisely used, waterways and other resort communities. First impressions are farms will become a natural greenbelt system very Important in the tourism industry. Attrac- that continues to enhance the area for years to tive entryways help entice tourists Into the com- come. Local zoning ordinances should be munity and leave a positive impression to amended to Include conservation practices. encourage future visits. The entry points repre- sent the community and should reflect those ENTRY POEM qualities which make the area special. Fortu- nately, these design problems are easily over- There are four major entry points into the come, and with only minimum public three communities. Each of these go through Investment. A special effort to develop alterna- Saugatuck Township. They are: tives for improving the entry points should be � from Lake Michigan on the Kalamazoo initiated. In addition, new land developments in River these areas (or changes to e--dsting ones) need to � from 1- 196 at Blue Star Highway (north) be carefully reviewed to insure that changes near 136th Ave. enhance (and do not further detract from) the � from 1- 196 at M-89 (south end) positive image and character that should exist � from Fennville on M-89 in these areas. In addition there are two entry points spe- cific to Saugatuck and two to Douglas. These are: RESIDENTUAL �from Blue Star Highway onto Washington Residential use will continue to be the pre- Road/Holland St. dominant developed land use in the tri-commu- � from Blue Star Highway at the Kalamazoo nity area. The existing residential areas in River bridge onto Lake Street (north end) Saugatuck and Douglas provide a rich and in- � from Blue Star Highway at the Kalamazoo teresting mix of housing sizes, styles and ages. River bridge (south end) The challenge in the next twenty years will be 0 maintaining the older housing stock and ensur- Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 10-4 ing that the growing ranks of part-time residents velopment back onto "the hill" and leave the and absentee owners does not result in housing shoreline open. deterioration. Equally important will be efforts to blend new development with the older char- COAUdMCIAL acter of existing land uses. Douglas has consid- erable potential for new housing development There will be three primary commercial cen- and has the greatest opportunity of the three ters within the tri-community area. Downtown jurisdictions to encourage the construction of Saugatuck will continue to serve as the major affordable housing, due to available land that is center for commercial tourist activities. This suited for basement construction and the poten- should be encouraged. The downtown area tial to extend sewer and water efficiently. should not be permitted to expand outside the If the Saugatuck School District is to sur- area presently zoned for downtown commercial vive with the same breadth of programming and use. Appropriate measures should be adopted quality it has today, then affordable housing to mitigate impacts of the city center on ad oin- j oriented to families must be available. In terms ing residential areas. of new construction, affordable housing typi- The shopping area in Douglas along Blue cally means homes of about 1,000- 1,200 square Star and extending down to the freeway inter- feet, on smaller than average lots, and priced at change should be encouraged to continue to not more than $70,000. Some public incentives (re)develop with a primary focus on local com- or "write-downs" are typically necessary to alter mercial services and a secondary focus on high- one of these basic elements. Some housing way related uses near the interchange. This area meeting this definition is being built on large lots needs curbs and gutters and right turn lanes. in the rural parts of the Township, but not in The buildings and parking on many properties any significant quantities. are poorly designed, so any opportunity to im- A unique opportunity exists for the area prove design, safety, and function should be communities to take the initiative in providing seized. Additional tourist-oriented businesses affordable housing. If plans proceed to acquire should be discouraged in this area, and instead the property commonly known as the Jager redirected to downtown Saugatuck and the orig- property, for a new water intake plant, part of inal Douglas Village Center. the parcel could also be used for affordable The present commercial zoning of Blue Star housing. A design competition or specially hired south of the Douglas interchange should be site plan could be arranged to provide for afford- eliminated except for small areas representing able housing in this area. The site plan would existing commercial establishments at the free- be required to tier houses by size and type to way and M-89 interchanges. Land use analysis blend with existing homes along Lake Shore reveals that this commercial land is far in excess Drive. The treatment plant could be buffered of projected need within the planning period. It from the residential area and the land costs paid cannot be cost-effectively serviced with sewer back through development. and water, nor can it be adequately controlled New residential construction in the Town- with the existing zoning In place. It will, over ship should be encouraged on soils suitable for time. only detract from more appropriate com- basements and with soils capable of We septic mercial areas in Saugatuck, Douglas and along disposal. The best locations for concentrations north Blue Star Highway, and create an ex- of such housing are north of Saugatuck and tended commercial strip. southwest of Douglas. No new residential sub- The area between Saugatuck, the North divisions should be developed in the agricultural Blue Star Highway, and 1- 196 freeway inter- areas of the Township during the planning pe- change, which is presently developed for a vari- riod. ety of land uses, should be encouraged to Within Saugatuck, there will be pressure to develop for highway service uses through more remove existing homes along the waterfront and refined zoning regulations than are presently in replace with higher density condominiums. place. No further warehousing, boat storage or Condominium development that greatly dimin- repair, mini-storage, or similar land uses should ishes the public view of the waterfront should be permitted along the frontage. Instead, motels, not be permitted, especially along Lake St. Ad- auto service centers, restaurants, and similar ditionally, the height of new construction should highway service establishments should be al- not exceed 2 5 feet along the waterfront. It would lowed. General business uses like shoe stores, be better to place the taller, higher density de- banks, hardware stores, etc., should encour- Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 10-5 aged in the general business area in Douglas the park must be approved, soil borings must and not in interchange areas. Allowing general be conducted, infrastructure must be com- business establishments to spread results in- pleted, utilities must be installed 300 feet into crease the number and length of trips for local the park, and protective covenants must be residents, causes a corresponding waste of fossil established. fuels, and increases the potential for individual businesses to fail, since the "critical mass" of AGRICULTURE general business opportunities in a single loca- tion is not present. Agriculture is a major contributor to the economy and rural character of the tri-commu- nity area. It provides a contrast with developed INDUSTRIAL areas of Saugatuck and Douglas. The south Neither the Haworth facility in Douglas nor central portion of the Township contains thou- the Rich Products fruit processing facilities in sands of acres of prime agricultural soils, is Saugatuck represent the best use of those prop- characterized by extensive farming of those erties in the long run (which is commercial). soils, and much of this land is enrolled in PA However, they are well-maintained local compa- 116, the state Farmland and Open Space Pro- nies which are major employers, and without a tection program (see Map 4. 10). public effort to relocate those finns in compara- The size of existing farms, the location of ble facilities elsewhere, the local comprehensive these lands away from the immediate path of plans will continue to recognize them. At the development, the lack of existing or planned same time, the small industrial area along Blue sewer and water services, the lack of need to Star in Douglas should continue to be developed convert prime farmland to nonagricultural use, for light industrial activities. If a large light and the broader public purpose of preserving industrial concern, or industrial office facility prime farmland for present and future food pro- were to be interested in a location in the area, duction strongly argues in favor of retaining the land between 1- 196 and 63rd St. at the these lands in agricultural production for the northern freeway interchange should be consid- entire planning period and beyond. Land divi- ered. While there are some limitations to devel- sions and development for nonagricultural pur- opment of that land, it could probably be served poses should not be permitted in this area. with sewer and water efficiently. However, road The adjoining lands on the east and to the improvements would be necessary to bring north of the prime farmland soils (and south of roads up to all weather standards. If a water- the river) are also characterized by a large num- front location were desired for use by a new ber of farms, although the average lot and farm industrial concern, it should be considered only sizes are smaller. Scattered residential develop- if,it can be efficiently provided with public ser- ment on large lots is also taking place. The soils vices, there is no public loss of access to the are suitable for limited residential development, waterfront, and the activity is waterfront depen- but agricultural uses should be the primary dent. Other scattered site locations should not land use in these areas. No plans are underway be considered for new industrial activity. to provide sewer and water to this area within Industrial parks are an excellent way to the planning period and it would not be cost manage future industrial growth. Although they effective to do so. Consequently, development have broad, long-term public benefits (including density should remain low. lower service costs, fewer nuisance Impacts, Another future agricultural use issue goes better design, and less environmental impact), beyond where agricultural areas should be lo- industrial parks require a large short-term in- cated and focuses on the character of the agri- vestment in land and public services. Therefore, cultural area and its relationship with the it is crucial that studies be conducted to insure regional economy. Agriculture in the tri-commu- that the park could be competitive with others nity area has prospered primarily through cul- in the area. The Michigan Departrnent of Com- tivation of fruit, grain crops, hay and alfalfa, and merce maintains an inventory of industrial in the case of nurseries, plants. These activities parks through the Statewide Site Network. Only take advantage of the area's prime soils. Efforts certified industrial parks will be included on this are also underway to attract tourists to the list, and thereby be able to effectively compete larger fruit farms to watch cider-making, eat for new industries. To be certified, industrial freshly baked fruit products, and pick fruit- parks must be at least 40 acres, a site plan for Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 10-6 thus capitalizing on economic opportunities Public waterfront properties in Douglas presented by the area's tourism industry. should be developed to enhance their recrea- These issues raise concern over the compat- tional potential. The Kewatin stands as a symbol ibility of high density livestock and poultry op- of the area's shipping history- a local historical erations with the character of agricultural areas landmark It should not be allowed to fall into and the impact of the noxious odors on tour- disrepair. If the Kewatin cannot be adequately ism- which is a central component of the maintained in the future, however, then it region's economy. should be removed so it does not become a blight High density livestock operations also pose on the shoreline. Mooring of other large vessels substantial health and safety questions. This Is along the Lake Kalamazoo shoreline should be a strong consideration due to the nature of the prohibited, as this would block the limited pub- soils in the agricultural areas and their proxim- lic access to the waterfront. Ity to extensive wetlands and water bodies. It is Areas along the north shore of the also relevant that groundwater is the sole source Kalamazoo River between Blue Star and 1- 196 of potable water in the agricultural area. Based should remain in their present natural state. on these economic and environmental consider- Public parcels along the west end of the south ations, this planning area is not an appropriate shore should be improved for additional recrea- location for high density livestock operations. tional use. A limited number of new boat slips would also be appropriate. Additional marina WATERFRONT development should not be allowed east of 1- 196, nor should any other intensive shoreline devel- Most of the nonwetland shoreline in the City opment be allowed in this area within the plan- and Village have been developed. The balance is ning period. in private ownership. With the exception of the New efforts should be initiated to undertake condominium properties and the large Rich annual river cleanup campaigns. The Products office building on Lake Street, these Kalamazoo River is the principal natural re- parcels are developed at a scale and density that source and a scenic amenity, but it has been greatly contributes to the ambience and charac- polluted by activities upstream. More efforts are ter of the area. Much of the City's downtown needed upstream to improve water quality waterfront has an excellent system of intercon- downstream. More local efforts should also be nected public and private walkways providing initiated to further enhance the recreational shoreline access. This magnifies the attraction potential of Lake Kalamazoo and the Kalamazoo of Saugatuck as a tourist haven. But public boat Rtver. access is more limited, and parking for car and boat trailers is scarce. Private marina space is also limited and expensive. Douglas has few public access sites, even though. half of the Douglas waterfront is still undeveloped. Access has not been fully devel- oped on public lands to take advantage of the recreational potential. For example, steps should be taken soon to preserve the lovely vista along Blue Star Highway near the bridge in Douglas for future generations. The public opinion survey reflected little support for additional marina development in the Village either by public or private parties. But over 80% of the respondents favored public acquisition of underdeveloped waterfront lands in Douglas. Thus, the waterfront areas in Saugatuck and Douglas should be maintained in present uses except where opportunities exist to acquire more public access sites. Additional marina development should be limited, espe- cially on Lake Kalamazoo, due to congestion during summer weekends. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan MAP10.1 FUTURELANDUSE Tri-Community FRAgricultural M Highway Commercial M Rural Residential Institutional Low Density Residential Conservation/Recreation EE Medium Density Residential @7 Floodpl ai n/Wet land M Mixed Residential Industrial M City Center Commercial Water August 1989 Planning & Zoning Center, Inc, Lansing, MI Tri-Community FUTURE LAND USE 0 4,000 8,000 12,000 ft --------------- ........ ....... M., .......... M// ----- ------ Scale 1" 9060 It ... ................ .. ......... ..... . ... .. ........... .......... . M-IM" .......... .. .... ..... Mr ............. .... . ... HiM ........ .............. ------------- - H . ......... 41 "I'll: ....... . . .. I .1;27=2 ....... . . ......... 2 154'rm Ave. N =NTH M A 4 3 2 so WwTH 00 4; AV. lion 0 4,000 8,000 12,000 It 10 'z *OD AVC Scale 1 9060 ft KALAMAZ" A T- CHTCR 00VOLAS 17 &AVOW 15 14 13 KALAMAZO In + 196 -1 31 0 20 1 =WH 1 -.22 21 x 23 t 11 2 % f=j 04TH AVIV U&TH AV-9. .0 ....... . . . 27 25 29 25 1 %a"" VC =GTH AVC. p 34! 33 1, 11 -7 32 35 36 T3KM UCK -rwF-. SAUGAT Am 3 MAP 10.2 MAJOR ENTRY POINTS Tri-Community Entry Points A --- - WA 1. A-1 August'1989 DATA SOURCE: Planning a Zoning Center Inc, Lansing, Mf Chapter 11 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION T his plan synthesizes the key information the concurrence of proposed changes by each hat is found in each of the indtvidual plans Planning Commission and governing body. of Saugatuck, Douglas and Saugatuck Town- In the end however, since the individual ship. In addition, it makes a special effort to communities will carry the primary burden of present an analysis and recommendations con- implementation, it is important to review the cerning joint environmental and waterfront is- basic tools they have to undertake the substan- sues (see Chapter 8). However, none of the tial tasks laid out in this plan. In addition to elements of this regional plan can be imple- regulatory tools and facilities management mented without the cooperation and action of tools, there are also a host of funding sources the individual jurisdictions within which the that may be available to assist with particular land affected by specific proposals or policies projects. It Is almost always safe to say thatJoint lay. Obviously, this presents significant poten- proposals involving two or more jurisdictions tial for failure, especially in light of what could have a greater chance of receiving funding in occur if there were only a single jurisdiction. competitive grant situations than either of the However, the reality is that three separate J uris- communities alone. As a result. the tri-commu- dictions control land use in the tri-county area nities are encouraged to work together in their and this situation is not likely to change in the efforts to secure ftnancial assistance to imple- near future. ment the proposals in this plan. Chapter 12 As a result, it is recomrnended that the reviews the options that are known to be avail- Joint Planning Committee (3 representatives able. from each community) established to guide the The completion of this areawide plan development of this plan be maintained as a should be considered a milestone in the inter- coordinating and oversight body to insure that governmental relations between Saugatuck, the proposals in this plan are implemented and Douglas and Saugatuck Township. However, it that the actions of single entity contrary to this should also be viewed as only the end of phase plan do not go unchallenged. If special commit- one in an ongoing planning process. Constantly tees, such as the Joint Waterfront Committee changing social and economic trends will re- are also continued, they should be formally quire periodic updating or amendments to this included in the arrangement, otherwise, their plan. The interval at which these revisions functions should be absorbed by the Joint Plan- should be made will largely be determined by the ning Committee. The Joint Committee should intensity and quantity of change within the meet at least quarterly or at the call of the tri-community area. Revisions to the future land chairperson and report its minutes promptly to use map should be made whenever it no longer the governing body of each memberj urisdiction. serves as a useful guide and support for land As there is no formal mechanism for adop- use decision making. The same is true of the tion of this regional plan (although Act 281 of policies portion of the plan. A generally accepted 1945, the Regional Planning Act could be used practice is to undertake a thorough update at for this purpose, but it would first require the least once every 5 years. formal creation of a regional planning commis- By itself this plan has no legal regulatory sion) the-2 is also none for its amendment. force but rather, serves as a foundation upon However, as long as it is formally accepted by which regulatory measures are based. The two the individual planning commissions and legis- primary land use regulatory documents which lative bodies as consistent with the individual are also the principal means of implementation plans prepared as a part of this process, then at of this plan, are the zoning ordinance and sub- least from the start it will have some credibility. division control regulations. These regulatory Its future credibility however, will depend on instruments are described in the next chapter. whether the subsequent actions of individual Ongoing efforts to consolidate additional local governments are consistent with it. It could public services such as police and possibly pub- and should be modified as necessary, simply by lic works should be continued where mutually Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 11-2 beneficial. Likewise, efforts to fully include the Township as a partner in the Kalamazoo Lake Sewer and Water Authority should be aggres- sively pursued as should the conversion of the authority into a more independent authority. This would help to take it outside of political influence in day to day administration. Likewise, at some point, additional consid- eration should be given to consolidation of all governmental services into a single unit of gov- ernment. A formal analysis of costs and benefits of consolidation may reveal the benefit of this alternative. See the additional thoughts in this regard in Chapter 12. This plan was created in the spirit of coop- eration and mutual benefit, its implementation depends upon more of the same- tenfold. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 12-1 Chapter 12 STRATEGIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION PREWLARY EMPLEMMPffATION TOOLS Relationship to Subdivision Regulations Relationship to Zoning Saugatuck Township should consider the adoption of subdivision regulations. The en- All three communities have a zoning ordi- abling legislation that permits the enactment of nance adopted pursuant to the Michigan zoning such regulations is Public Act 288 of 1967, also enabling acts. The intent of these ordinances is known as the Subdivision Control Act of 1967. to regulate the use of land to provide for orderly This Act allows a community to set requirements growth and development and allow the integra- and design standards for streets, blocks, lots, tion of land uses without creating nuisances. curbs, sidewalks, open spaces, easements, pub- The zoning ordinance defines land use districts lic utilities, and other associated subdivision and regulates height, bulk use, area of lot to be improvements. With the implementation of a covered, and open space to be preserved within subdivision ordinance there would be added each district. assurance that development would occur in an Because the zoning ordinance should be orderly manner. based upon the analysis contained in the com- The Village of Douglas and City of prehensive plan, present zoning ordinances Saugatuck should amend their subdivision and should be revised to reflect this plan's new goals, zoning regulations to prohibit the establishment policies, and future land use proposals. of lots which would be unbuildable under exist- In connection with the administration of the ing state or local regulations (such as lots which zoning ordinance, each community should con- are wholly within a protected wetland). This tinue to maintain a formal site plan review provision should also be included in Township process. Through this process applicants. in regulations. order to obtain zoning approval, must submit plans which clearly indicate how their develop- Relationship to Capital Improvements ment proposals will change and affect both the In its basic form, a CIP is a complete list of parcel of land being developed as well as sur- all proposed public improvements planned for a rounding properties. 6 year period (the time span may vary), including It is recommended that all commercial and costs, sources of funding, location, and priority. industrial development, as well as all subdivi- The CIP outlines the projects that will replace or sions, multiple family housing, planned unit improve e.3dsting facilities, or that will be neces- developments, and other development requiring sary to serve current and projected land use more than five (5) parking spaces, undergo site development within a community. plan review. Advanced planning for public works Relationship To Plans/Zoning through the use of a CIP assures more effective and economical capital expenditures, as well as In Adjacent Jurisdictions the provision of public works in a timely man- The land use proposals in this plan were ner. The use of capital improvements program- carefully prepared with an eye to ensuring com- ming can be an effective tool for implementing patibility with those of the adjoining communi- the comprehensive plan by giving priority to ties, and in the case of Saugatuck Township, those projects which have been identified in the with adjoining townships. Equal care should be Plan as being most important to the future taken in the future to seek and receive comment development and well being of the community. on proposals that are on or near a border from None of the three communities currently has a an adjoining jurisdiction. Failure to do so will formal capital improvement program, and all only insure future conflict over adjacent land could benefit from one. uses, or the provision of new public services. Other important implementation measures and funding sources include the following: Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 12-2 Land Use & Irtfrastructure Policies In Michigan there are two categories of eli- A strong effort will be necessary to coordi- gible applicants: entitlement and non-entitle- 40 nate future capital improvements decisions and ment. Entitlement communities, by meeting land use policies with adjoining units of govern- specific eligibility criteria, are given grant funds ment. As a result, proposed policy changes outright without having to compete for them. should be circulated for comment early. Like- Non -entitlement applicants must compete for wise, proposed capital improvement programs grant funds by applying through the Michigan should be prepared with adequate time for re- Small Cities Community Development Block view and comment by the adjoining jurisdic- Grant Program. None of the three communities tions. are entitlement communities. Therefore, all would have to apply through the Small Cities Community Participation And Education Program. In order to gain the support, acceptance, Operation of the Michigan CDBG Program and input of area residents for future planning, is the responsibility of the Michigan Department ongoing efforts should be continued to provide of Commerce with central program administra- information to them. and involve them in the tion by the Department's Office of Federal- Grant planning process. The importance of their role Management (OFGM). The Department of Com- in that process should be emphasized. Public merce has entered into an agreement with the acceptance will make the implementation of Michigan State Housing Development Authority plans much easier and public input makes (MSHDA) assigning administrative responsibill- plans better and more responsive to local needs. ties for the housing component of the program. In the housing area, samples of grant ehgi- ble activities include: SPECIAL AREA & FRqANCING TECEMQUES - Home Improvement Programs Building and Property - Rental Rehabilitation Programs Maintenance Codes - Weatherization and Energy Conservation All three communities have adopted the - Home Repair for the Elderly BOCA (Building Officials and Code Administra- - Public Improvement in conjunction with tors International, Inc.) as the basic building targeted housing activity (limited to 25 per- code to regulate construction methods and ma- cent of grant request) terials. The adoption and enforcement of a - Housing Related Services building code is important in maintaining safe, - Housing for the Homeless high quality housing and in minimizing deteri- The maximum grant amount is $250,000. orating housing conditions which contribute to By applying and obtaining a Small Cities Block blight within neighborhoods. This should be Grant, the tri-con-unurdties could establish a continued. housing rehabilitation program which would All three communities should consider help preserve housing throughout the area. adopting a basic property maintenance code to The CDBG program also has the following regulate blighting influences which result from categories of assistance: failure to properly maintain property and struc- - Base Industrial Loan program helps finan- tures. A standard code such as the BOCA Basic cially viable businesses needing financial Housing - Property Maintenance Code or a lo- assistance for growth, modernization, or cally developed code could be adopted. expansion. Limit $750,000). - Commercial Retail Loan program is for Community Development commercial, services. tourism, and other Block Grant Program non-residential projects, and minority The Community Development Block Grant owned and retail projects in distressed program was authorized under Title I of the communities. Limit $400,000. Housing and Community Development Act of - Public Infrastructure Assistance program 1974. The Act had the effect of combining sev- funds public improvements for the location eral federal categorical grants such as Urban and expansion of public infrastructures. Renewal and Model Cities into one. Grants Limit $750,000. under the program must principally benefit low - Downtown Development program provides and moderate income families. financing to assist businesses in the rede- velopment of the downtown area. Limit Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 12-3 $500,000 or $300,000 for infrastructure Michigan State Housing Development improvement. Authority (MSUDA) Programs � Communities in Transition program funds To help preserve Michigan's older existing community development activities, such housing, Public Act 130 was passed in 1977 to as public sewer and water systems, parks, allow MSHDA to begin a home improvement bridges, roads. and comprehensive rede- loan program that offers reduced interest rates velopment planning. Limit $400,000. to eligible low and moderate income families. � Emergency Community Assistance pro- MSHDA has created the Home Improvement, gram funds communities experiencing an Neighborhood Improvement and Community imminent and urgent threat to public Home Improvement Programs (HIP/NIP/CHIP). health, safety, or welfare which occurred To get a loan, residents should apply to one of within 90 days of application. Limit: the banks, savings and loans, or credit unions $500,000. that take part in HIP/NIP/CHIP. Downtown Development Authority - Land and Water Conservation Pund Act 197 of 1975 The Land and Water Conservation Fund Permits a city, village, or township to estab- (LWCF) grant program was authorized by Public lish a nonprofit development corporation called Law 88-578, effective January 1, 1965. The a Downtown Development Authority (DDA) with purpose of the program is to provide federal broad powers, including those of taxation and funds for acquisition and development of facill- bonding, to focus on revitalization and develop- ties for outdoor recreation. The LWCF Program ment within established "downtown" bound- is administered jointly by the National Park aries. Service, U. S. Department of the Interior, and the The Act gives an authority broad powers Michigan Department of Natural Resources. with regard to the planning and development of All political subdivisions of the state, in- the downtown district. It may engage in down- cluding school districts, are eligible to partici- town planning, promote housing and public pate in the program. Eligible projects include: facility developments, and economic develop- 1. Acquisition of land for outdoor recre- ment projects. Operating revenues may be ation, including additions to eidsting parks, raised through public and private contributions forest lands, or wildlife areas. or through properties the DDA may control. With the approval of the municipal governing 2. Development including, but not limited body, an ad valorem tax may be levied on real to such facilities as: picnic areas, beaches, and tangible personal property within the down- boating access, fishing and hunting facili- town district. Capital financing may be raised In ties, winter sports areas, playgrounds, a number of ways: ballfields, tennis courts, and trails. � A DDA may issue revenue bonds. These, with municipality approval, may be se- For development grants, the applicant must cured by "the _full faith and credit" of the have title to the site in question. The minimum municipality. grant allowable is $10,000 and the maximum � A DDA can request the municipality to grant allowable is $250,000. borrow money and issue notes in anticipa- For all grant proposals, the amount of the tion of collected taxes. grant cannot exceed more than 50 percent of the � A DDA, with municipality approval, may total project cost. create a "tax incrernentfinancing plan" in which it devotes projected increases in fu- Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund ture tax revenues from increased assessed The Kammer Recreational Land Trust Fund valuation in the project area - "captured Act of 1976 (Public Act 204) was passed by the assessed value" - for repayment of debts Michigan Legislature and signed by the Gover- incurred in making selected public im- nor on July 23 1976. This Act created the Mich- provements. Revenue bonds are issued in igan Land Trust Fund. The program provided anticipation of future revenue. funds for public acquisition of recreational lands through the sale of oil. gas, and mineral leases and royalties from oil, gas, and mineral extrac- tions on state lands. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 12-4 On November 6, 1984, Michigan residents as deficient in a number of recreational facilities. cast their vote in favor of Proposal B. This con- Those relevant for the tri-community area in- stitutional amendment created the Michigan clude deficiencies in bicycle trails, fishing ac- Natural Resources Trust Fund (MNRTF), Public cess, fishing piers, boat launches, Act 101 of 1985. which officially replaced the campgrounds, nature areas, hiking trails, na- Michigan Land Trust Fund on October 1, 1985. ture trails, cross country ski trails, picnic areas, MNRTF assists state and local governments (in- and playgrounds. Allegan County communities cluding school districts) in acquiring land or with proposals for such projects will get funding rights to land for recreational uses, protecting priority over similar projects proposed in non- land because of its environmental Importance or deficient counties. Table 12. 1 includes the min- scenic beauty, and developing public recrea- imum number or size of selected recreation tional facilities. facilities to be considered toward bond funding. Any individual, group, organization, or unit Grant requests may not exceed $750,000 of government may submit a land acquisition and may not be less than $15,000. Applicants proposal, but only units of government may take must match bond funds with 25% of the total title to and manage the land. Only units of project cost, not including other state grants or government may submit development propos- legislative appropriations. Bond money will only als. All proposals for local grants must include be allocated to projects on sites controlled by a local match of at least 25 percent of the total public agencies. In the tourism category, prior- project cost. There is no minimum or maximum ities are given to projects which: create new and for acquisition projects; for development pro- innovative recreation-related tourism attrac- jects, the minimum funding request is $15,000, tions; involve partnerships between the public the maximum is $375,000. and private sector; and projects for which feasi- bility studies have been conducted which dem- Costal Zone Management Pund onstrate local, regional, and statewide economic The Land & Water Management Division of benefits. [Applications and further information the Department of Natural Resources offers may be obtained from: DNR, Recreation Services grants for the purpose of planning, designing, and carrying out low-cost projects to improve Great Lakes shorelines and connecting water- TABLE 12.1 ways- RECREATION FACILITIES & THEIR BUNI- MUM NUM33ER OR SIZE NECESSARY TO The Recreation Bond ACHIEVE AMMIUM POINTS The Recreation bond calls for money to be spent on DNR and local recreation facilities in RECREATION FACILITY MINIMUM SIZE four categories: Bicycle Trail 1 mile Recreation Infrastructure: such as Playground 3 pes. of play ballfields, tennis courts, beaches and other equipment shoreline areas, boat launches. trails, picnic Swimming Beach 50 feet areas, historic structures, playgrounds, roads, Boat Launch 5 par" spaces parking, restrooms, etc., which are not less than Campground 10 campsites 15 years old; Waterfront recreation: such as fishing Non-motorized Trail 1/2 mile piers, boardwalks, boat launches, marinas, am- Cross-country Ski phitheaters, landscaping, and shoreline stabih- Hiking zation; Nature Community recreation: playgrounds, Horse sportsfields, community centers, senior centers, Fishing Access 50 feet fishing sites, and trails for the handicapped; Tourism-enhancing recreation: including Fishing Piers 1 campgrounds, boating facilities, historical sites, Nature Area 10 acres recreational conversion of abandoned rights-of- NOTE: Points are not to be awarded separately for way, and fishing access. cross-countr@ s@i trails, nature trails, and Wng trails. These s arr to be considered as one f&ility. In its statewide inventory of recreational Source: DNR, hKichigan's 1987-88 Recreation Ac- facilities. the DNR has identified Allegan County tion Program Guidebook. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 12-5 Division, P.O. Box 30028, Lansing. MI 48909 must be approved by a public vote. Michigan (517) 335-3043.1 voters in 3 counties rejected proposed fees in the November 1988 election. Many counties chose Recreation Improvement Fund not to even put it on the ballot, fearing the same The Recreation Improvement Fund was cre- result. ated from State fuel tax revenue. About The Road Construction and Improvement $750, 000 per year is being targeted for develop- Act (Act 233) provides funding through the ment of non-motorized trails (hiking, bicycle, transportation economic development fund only cross-country, and nature trails). No application to rural counties (less than 400,000 population) forms or criteria have yet been prepared, but the with a national lakeshore, national park, or in Recreation Division Is encouraging local govern- which 34% or more of the land is commercial ments to submit proposals based on local deter- forest land. Then a portion of the remaining mination of need, location, and financing. funds are available for use for county, city, and village street improvements. Local Facility Development Grants The Transportation Economic Development These grants come from a number of fund- Fund allocates money for the purposes of bring- ing sources and are available for planning, de- Ing county roads to all season highway stan- sign. or development of local recreational dards. This is important because heavy trucks facilities. The Village of Douglas received can only travel regularly on all season roads. $11,000 through this program in FY 1987-88 for The Transportation Economic Development improvement of its boat launch site on Act also offers counties, cities, and villages the Kalamazoo Lake. opportunity to compete for additional funding on special projects with economic development Land Acquisition Grants objectives, This competitive grant Is awarded by Land acquisition grants are available for the State Highway Commission. Qualified proj- projects aimed at open space preservation; park ect categories are listed below: creation or expansion; acquisition of environ- (a) Economic development road projects in mental resources such as sand dunes, woodlots, any of the following targeted industries: or wetland areas; waterfront access sites; and agriculture or food processing: tourism: for- many other land acquisition projects intended estry; high technology research; manufac- for (passive or active) recreational purposes. Wring; office centers solely occupied by the owner or not less than 50,000 square feet Waterways Fund occupying more than 3 acres of land. The Waterways Division of the Department (b) Projects that result in the addition of of Natural Resources offers grants for the pur- county roads or city or village streets to the pose of developing public boating facilities. The state trunk line system. emphasis is on creating boat access sites and supporting facilities. (c) Projects for reducing congestion on county primary and city major streets Road Funds within urban counties. In 1987, three acts were passed to provide (d) Projects for development within rural a new source of revenue for cities, villages,and counties on county rural primary roads or county road commissions. The Transportation major streets within incorporated villages Economic Development Fund (Act 231 of 1987, and cities with a population of less than as amended), the Road Construction and Im- 5,000. provement Act (Act 233 of 1987), and the Local Road Improvements and Operation Revenue Act (Act 237 of 1987, as amended). The acts will be PUBLIC WORKS FUqMCING in effect forfiveyears, when theywill be reviewed In addition to using general fund monies, it for continuation by the legislature. is often necessary for a community to bond to The Local Road Improvements and Opera- raise sufficient funds for implementing substan- tion Revenue Act authorizes county road com- tial public improvements. Bonding offers a missions to impose a vehicle registration fee and method of ftnancing for improvements such as use these funds for road improvements. This Act water and sewer lines, street construction, side- has had little utility, however, because the fee Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 12-6 walks, and public parking facilities. Common not in a Michigan Bell service area.) A pro-busi- municipal bond types include: ness exchange creates an atmosphere of coop- 1. General Obligation Bonds - full faith and eration which benefits both the business and credit pledges, the principal amount bor- the community. rowed plus interest must be repaid from The role of a pro-business exchange is to general tax revenues. assist existing businesses in finding solutions 2. Revenue Bonds - require that the princi- for their problems (i.e. inadequate parking, ex- pal amount borrowed plus interest be re- pansion or relocation needs, etc.) and help make paid through revenues produced from the new businesses feel welcome. The exchange public works project the bonds were used would work with area businesses to determine to finance (often a water or sewer system). their needs and appoint an ombudsman to in- form new businesses of local services and con- 3. Special Assessment Bonds - require that tacts. Businesses are often not aware of the the principal amount borrowed plus inter- services available to them or who to contact for est be repaid through special assessments more information. A brochure could be prepared on the property owners in a special assess- which identifies who to contact for information ment district for whatever public purpose on zoning, construction, planning. utilities. and the property owners have agreed (by peti- taxation. The brochure could also identify per- tion or voting) to be assessed. mit fees, tax and utility rates, and transporta- tion, delivery, freight, health, and financial services available in the area. TAX The state law permitting communities to Revision Of Ordinances provide property tax incentives for industrial Each of the individual community plans development is Act 198, which allows a commu- prepared concurrently with this joint plan in- nity to provide tax abatements as an incentive clude recommendations for changes to zoning, for industrial firms which want to renovate ex- subdivision regulation and related local ordi- isting or build new facilities. nances (and in the case of the Township, the adoption of same). If this is not done, then the ADDMONAL RECOPMMNDATIONS legal support for future zoning decisions is un- Other Planning & Economic dermined. Of course. the plan itself could also be changed so that there is greater consistency Development Assistance between the plan and zoning regulations, but it Each jurisdiction should maintain regular that is done, the supporting logic and data communication with the County Planning Com- should also be included. mission, the West Michigan Regional Planning Commission, and the Allegan County Commu- Poverty nity Growth Alliance. These organizations The changing economy, higher health care should be encouraged to continue their County costs, higher literacy and skills requirements for and region-wide planning and economic devel- employees, and inflation have seriously hurt the opment efforts and to share relevant materials nation's poor. including the elderly on fixed with Saugatuck, Saugatuck Township, and the incomes. Social security benefits are the only Village of Douglas. Likewise a copy of this Plan retirement income for about two-thirds of all should be forwarded to each of these agencies American retirees, and an estimated one million when adopted. Michigan residents have no private or public health insurance. Pro-Business Alliance The poor are often overlooked in community One way to strengthen the tri-community development efforts, yet they are the group most area's economic development potential is to es- in need of public assistance. In the tri-commu- tablish a pro-business exchange, either sepa- nity area, 7. 1% of Township residents, 8.6% of rately byjurisdiction, orJointly across all three. City residents, and 11.3% of Village residents The exchange could be modelled after the Mich- were living below the poverty level in 1980. igan Bell Business Retention and Expansion That's an annual income of less than $3,778 for Program. (The tri-community area is not eligible those under 65, and $3,479 for those 65 and for participation in the Michigan Bell Business over. Retention and Expansion program because it is Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 12-7 Each community should continue to moni- analysis is needed. Solutions should not Include tor the number of people in poverty through the the establishment of above ground parking census counts and work with local churches structures that significantly alter the character and non-profit groups to assist them through of the area. food drives, temporary shelters, or other needed services. Public Open Space Acquisition Programs to acquire public open space F,stablishing Spec(flc should be initiated. One option Is to create a Incremental Growth Areas local nonprofit land conservancy. There are sev- Once a final decision on whether the Town- eral very effective ones operating in Michigan. ship will or will not become a full partner in the Priority should be given to building a trust fund Kalamazoo Lake Water & Sewer Authority has for acquisition and maintenance or tying into been made, then it will be possible to determine existing ones by the Nature Conservancy and if specific incremental sewer and water exten- similar organizations. Initial acquisitions sions can be made, and at what cost. That should be the dune lands adjoining the channel. process could result in specific targeting of new These lands should either be managed as a part growth areas and the modification of local zon- of the City's holdings to the south and the State's ing and capital improvements programs to re- to the north of the channel, or in common by all flect the phasing of growth in those areas. three jurisdictions, or by a conservancy trust. Considerable additional research and effort is Collection of 7'rqffw Count Data needed. A more detailed analysis of street and road needs should be undertaken. However, doing so Kalamazoo Lake Sewer & Water Authority is limited by the lack of any systematic and The Township should join as a full member recent traffic count information. The threeJuris- of the authority and then the authority should dictions would greatly benefit from jointly pur- be modified so that it is a more independent chasing the necessary equipment and operating authority and not under the control of undertaking specific traffic counts on a regular the legislative bodies of the three jurisdictions. basis. The cost and training associated with this This would distance it from political influences is minimal compared to the benefit. in day to day administration. Efforts are pres- ently underway to evaluate the potential for Blue Star Highway Corridor Study doing so. Blue Star Highway from the Kalamazoo River bridge north to the freeway exit has the One Jurisdiction potential to grow dramatically and haphazardly The benefits of merging the three commu- under e-dsting zoning regulations. As a result it nities into one jurisdiction far outweigh the deserves a more thorough and careful analysis detriments if the long term future of the area is than has been possible to date. The same is true considered. However, past efforts to do so have of Blue Star Highway as it passes through Doug- been met with failure and the citizen opinion las. A lot by lot analysis with an emphasis on survey still reflects an evenly divided electorate. traffic flow, ingress, egress, bicycle use, pedes- Yet, no systematic analysis of the issue consid- trian access, parking, shared access, signs, land ering all aspects (planning, development con- use, and the potential impact and appropriate trol, cost, revenues, taxes, economic timing for the extension of sewer and water development, short versus long term. impact on should be initiated. The first and most impor- community character, etc.) have ever been per- tant step will be the collection of data on traffic formed. Such an analysis should be done to flow and traffic generation by road segment (see more clearly lay out and analyze the issues. It recommendations). should be undertaken by the three communities together, but could also be done by an outside Downtown Saugatuck group, such as the business community or a Downtown Saugatuck has a parking prob- taxpayers organization. lem during the summer months. Low cost solu- tions have been difficult to find. However, Periodic Updating and Revisions discretionary tourist visits are likely being lost As these additional studies are undertaken on peak days due to limited parking. Expert the plan should be updated to reflect the new Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 12-8 information. At a minimum the plan should be comprehensively reviewed and updated at least once every five years. Managing Growth and Change The key to successfully managing future growth and community change is integrating planning into day to day decision making and establishing a continuing planning process. The only way to get out of a reactionary mode (or crisis decision making) is by planning and In- suring the tools available to meet a broad range of issues are current and at hand. For that reason it will be especially important that the recommendations of this plan be implemented as the opportunity presents itself (or revised as circumstances dictate). Many new tools may be made available to local governments over the next few years to manage the growth and change process. It will be a challenge to tri-community area officials to pick from among the new tools, those that will provide greater choice over local destiny and quality of life. Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan 0 APPENDIX A References 0 0 REFERENCES Listed below are some of the key reports, studies, plans, and data sources which were used as references in the preparation of this plarL Other data sources are referenced throughout the plan. DEMOGRAPHICS U.S. Census, Current Population Reports, East North Central 1986 Population and 1985 Per Capita Income Estimates for Counties and Incorporated Places, Series P-26, No. 86-ENC-SC (also referencedfor economic data). U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1980- Summary Tape File 3A (microfiche) for Saugatuck, Saugatuck Township, the Village of Douglas, and Allegan County. HISTORY Joe Armstrong and John Pahl, River & Lake: A Sesquicentennial History OF Allegan County, Mchigan, published by the 1835 Committee, 1985. BLASTER PLANS Saugatuck Township General Development Plan, prepared for Saugatuck Township by Williams & Works, Inc., 1975. Village of Douglas Land Use Plan, prepared by the Village of Douglas Planning Commission with the assistance of the West Michigan Regional Planning Commission, adopted November 19, 1986. Land Use-Village of Saugatuck, prepared by the Saugatuck Planning Commission with the assistance of the West Michigan Regional Planning Commission, 1979. NATURAL RESOURCES Michigan Resource Inventory System Database, Department of Natural Resources. Soil Survey of Allegan County. Mchigan, United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service, March 1987. OWNERSHIP Land Atlas and Plat Book, Allegan County, Michigan, Rockford Map Publishers, Inc., 1987- 1989. Saugatuck Township Plat Book, Township Treasurer's Office, Saugatuck, Township. RECREATION A Parks and Recreation Plan for Allegan County, NUchigan, prepared for Allegan County by Williams & Works, Inc., 1986. Saugatuck-Douglas Area Parks and Recreation Plan, prepared by the tri-community area Parks and Recreation Commission, with the assistance of the Saugatuck Public School District, February 1985. S01MWASTE Allegan County Solid Waste Plan, prepared for the Allegan County Board of Commissioners and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources by the Allegan County Planning Commission, PA 641 solid Waste Planning Committee, and the West Michigan Regional Planning Commission, September 1983. ECONOMY Real and Personal Property SEV, 1980-88, Michigan Department of Treasury, State Tax Commission. The Economic Impact of Travel on Michigan Counties, prepared for the Michigan Travel Bureau by the U.S. Travel Data Center, July 1988. Travel and Tourism in Michigan: A Statistical Profile, First Edition, Research Monograph # 1, Michigan State University, Travel, Tourism and Recreation Resource Center, 1986. Michigan Employment Security Connnission, Bureau of Research & Statistics, Detroit, Michigan. LrrELXIMS A Feasibility Study on the Utilization of a Single Ground Storage Reservoir, Saugatuck- Douglas Water System, prepared for Kalamazoo Lake Sewer & Water Authority by Holland Engineering, Inc., January 18, 1983. Facilities Plan for Wastewater, prepared by Williams & Works, April 1976. Saugatuck Township Area Utility Service Study, prepared by Fishbeck. Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc., March 1988. Village of Douglas Water Supply Contamination Problem Evaluation and Recommenda- tions, Wolverine Engineers & Surveyors, Inc., July 1, 1987. Village of Saugatuck Streets and Public Utilities Condition Report, May 1984. Waterworks Reliability Study for Kalamazoo Lake Sewer and Water Authority, prepared by Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr, & Huber, Inc., March 1987. ZONING City of Saugatuck Zoning Ordinance, as amended through October 1989. Saugatuck Township Zoning Ordinance, as amended through October 1989. Village of Douglas Zoning Ordinance, as amended through October 1989. 0 APPENDIX B Demographic, Economic, and Housing Data 0 0 A. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS 1. Age Cohorts (Raw Data) Saugatuck Douglas Saug. Twp. Area County ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- under 1 13 23 25 61 1496 1-2 15 11 26 52 2560 3-4 21 17 56 94 2544 5 3 19 24 46 1289 6 11 6 29 46 1332 7-9 30 36 20 86 4274 10-13 47 59 106 212 5989 14 6 14 47 67 1522 15 17 15 23 55 1642 16 18 23 32 73 1758 17 15 18 34 67 1666 18 19 14 4 37 1392 19 13 16 51 80 1403 20 24 22 34 80 1402 21 14 18 21 53 1230 22-24 50 60 78 188 4267 25-29 106 84 107 297 6706 30-34 92 72 166 330 6503 35-44 101 106 142 349 9306 45-54 136 82 265 483 7820 55-59 59 48 108 215 3927 60-61 21 17 8 46 1172 62-64 27 30 75 132 1882 65-74 138 85 110 333 5151 75-84 57 49 104 210 2555 85+ 26 4 17 47 767 --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------- Source: U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1980--Summary Tape File 3A, item 15. Detroit, MI, tel. 313-354-4654. 2. Age Cohorts (Aggregated and Percent Comparisons) Age Saugatuck Douglas Saug. Twp. Area County ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0-4 49 (4.5) 51 (5.4) 107 (6.3) 207 (5.5) 6,600 (8.1) 5-14 97 (9.0) 134 (14.1) 226 (13.2) 457 (12.2) 14,406 (17.7) 15-24 170 (15.8) 186 (19.6) 277 (16.2) 633 (16.9) 14,760 (18.1) 25-34 198 (18.4) 156 (16.5) 273 (15.9) 627 (16.8) 13,209 (16.2) 35-44 101 (9.4) 106 (11.2) 142 (8.3) 349 (9.3) 9,306 (11.4) 45-54 136 (12.6) 82 (8.6) 265 (15.5) 483 (12.9) 7,820 (9.6) 55-64 107 (9.9) 95 (10.0) 191 (11.2) 393 (10.5) 6,981 (8.6) 65+ 221 (20.5) 138 (14.6) 231 (13.5) 590 (15.8) 8,473 (10.4) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: (same as above, 1960 and 1980). 3. Change in Age Cohorts from 1960-1980 - Tri-Community Area Age 1960 M/F 1960 1980 M/F 1980 Change 1960-80 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0-4 121/140 261 (9.8) 113/94 207 (5.5) -20.7% 5-14 274/249 523 (19.6) 233/224 457 (12.2) -12.6% 15-24 133/146 279 (10.5) 325/308 633 (16.9) 126.9% 25-34 129/139 268 (10.1) 337/290 627 (16.8) 134.0% 35-44 170/166 336 (12.6) 170/179 349 (9.3) 3.9% 45-54 142/147 289 (10.9) 239/244 483 (12.9) 67.1% 55-64 115/163 278 (10.4) 192/201 393 (10.5) 41.4% 65+ 196/232 428 (16.1) 231/359 590 (15.8) 37.9% ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: (same as above, 1960 and 1980). 4. Place of Birth Saugatuck Douglas Saug. Twp.* Area County ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michigan 615 (56.9) 577 (60.9) 990 (57.8) 2182 (58.3) 63,771 (78.2) Another State 422 (39.1) 320 (33.8) 598 (34.9) 1340 (35.8) 15,934 (19.5) Born Abroad 5 (0.4) 2 (0.2) 7 (0.2) 227 (0.3) Foreign Born 37 (3.4) 49 (4.4) 124 (7.2) 210 (5.6) 1,623 (2.0) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Some individuals not accounted for. Source: (same as above), item 33. 5. Place of Residence - 1975 (Persons 5 years old and over) Saugatuck Douglas Saug. Twp. Area County ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Same House 503 (48.6) 423 (47.9) 984 (59.5) 1910 (53.4) 44,575 (59.3) Same County 187 (18.0) 156 (17.6) 144 (8.7) 487 (13.6) 15,428 (20.5) Another County 228 (22.0) 198 (22.4) 244 (14.7) 670 (18.7) 10,923 (14.5) Another State 117 (11.3) 103 (11.6) 280 (16.9) 500 (14.0) 3,962 (5.2) Abroad 8 (0.9) 8 (0.2) 241 (0.3) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: (same as above), item 34. 6. Household Characteristics Saugatuck Douglas Saug. Twp. Area County ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total HHs 537 391 633 1561 27,282 Ave. HH size 2.00 2.44 2.69 2.39 2.95 2 parent fam. 219 222 411 852 19,520 Female HH head 41 31 28 100 1,911 ------ -- ---- Source: (same as above), items 10 and 20 7. Marital Status Saugatuck Saug Twp Douglas -------------------------------------------------------- Single 262 (28.1%) 325 (23.9%) 177 (23.2%) Married 467 (50.1%) 849 (62.5%) 449 (58.8%) Separated 25 (2.7%) 28 (2.1%) 16 (2.1%) Widowed 107 (11.5%) 75 (5.5%) 66 (8.7%) Divorced 72 (7,7%) 82 (6.0%) 55 (7.2%) -------------------------------------------------------- Source: (same as above), item 26. B. HOUSING STOCK 1. Structure Type Saugatuck Douglas Saug Twp. Area County ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total units 772 529 850 2,151 31,864 Year Round Units 569 406 734 1,709 28,985 1 in Structure 385 290 636 1,311 23,190 2 in Structure 49 20 32 101 1,001 3 and 4 in Struct 68 16 - 84 583 5 or more 60 40 - 100 1,199 Mobile Homes 7 40 66 113 3,012 Vacant, Seasonal, & Migratory 203 123 116 442 2,879 1 in Structure 150 108 106 @364 2,250 2 in Structure 6 11 5 22 51 3-4 in Structure 18 4 - 22 57 -5 or more 29 - 29 153 Mobile Home/Trailer - 5 5 368 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Source: U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1980--Summary Tape File 3A, item 102/103. Detroit, MI, tel. 313-354-4654 2. Year Structure Built - Year Round Units Saugatuck Douglas Saug Twp. Area County ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1975-80 36 (6.3) 22 (5.5) 72 (9.8) 130 (7.6) 3568 (12.3) 1970-74 19 (3.3) 46 (11.3) 116 (15.8) 181 (10.6) 4326 (14.9) 1960-69 51 (9.0) 81 (19.9) 133 (18.1) 265 (15.5) 4458 (15.4) 1950-59 73 (12.8) 32 (7.9) 99 (13.5) 204 (11.9) 3647 (12.6) 1940-49 56 (9.8) 36 (8.9) 68 (9.3) 160 (9.4) 2507 (8.6) Pre 1940 334 (58.7) 189 (46.5) 246 (33.5) 769 (45.0) 10479 (36.2) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Source: (same as above), item 109. 3. Occupancy Saugatuck Douglas Saug Twp. Area County ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total Units 772 529 850 2,151 31,864 Owner occupied 334 (43.2) 271 (51.2) 531 (62.4) 1,136 (52.8) 22,271 (69.8) Renter occupied 205 (26.5) 117 (22.1) 117 (13.7) 439 (20.4) 4,961 (15.5) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Source: (same as above), item 97. C. ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS 1. Type of Employment Saugatuck Douglas Saug Twp. Area County ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Private Wage/Salary 402 (73.5) 333 (76.9) 492 (71.4) 1227 (73.5) 26697 (78.5) Federal Gov. 7 (1.3) 1 (0.2) 11 (1.6) 19 (1.1) 308 (0.9) State Gov. 21 (3.8) 25 (5.8) 2 (0.3) 67 (4.0) 775 (2.3) Local Gov. 49 (9.0) 33 (7.6) 56 (8.1) 138 (12.0) 3022 (8.9) Self Employed 68 (12.4) 40 (9.2) 92 (13.4) 200 (12.0) 2977 (8.7) Unpaid Family Worke 1 (0.2) 17 (2.5) 18 (1.0) 246 (0.7) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Source: (same as above), item 67. 2. Real Property SEV - 1988 Saugatuck Twp/Douglas Area County County (% ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Residential 21,167,486 43,730,725 64,898,211 604,509,215 66.2 Commercial 10,677,205 9,402,800 20,080,005 101,799,772 11.1 Industrial 779,150 1,126,200 1,905,350 50,272,956 5.5 Agricultural N/C 2,661,790 2,661,790 153,232,546 16.8 Developmental N/C 430,733 430,733 3,251,687 0.4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Source: Michigan Department of Treasury, State Tax Commission, 1988. Lansing, MI, tel. 517-373-1091. 3. Total Annual Real Property SEV - 1980-88 Year Saugatuck Douglas Saug Twp.* Saug. Twp.** Area ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1980 13,709,600 10,560,200 18,482,350 42,752,150 42,752,150 1981 15,682,000 11,723,580 21,042,164 48.,447,744 48,447,744 1982 18,314,033 13,341,647 23,287,428 54,943,108 54,943,108 1983 20,855,000 15,101,800 25,691,300 61,648,100 61,648,100 1984 25,831,436 16,848,894 27,155,345 69,835,675 69,835,675 1985 27,382,650 18,756,700 28,922,650 47,679,350 75,062,000 1986 29,737,980 20,321,283 30,023,509 50,344,792 80,082,772 1987 32,727,560 21,957,626 32,464,745 54,422,371 87,149,931 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ not including Villages. including Saugatuck and Douglas through 1984 and Douglas only after 1984. Source: Michigan Department of Treasury, State Tax Commission, 1988. Lansing, MI, tel. 517-373-1091 4. Annual Average Employment -Tri-Community Area Year Ave. Emp. ------------------------------- 1980 1,491 1981 1,527 1982 1,555 1983 1,613 1984 1,695 1985 1,656 1986 1,175 1987 2,461 1988 2,550 1989 2,700 ------------------------------- Source: Michigan Employment Security Commission, Field Analysis Unit. Detroit, Michigan, tel. 313-876-5427. 5. Persons in Poverty by Age Saugatuck Douglas Saug Twp. Area County ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Less than 55 67 77 83 227 5181 55-59 3 6 - 9 281 60-64 8 - - 8 206 65+ 15 24 39 78 1127 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Source: U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1980--Summary Tape File 3A, item 93. Detroit, MI, tel. 313-354-4654. 0 APPENDIX C Public Opinion Survey Responses 0 0 ..SURVEY RESPONSES Saugatuck Twp., Village of Douglas and City of Saugatuck September 1988 Survey (numbers in italics are all RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS City Village Township Reg. voters: 85.4 87.6 95.2 Lived here 10+ yrs: 62.6 55.7 54.0 Plan to live here 10+ yrs: 69.6 75.0 72.0 Live here 12 months: 60.8 73.5 81.0 own homes: 94.0 78.4 92.0 Rent: 3.4 17.1 27.5 own/manage business: 11.7 21.3 16.7 College grad or prof degree: 66.3 40.6 46.2 Average age: 54.32 55.06 56.77 Sex-Male: 63.3 62.5 68 Sex-female: 36.1 37.5 32 Employed: 67.3 61.4 55.8 Employed in city or village: 51.5 64.5 16.5 (34.0 in Twp) Retired: 38.3 38.0 38.3 RESPONSE RATE City: sent 726, received 372 + 11 renters = 51.2% Village: sent 550, received 257 + 30 renters = 46.7% Township: sent 986, received 372 + 22 renters = 37.7% COMMUNITY VALUES Reasons for living in your community: over 50% responses Citv Villacfe Townshi-p Small town atmosphere/ Twp Rural Country atmos. 85.4 84.6 87.70 Quiet Town 70.3 87.9 90.7 Friendly people 94.3 86.9 70.0 Attractive beautiful surr. 94.0 85.7 82.6 Good place to raise kids 57.8 57.3 69.8 Trad. values 57.1 58.8 Freedom to be self 75.9 79.0 73.2 Low crime 91.0 90.3 82.8 Good schools 64.0 61.7 59.4 Low taxes 78.3 65.4 73.9 Close to larger cities 59.9 Avail. of good housing 53.9 62.2 50.8 Family in area 52.2 Water based recreation 66.4 61.2 58.9 Not industrialized 53.6 57.9 Convenient shopping 50.6 HOW HAS COMMUNITY CHANGED? City Village Townshi-P Better: 32.8 24.6 21.5 Same: 43.2 56.6 58.1 Worse: 24.0 18.9 20.4 City Village Townsh-L2 Community as is: Sm Vlg 67.5 Sm Vlg 93.7 Rural Twp 72.4 As would like it to be: Sm Vlg 65.3 Sm Vlg 76.8 Rural Twp 63.2 As you think it will be: Sm city 39.4 Sm Vlg 37.9 Holl Sub 48.4 Holl sub 21.8 Sub 15.2 Rural Twp 19.9 Sm vlg 19.7 bdrm 23.1 bdrm 26.0 City 23.9 Small City 5.7 OVERALL VIEW How would you rate area on following things: Location, general appearance, churches, recreation - tended to be highest in all 3 communities. Jobs, entertainment, medical care, shopping, social services and taxes tended to be lowest in all 3 communities. COMMUNITY PROBLEMS How important do you feel each of these is to future of the 3 communities over 50% Citv Village Township New job opportunities 52.5 Lack of hospital or after hrs 55.2 70.0 56.9 Parking downtown Saugatuck 65.8 67.2 69.5 Erosion along Lakeshore Dr. 74.1 81.0 61.7 Teens with nothing to do 69.5 56.8 Drugs 59.6 57.9 Alcohol 68.2 65.6 Contamin. of drinking water 77.4 Reduct in lk & riv water qual. 57.0.8 74.22. 61.0 Destruction of wetlands 53.9 Destruction of sand dunes 57.4 Inadequate water supply 57.8 Inadequate local planning 53.4 SHOPPING AND SERVICES Except for clothing & furniture (go elsewhere for more choice) people tend to shop in the Saugatuck area or near Holland. People pursue the following shops/goods/and services in the Saugatuck area: baking goods, banking, beautician, barbers, day care, dry cleaners, family restaurants, flower shops, groceries, hardware, laundromats, lumber, and pharmacies. People go to Holland for these shops/goods/services: auto/truck sales and services, furniture, clothing, dept. stores, fast food, lawn and garden supplies, movies, and sporting goods. Many shop for clothing and furniture elsewhere for more choice. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT Yes, sm. shopping ctrs. Citv Village TwP is off major rds. 47.5 72.8 54.6 No, strip commercial 67.6 46.7 64.7 No large shopping center 48.9 50.8 48.2 Not in downtown Saugatuck 53.9 50.6 62.7 Not in downtown Douglas 51.0 50.2 38.5 Not in scattered commercial areas 45.9 42.1 45.7 Location along Blue Star Highway Citv village Township North 59.4 65.7 74.1 South 69.8 70.8 65.2 @ freeway interchg 60.6 65.0 52.1 BLUE STAR HIGHWAY With regard to Blue Star Highway, high priority (>50%) was accorded the following improvements: Citv Village Township Better lighting 51.8 Uniform sign controls 52.3 50.3 Add a center turn lane 50.8 Improve appearance 66.8 76.8 61.3 Better lane striping 62.3 51.2 59.8 Resurfacing 65.3 66.3 73.5 Uniform speed limi 45 mph 56.6 60.0 57.1 Bike path 69.9 59.1 54.3 Fast food restaurants 50.0 50.7 50.5 More trees 61.2 Improve traffic flow & safety 59.7 SAUGATUCK DOWNTOWN PRIORITIES City Residents Only >50% Flowers & landscaping 55.1 Historic Preservation 64.6 More Parking 70.5 Waterfront Park 52.7 Is there a parking problem other than between Memorial Day and Labor Day? No - 72.2% (Saug. only) Options for providing pking downtown: Acrree Disagree Unsure Agreement to demolish old public works building 50.6 32.6 16.8 Disagree buying additional property 47.5 38.4 14.1 Disagree leaving problem to merchants 25.6 61.5 12.9 Narrow agreement about creating a partnership between city & bus. 38.8 32.6 28.6 DOUGLAS COMMERCIAL New neighborhood Commercial in Douglas - where? Along East Center St. in Douglas - 54.0% Priorities for Douglas Downtown (>50%) Dressing up storefronts 60.5 Flowers & landscaping 61.3 Historic Preservation 62.3 More Resid. oriented business 68.0 Waterfront park 61.1 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT More favor than oppose more industrial development in the area, but a significant number in the Township are uncertain. Citv Village Township Favor 52.3 43.4 49.1 Oppose 33.8 44.9 27.6 Uncertain 9.9 11.6 23.4 RESIDENTIAL (over 30%) Needed now Citv Village TwP Apartments 37.1 52.4 37.4 Detached SF homes $50-70,000 52.6 60.6 49.2 Low income housing 39.8 37.7 Not needed Waterfront Condos 90.4 81.4 89.5 Mobile homes 71.4 58.8 58.3 Senior housing 38.1 Low income housing 48.9 Country Estates 38.7 DENSITY City - 43.6% favor lowering min. sq. ftg. (now 1040) of housing (21.4 uncertain) to make it more affordable while 34.9% opposed. City - New housing should be at a density: lower than along the Lake Kalamazoo waterfront - 55.0%; the same as on the hill - 50.5%; or downtown - 53.1% Village - Lowering minimum square footage (now 1000) req. in village 48.4% -Disagree 11.7% - Uncertain 39.9% Agree Village - Housing Density Lower than along Lake Kalamazoo in Saugatuck 65.3 Same as on hill in Sauguatuck - 6S.2 Lower than downtown Saugatuck 62.3 RECREATION Additional facilities Citv Village TWP Lakefront open space (MI): 60.7 69.6 67.0 (#l) Vlg lkfrt open space (Kal Lake): 49.7 69.1 61.9 (#3) Vlg rvrfrt open space (Kal River): 48.6 65.1 61.8 Bike paths: 68.0 66.5 64.4 Cross country skiing: 61.5 43.8 59.8 Hiking trails 62.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Citv Village Township No new development in: forested sand dunes 81.0 76.7 72.0 open sand dunes 84.4 78.6 87.4 wetlands & swamps 73.1 71.6 82.8 inland wetlands & swamps 70.6 62.3 72.6 WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT The primary use of K. River, Kal Lake, Lake MI Viewing: City-77-79%, Vlg-70-83%, Twp-44-65% Silver Lake much lower - 18-24% Next highest use varied by water body: Kalamazoo River Nature Study Kalamazoo Lake Power Boating Lake Michigan Swimming Silver Lake - Power boating and fishing WATER QUALITY Citv village TwP Kazoo River & Lake - poor/very poor: 61-64% 66-70% 58-64% Lake Michigan - good/very good: 50% 33.5% 31.8% Silver Lake - most "didn't know": 40-48% Most feel the water quality of these water bodies has deteriorated slightly, although most City residents feel it has stayed the same. When rating the adequacy of waterfront facilities, the only ones (>50%) felt overwhelmingly adequate were condos, boat slips, marinas. Inadequate facilities (>50%): Boat launching on Lake MI: Vlg-50.0, Twp-63.7 Boat mooring sites: City-53.1 Campgrounds: City-51.7, Twp-54.7 PUBLIC MARINA Should each community actively cooperate in the construction of an areawide public marina? - more disagree than agree, but a significant number are uncertain. Acrree Uncertain Disagree City 40.6 11.9 47.4 Village 42.4 23.4 34.2 Township 40.0 12.6 47.4 LAKE MICHIGAN BEACH Whether the Village & Township should actively seek to find alternatives for low cost access by Village & Township residents to additional Lake MI beach facilities - more agree than disagree especially in Twp. Acrree Uncertain Disagree Village 49.8 21.7 28.5 Township 67.5 13.4 19.0 Undeveloped waterfront lands in Douglas should be acquired for open space by 80.9% OTHER LAND USE QUESTIONS 76.8% of Saug. respondents favor summertime festivals as being "good for the area." The following Rome Occupations were favored by >50% in residentially zoned areas. City Village Township Bed & Breakfasts 67.3 65.9 Music Lessons 84.9 76.5 75.6 Dance lessons 76.7 66.0 .68.7 Accounting 72.1 66.4 67.0 Typing 71.2 69.7 60.4 Dressmaking 78.3 71.2 67.6 Township residents were split on whether pole barns should be allowed in residential districts with 35.1% opposing, 30.5% uncertain, and 34.4% favoring. PUBLIC SERVICES Those rated good to excellent by more than 50% Citv Villacre Township Fire protection 71.0 64.5 67.4 First responder 69.7 64.3 66.4 Interurban 73.8 75.4 71.4 Library 65.2 69.8 51.3 Park maintenance 55.7 52.7 Police protection 53.2 69.7 Schools K-6 63.3 65.7 Schools 7-12 58.0 59.4 Schools Comm Ed 60.8 51.3 Sewer service 53.5 62.4 Snow removal 61.3 62.4 53.9 Vlg. playground equip 57.9 Twp cemeteries 62.4 State Police (Twp) 81.8 Those rated poor to very poor by more than 50%. Citv Village Township Land use planning 65.6 56.3 Parking downtown (Saug) 64.9 Property assessment 74.0 55.7 Street resurfacing 68.2 Animal control 62.1 High priorities for spending tax dollars CitV Village Township Preventing crime 82.9 72.7 Enforcing Ord. 58.9 Fire protection 91.8 86.8 88.1 Ambulance service 72.9 74.2 81.0 Water supply 86.1 83.4 Sewer service 83.9 66.8 Street repair 78.7 71.3 Improving City appearance 55.4 Planning for future 79.7 65.7 61.0 Waterfront improvement 56.2 54.5 Interurban bus. serv. 56.6 Economic Development 56.1 Road resurfacing 72.2 Frequency of Service Use The City/Village/Township hall, and Oval beach, are most frequently used. The parks in the area, the interurban bus service, and the recycling center are infrequently used. If it meant an increase in general property taxes, the only service receiving more than 35% support were: City Village Township better water (quality) 48.8 59.9 24 hour medical service 41.8 46.4 fire protection 35.5 ambulance service 36.0 better street maintenance 37.3 PAYING FOR SEWER/WATER IN TOWNSHIP In Township, support for paying for - public water & sewer service for wells and treatment facilities was by general property taxes 41.2% (23.2 uncertain); - for individual street/road lines was evenly split by general prop. taxes (26.7), spec assess (22.3), separate fee (26.0) and uncertain (24.9) - connections should be paid by a separate fee (48.4) uncertain (24.6) POSITION ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES & PROPERTY TAXES The statement closest to respondent position on government services and property taxes City village Township It would be nice to have better services, but not if it means an increase in property taxes 63.0 58.4 43.7 Local gov't tries to do too much, it should do less & lower property taxes 15.0 16.9 30.2 COUNCILS & BOARDS More respondents had attended City Council or P.C. meetings in Saugatuck and the Village than in the Township: C - 52.5 38.1% V - 44.6 37.6 T - 27.4 18.3 with more people visiting the Board of Review than the Township Board (25.4 Responsiveness of local Boards/Commissions is listed below: Very Respon. Not Very Respon. C V T C V T City Coun/Vlg/Twp Bd 29.1 48.8 27.6 50.0 22.4 32.7 P.C. 31.0 41.0 27.2 44.7 25.6 29.2 ZBA 23.6 19.1 24.8 39.3 29.8 28.9 Bd of Review 13.0 59.0 24.9 49.8 12.8 36.8 School Board 39.9 21.1 32.3 21.5 37.3 16.6 Fire District 57.4 21.0 42.7 3.5 56.9 4.4 InterUrban 37.8 16.7 33.0 22.5 53.7 23.9 Water & Sewer Auth. 31.6 30.0 19.7 33.5 46.6 18.6 Twp Park & Rec. Comm. 14.2 24.3 40.1 18.2 More satisfaction with responsiveness in the Village than in either City or Twp. CONSOLIDATION Should each community adopt a policy of consolidating services with other governmental units? city Village Township Yes 58.0 68.2 62.5 No 7.5 11.7 10.3 Uncertain 34.5 20.1 27.2 Those responding Yes above: city Village Township Sewer 52.2 53.0 45.7 Water 54.0 54.7 44.2 Stormwater 37.1 34.1 26.9 Police 50.1 47.4 43.1 Streets & Rds 44.4 44.6 35.3 Pks & Summer Rec 41.8 44.6 35.5' Planning 44.1 38.3 35.3 Zoning 44.9 32.8 29.4 Bldg permits 30.5 28.2 21.6 City Manager 28.5 24.0 27.9 Munic Vehicle Maint 36.8 51.2 27.4 Should the City of Saugatuck, Village of Douglas and Twp.of Saugatuck consolidate into a single unit of goverranent? city Village Township Yes 52.8 47.5 49.4 No 47.2 52.5 50.6 APPENDIX D Soil Types - Tri-Community Area 0 0 SOIL TYPES - TRI-COMMUNITY AREA LIMITATIONS FOR LIMITATIONS FOR SOIL TYPE SEPTIC TANK DWELLINGS WITH AND SLOPE SOIL NUMBER ABSORPTION FIELDS BASEMENTS CATEGORY A - SANDY, RAPED PERMEABILITY, LOW WATER TABLE Chelsea loamy fine sand, 0-6% 44B SE4 SL Chelsea loamy fine sand, 6-12% 44C SE4 MD1 Chelsea loamy fine sand, 12-18% 44D SE1, SE4 SE1 Chelsea loamy fine sand, 18-30% 44E SE1, SE4 SE1 Oakville fine sand, 0-6% 10B SE4 SL Oakville fine sand, 6-18% 10C SE4 MD1 Oakville fine sand, 18-45% 10E SE1, SE4 SE1 Oakville fine sand, loamy substratum, 0-6% 53B SE3,SE5,SE4 SL Urban land - Oakville complex, 0-6% 72B SL SE4 CATEGORY B - SANDY, RAPED PERMEABILITY, MGH WATER TA13LE Brady sandy loam, 0-3% 19A SE3 SE3 Covert sand, 0-4% 57A SE3,SE4 MD3 Matherton loam, 0-3% 22A SE3,SE4 SE3 Metea loamy fine sand, 1-6% 27B SE4,SE5 SL Metea loamy fine sand, 6-12% 27C SE4,SE5 MD1 Morocco fine sand, 0-3% 70A SE3,SE4 SE3 Morocco-Newton complex, 0-3% 15B SE3,SE4 SE3 Pipestone sand, 0-4% 26A SE3,SE4 SE3 Thetford loamy fine sand, 0-4% 51A SE3 SE3 Tedrow fine sand,0-4% 49A SE3,SE4 SE3 CATEGORY C - WET, HEAVY, SLOW PERMEABILITY Blount silt loam, 14% 41B SE3,SE5 SE3 Capac loam, 0-6% 16B SE3,SE5 SE3 Capac-Wixom complex, 14% 21B SE3,SE5 SE3 Glynwood clay loam, 1-6% 8B SE5,SE3 MD3, MD2 Glynwood clay loam, 6-12% 8C SE5,SE3 MD1, MD2, MD3 Kibbie fine sandy loam, 0-3% 33A SE3 SE3 Marlette loam, 6-12% 14C SE5 MD1 Marlette loam, 12-18% 14D SE1,SE5 SE1 Marlette loam, 18-35% 14E SE1,SE5 SE1 Marlette-Capac loams, 1-6% 75B SE3,SE5 SL Metamora sandy loam, 14% 42B SE5,SE3 SE3 Rimer loamy sand, 0-4% 28A SE3,SE5 SE3 Seward loamy fine sand, 1-6% 60B SE5,SE3 SL Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan LIMITATIONS FOR LIMITATIONS FOR SOIL TYPE SEPTIC TANK DWELLINGS WITH AND SLOPE SOIL NUMBER ABSORPTION FIELDS BASEMENTS CATEGORY D - VERY WET SOILS, ORGANICS, FLOODPLAINS Adrian muck 6 SE6, SE4 SE6, SE10 Algansee loamy sand, protected, 0-3% 73A SE3, SE4 SE8, SE3 Aquents and Histosols, ponded 50 Belleville loamy sand 48 SE6, SE5 SE6 Brookston loam 17 SE6 SE6 Belleville-Brookston complex 64 SE6, SE5 SE6 Cohoctah silt loam, 29 SE3, SE8 SE8, SE3 Cohoctah silt loam, protected 65 SE6 SE8, SE6 Colwood silt loam 30 SE6 SE6 Corunna sandy loam 36 SE6, SE5 SE6 Dune land and beaches 4 Glendora loamy sand 2 SE6, SE3, SE4 SE8, SE3 Glendora loamy sand, protected 74 SE6, SE4 SE8, SE6 Granby sandy loam 39 SE6, SE4 SE6 Houghton muck 5 SE6, SE5 SE6, SE10 Martisco muck 67 SE8, SE6, SE5 SE8, SE6 Napolean muck 47 SE6 SE6, SE10 Newton mucky fine sand 69 SE6, SE4 SE6 Palms muck 7 SEI I, SE6 SE6, SE10 Pewamo silt loam 45 SE5, SE6 SE6 Sebewa loam 23 SE4, SE6 SE6 Sloan silt loam 62 SE8,SE3,SE5 SE8,SE3 CATEGORY E - WELL DRAINED LOAM AND LOAMY FINE SAND Ockley loam, 6-12% 12C MD1 MD2, MD1 Ockley loam, 12-18% 12D SE1 SE1 Ockley loam, 18-30% 12E SE1 SE1 Riddles loam, 6-12% 63C MD1 MD1, MD2 Tekenink loamy fine sand, 6-12% 31C MD1 MD1 Tekenink loamy fine sand, 12-18% 31D SE1 SE1 Tekenink loamy fine sand, 18-35% 31E SE1 SE1 CATEGORY F - WELL DRAINED LOAM AND LOAMY FINE SAND Ockley loam, 1-6% 12B SL MD2 Oshtemo-Chelsea complex, 0-6% 11B SL SL Oshtemo-Chelsea complex, 6-12% 11C MD1 MD1 Oshtemo-Chelsea complex, 12-18% 11D SE1 SE1 Oshtemo-Chelsea complex, 18-35% 11E SE1 SE1 Riddles loam, 1-6% 63B SL MD2 Tekenink loamy fine sand, 2-6% 31B SL SL Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan UNCIASSIEFIED SOILS Aquents, sandy and loamy 34 Pits 18 Udipsamments 66 KEY FOR L11MITATION CODES SEVERE LIMITATIONS: SE1 SLOPE SE2 SHRINK-SWELL SE3 WETNESS SE4 POOR FILTER SE5 PERCS SLOWLY SE6 PONDING SE7 CUTBANKSCAVE SE8 FLOODING SE9 EXCESSIVE HUMUS SE10 LOW STRENGTH SE11 SUBSIDES MODERATE LIMITATIONS: MD1 SLOPE MD2 SHRINK-SWELL MD3 WETNESS SLIGHT LIMITATIONS: SL SLIGHT LIMITATIONS Tri-Community Comprehensive Plan NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY 3 6668 14110032 3 0 10